The majority of computers are still in the corporate sector. We all use ICQ and AIM for communication, and nobody is happy about it. Some companies have tried to block AIM as
a security risk (you can send corporate information out without any log of it), but found that it became key to the company's communication.
This is why Microsoft developed Conferencing Server. It functions identically to MSN Messenger, except you use it only within an organization. So the theory is that it's more secure in that you only allow company users to chat on it (or exchange files, video conference, etc).
Frankly, I could care less about websites like AmIHotOrNot. I don't care if someone posts my picture, and I don't care if someone did, that I was rated poorly. In my opinion, the fact that people do care, demonstrates their low self esteem and is a poor reflection of society. I think the site is an accurate representation of the mentality of young poeple in the United States... (take that as you will).
However, this is not why I'm posting a comment... but I want my viewpoint on this subject to be clear before I begin.
One of my cousins was browsing a similar (not AmIHotOrNot) site and was rating the people as they came up. You know how it goes. I was sitting next to her watching her do this. She told me it was "fun." She was rating attractive girls (not models mind you) very low, at least according to the scale she was given. When males came up, she was rating them far better, even if they were not the most attractive people. Perhaps I was biased because I am a male and thus found the females proportionately more attractive. But it seemed to me she was somewhat critical of the girls even though they were not unattractive (she was rating what I considered (using the scale, which I think we can argree is arbitrary) 5/6 girls as 1/2/3).
I sat there and watched this for a while, and didn't say much. Finally she tired of it, and said she should put her picture up, along with a friend of hers (they are attractive women). I told her not to. She wanted to find out how people would rate her, and I told her that she didn't want to know. Not because she wasn't attractive, but because people would rate her as she had rated others.
In her case, the concern is not that she (or her friend) will be rated poorly and become depressed. They are old enough to know that they are attractive (according to societal/cultural/psychological/etc standards). The concern is that young girls will browse the site and see them (possibly rated poorly) and compare themselves. If they are "as attractive" or "less attractive" than the pictures they see, and those people are rated poorly, what is the logical reaction of those young girls?
Not good. Don't forget that those kind of sites can hurt those with pictures on the site as much as those who view those pictures and compare themselves.
My cousin decided not to put their pictures on the site.
Re:Take this with a grain of salt.
on
Pentium IV study
·
· Score: 2
But keep in mind that all 1.5GHz P4 systems are not alike.
It's always sad when you have to state the obvious because it isn't obvious to those who should know...?
Your point is 100% valid, and I agree entirely, but at the same time, I think that you shouldn't have to make that point in the first place...
Why would you say Intel is likely to dominate the platform?
Fact: AMD now holds twenty- to thirty-percent marketshare.
Fact: AMD Duron and Athlon processors are now spec'd by all but one mainstream, brand name supplier.
Fact: The latest AMD processors outperform -- and are widely reported as such -- the latest Intel processors.
Fact: AMD K6-2 mobile processors have a 20% marketshare, and AMD K7-family processors are gaining marketshare.
Fact: Intel keeps fucking things up. And I mean *seriously* fucking up. From backing Rambus to failing chipsets to bolloxing up its relationship with their customers... oh, gahd, the list is endless.
Just because you, and every other computer guy/gal knows this, does not mean your average consumer (assumed to be reasonably informed -- we'll ignore the idiot consumer for now) also knows.
According to the average consumer, Intel is the only game in town. And don't tell me that they're stupid for thinking that, or anything equally naive. They are simply uninformed, and it is not economical to them to become properly informed. For them, anything being sold now will be grossly overpowered for their web surfing and email writing.
What I don't understand, is why companies don't sell decent computers that are low powered and quiet for web surfing. I mean a "real" computer, not a stupid internet terminal (that are only useful for haxoring and installing free OSes). Something like a Celeron 400, 128 MB RAM, and 20 GB drive.
Why do I mention this? Becuase AutoDuel was the greatest game of all time. It was Road Warrior meets the eastern seaboard, and was great fun. Of course, my original 5.25" disks got corrupted, but I still have it on an Apple ][ emulator. I don't play much anymore, but it was a fantastic game.
I thought there were plans to make an updated version... did anyone hear anything about that? This was a few years ago. Google hasn't turned up much...
I always enjoyed Fallout's ads that they had... eg, a billboard for Razor blades is why a local gang named themselves the Razors.
Another ad was for a Chrysalys (I think) car that was 100% analog.
Some of the stuff is in the cut scenes, and helps place the game in a time period, while others are found while playing the game and help enhance the feel of being in a real location.
Cool stuff.
Plus, the Fallout ads always had that "nostalgic" touch to them, while still maintaining the subtle humor of the whole game. Great game.
Check out Fallout: Tactics, for those you who haven't seen it yet. And pick up a copy of Fallout 1 & 2 off of eBay for a song. I'm currently addicted to FO:T...
And my guess is, the average nerd doesn't want to pay $179 a month. The point isn't whether the price per month is $200 or $2000. The consideration is how much are they paying now? $40 a month or so is reasonable for most, maybe even $70. But $179 is expensive, again, for most nerds. Some will have the money, and will get it.
I am not considering those who can actually justify the expense. I'm talking about Joe User who wants to run a Quake server for his buddies and maybe a related website.
I don't care how my service comes, but this is what I want:
(1) minimum 384 kbps, both ways, 24 hours per day
(2) static IP addresses with reverse DNS set to my domain name
(3) permission to run (low-volume) servers
I haven't found any cable provide that has that, but Speakeasy DSL and Telocity DSL do.
And what do you want to pay for it? $40 a month? $100 a month? What you want is equivalent (at least in the service provided) to frame relay... be prepared to pay for it. Also, remember that these services that you want are usually what businesses request. Did you notice that you can often get much better services if you look in their "Business Pricing" sections? That's because business want to run their own mail servers/websites/blah blah blah and they are willing to pay a premium to do so.
Most of what I've seen is nerdy guys (like me) and gals who want a fat pipe for no dough. Unfortunately for you and me, there are people/companies willing to pay $200 a month for the services you want... so why would the DSL providers ever sell it to us for less?
And that "well, then everyone will get DSL from them" is a retarded argument. Think about that... their network will be overtaxed, they won't be making money. There will be more demand than they can supply... so what do they do? Raise prices. That'll filter out the chaff...
Imagine a market where there is one product with many companies selling that product, but there are no competiting products.
In some markets, the companies selling the product will compete with each other in such a way as to both lower the price for the consumer and to actually provide a better product for that price. Let's call this place, Wonderland.
Now, there's another market, let's call it, You-Get-Shafted-Land, the companies do not compete on price/value. There are a number of reasons for this:
1. The company/companies sell the only product -- the product itself has no competition, thus you have to buy that one product. The companies realize this and end up following the leader... whoever is the largest company sets their price and everyone else more or less uses that price. Thus, the consumer has a lot of choice of manufacturers/providers, but they are not realizing true "market" prices.
2. One company controls the infrastructure. A local telephone company can charge their competitors (who must use their lines) just enough to keep themselves competitive.
This is the problem with DSL (at least in San Francisco): The DSL providers don't have much competition from cable providers, thus the price/value of DSL has not changed in two years. When I signed up for DSL over two years ago, I signed up for year, fully expecting to be paying "too much" at the end of that term, because prices dropped through the floor while my year contract was in place. Prices actually went up (well, value went down); eg: I got a static IP for free, now they cost extra. Prices did not go down because the DSL providers know everyone wants it (that's fine) but they know that there is no alternative. Why try to undercut your competitor when you can make money selling at their rate? If people want T1 speeds on their DSL (assuming their line supports it), they'd better be ready to pay through the nose for it. I should mention, though, that it is cheaper than frame relay, although far less reliable. I have PacBell DSL, and there is no reason for me to switch to another provider... they all cost more for less service.
Right now, companies would rather charge a lot of money for broadband access, while the market is still relatively young (despite the technology being relatively old in comparison). When DSL starts to get into every home, then the value will increase: economies of scale should kick in. In the meantime, expect companies to charge too much for the current services...
Think of it this way: If you are willing to pay $40 a month for a service (say, 384kbit down/128 kbit up with a dynamic IP), why would they ever offer you T1 speeds for the same price (assuming they could)? Remember, think as the producer, not as the consumer. The question is not "What is best for the consumer?" it is, "How do I make the most profit." And there's nothing wrong with that.
My problem with "modern" DSL is the use of PPPoE and software DSL modems. Why can't we just use bridged connections? The routers are the same, you can still get a DHCP address over it... And software DSL modems are not compatible... WinModems, anyone? Sure, they work on Linux now, but what about other OSes? Why not use existing standards that work, rather than making up your own?
I realize that the Kyro offers a very good price/performance ratio, but why don't they offer a model (for a higher price, obviously) that had higher memory clocks? This way, those who wanted to pay for more performance could do so, and they could continue to sell their current cards at their competitive price.
Isnt't this why the GeForce 2 Ultras even exist? Some people always want the fastest cards, and are willing to pay premiums to be on the bleeding edge... my guess is that the "bleeding edgers" will reap a higher percentage profit on each unit...
Have one system (Napster) that you can control easily, rather than one which is distributed and you cannot control at all.
If I may give a terrible example, if I want to stop a bicycle from moving easily, should I remove the wheels or the pedals? Well, let's say killing Napster is like removing the pedals. It is still possible to (somewhat comfortably, albiet at a greater inconvenience) ride the bike around by pushing it with your feet.
Even if you remove the wheels (which are a bad metaphor for the Internet as a whole), one could still carry the bike on their back.
That's not to say I think Napster is good. The legality of their business is mired in an endless gray area ("How gray?" "Charcoal." -- Fletch) but the RIAA needs to understand that they are going to lose out (not legally, tho) anyways. When you can't beat em, join em. But the RIAA has gone too far, too long to turn back now (which, IMHO, is why Metallica got on the anti-Napster bandwagon... the RIAA needed a "hip" band, and probably managed to convince poor weak-minded Lars... by the time they were getting hit from their fans' backlash, it was too late to back out).
Or maybe car alarms or the "ADT" (IIRC) sticker people put on their house windows to alert the bad people that they have a security system, when they don't.
This is all a bunch of fooey, for the benefit of the RIAA and the stupid users they hope will believe their smoke and mirrors.
"Beware of dog" signs might work for the casual criminal, but are they really going to stop someone who wants to break into your house? (By the way, DeCSS is the tool used to break into your house, did you know that?). They're going to realize real fast that the Beware of Dog sign is a fake, and that if you have a dog, it's been dead a long long time.
Good luck implementing this, Napster. Why don't you bring out your poster child and have him explain how a poor company like Napster is forced to do these horrible things by the RIAA.
Apple has been promising themes since the first glimpses of Copland hit the news media (read: Mac magazines). At the time, everyone thought it was a great idea... let the user decide how they want their interface to look. This was when the "Platinum" look that OS 8 and 9 currently have was initially released. There was a "kiddie" scheme and another "Techno" scheme, in addition to the Platinum one. Some of the fonts from those schemes did make it into OS 8.
At any rate, Copland promised this and Apple denied it to us. However, the Appareance Manager calls were there, and developers slowly implemented them (some wrote their own, which defeated the whole purpose). Then Greg Landweber and Arlo Rose wrote Kaleidoscope and brought themes to the Mac, thanks to the Appearance Manager hooks (which they wrote, IIRC).
But Kaleidoscope has been a third party product, and has had its various conflicts with programs. Had it been an Apple program, there would not have been these problems, as developers would have written their program to support it.
Now, with their Carbon base, Apple will finally have full Appearance Manager support under OS X, and they have a much greater ability to force companies to write 100% Appearance Manager compliant apps (this is good). Apple wants to have a coherent user interface (whether it be Aqua or something else), and now it is finally available in the Appearance Manager.
However, while themes are something that CAN be done, they will likely not be. Again a third party developer will have to come along and write an app to allow themes. My guess is that Kaleidoscope will be updated for OS X. Maybe not... but one can only hope.
This brings up an important issue. Apple may have a patent (in fact, the patent is from the Copland era), but if they don't use it, don't they lose rights to it?
With Windows XP built for themes, and OS X using the Appearance Manager, Apple needs to include themes with their final product.
With the exception of the Final Fantasy Sagas (an anomaly of their class) turn-based action is (at least to me) boring and banal.
Ah, yes, the infamous FF games. I remember when VII (I think, this would have been in late 97 or early 98) came out it had eye-catching ads on TV, and gamers around the world were heralding it as the second coming of Christ.
As we soon found out, the TV ads simply played back the cut scenes, and the game play was hardly challenging. Keep pressing circle until you or your foe is dead.
At the time a friend of mine and I were trying to explain why we thought FF7 was the worst game of all time and was hyped way to far. We brought up the gameplay issue (we never criticized the story -- having never played the game all the way through I can't comment on that aspect) on several occasions to some guys we knew who revered the game. They didn't take to kindly to our ideas.
The turning point came when one of these lads had to go to class, but he was fighting some sort of boss or the like, and wanted to keep playing while he was at class. So he calls in his girlfriend and tells her, "I need to go to class, can you sit here and press circle until I come back?"
We witnessed this, and made a point to make our point one final time. We never spoke of it again...
And for good reason... it's a blast to play. I have the original, as well as the sequel, and have already pre-ordered the "squad based combat" version called Fallout: Tactics. It is a "real time" game but you disable the real time play for the classic Fallout turn-based mayhem.
I highly recommend Fallout if you like the isometric view of Diablo but don't like the real time game play.
Plus, you get the fantastic post-apocalypic environment of The Road Warrior with some good humor (making fun of themselves at times). Definitely worth picking up a used copy on eBay or from a friend.
CLEC: An acronym for Competitive Local Exchange Carrier which is a telephone company that is independent and challenging a monopoly and or mainstay carrier in the business of telecom service.
ILEC: Incumbant Local Exchange Carrier. Perhaps an RBOC, basically, well, the Incumbant Local Exchange Carrier.
It'd add a few hundred dollars to the price, but it'd easily outpace anything RDRAM could throw at it, with all the bandwidth needed AND the low latency of a good technology.
And they are expensive too...
Macs did this a long time ago (memory interleaving) and it's nice to finally see this feature implemented in motherboards again. It'd be nicer if they'd be implemented in lower-end motherboards as well (if Apple did it years and years ago, it can't be some sort of trade secret...).
Abit's "-RAID" boards should have it... they have RAID, why not use a "RAM RAID" as well?
Marathon was cool because the maps could be "4D." Eg, two hallways could pass through the same point without intersecting. So using the radar it would appear that you were right on top of someone else, yet in reality you were just at the same point in the XYZ plane, but your origins were different (you were actually in different hallways).
Cool stuff, I think my explanation was a bit lacking however.
Knowing Congress, they'll probably comply with IDSA's request, in the interest of "protecting the children". As an avid gamer, I believe this is a crock of $#!+, but Congress is known to be unclueful about such things.
Wait and see who gets re-elected.
This is a good point to advocate voting. Did you vote in the last non-presidential election?
A lot of pissed off gamers is going to get the Congressional membership to turn over like people leaving an XFL game. There are a lot of gamers in the States, not just computer gaming. Consoles are huge... take away people's mature-rated games (leaving them with Pokemon) and watch the "unprecedented" incumbant defeats in Congress.
The question is, though, will "M" rated games be available to those over 18? I would assume so... if you can go to war and actually shoot someone, why won't the government let you do it in a video game?
I always though Unreal Tourney, Quake, and Half Life were good for nation... if we ever had to go to war and had a national draft, most of the young men would already be partially trained.
The age of your peers (at the office) will have an effect, as well as your boss's age as mentioned previously.
I'm 22 and still in college. I am one of the younger guys in the office, but I probably have the most wide-ranging knowledge of topics... so I'm the first one asked when someone wants a quick answer. My age is less of an issue, though, because my boss specifically hires younger employees.
Another consideration is your understanding of businesses and how they operate (or, "understanding management"). Do you speak up for yourself when you succeed at a project? Sometimes you need to make a bit of noise even if it was a small project. Not too much though, or people will dislike you; but make sure you take full credit for your successes.
You also need to realize your position in the company. If you're the janitor, it's unlikely that the CEO is going to want to hear your opinions on whether or not they should expand production in Southern California. If you're as smart as I'm sure you are, you shouldn't be in that janitorial position... when you're too smart for your job, it hurts you and it hurts the company. Maybe you need a promotion, a transfer to another division, or a new job.
If you can get a job somewhere else where people will respect what you have to say, you might as well go for it. You're young and you can afford to take risks like starting a new job just because you don't like where you're working.
If you find a new job, you can sit down with your boss and flat out tell him/her that you enjoy your current job, but don't feel your opinions are respected. You are prepared to leave this job and go to XYZ company. See what they say. If they tell you to get lost you probably didn't want to work there anyway...
I wonder how long it takes for the public (after sufficient inundation by governmental FUD), to want to ban things like SSL.
"Secure shopping, my ass! It uses encryption... terrorists are using to take away Ahmehrican dream!"
What would be ironic...
Government employee, under new anti-encryption laws, sends un-encrypted (or poorly encrypted) data to someone else in the government.
It is intercepted by "terrorists" and easy read. Valuable information (eg, location of the president at ABC on XYZ) is acquired and damage is done.
An investigation traces the trail back to the unencrypted data, the "leak" is identified publicly, and then the public can't understand: "But you said encryption caused cancer!"
This is a test of the Emergency Fact Posting System. This is only a test.
::beeeeeeep::
Seven plus two equals nine
::beeeeeeep::
This has been a test of the Emergecy Fact Posting System. Had this been an actual thread on Slashdot, this system would have been delayed beyond all usefulness and fact-less posts would have already been moderated up. Read at your own discretion.
Only you can prevent inaccurate posts. Research first. - Smokey The Bear
Slashdot Mirror
The majority of computers are still in the corporate sector. We all use ICQ and AIM for communication, and nobody is happy about it. Some companies have tried to block AIM as a security risk (you can send corporate information out without any log of it), but found that it became key to the company's communication.
This is why Microsoft developed Conferencing Server. It functions identically to MSN Messenger, except you use it only within an organization. So the theory is that it's more secure in that you only allow company users to chat on it (or exchange files, video conference, etc).
Re: use of couldn't...
You're very correct! Doh! Probably should've re-read my post before hitting the "Submit" button. Ah, the eternal problem of Slashdot.
The error notwithstanding, if I had to rate your posting on a 1-to-10 scale, I'd give it a 7.
I'd probably give you a 9 if you were a girl.
LOL!
Time to do my taxes.
Frankly, I could care less about websites like AmIHotOrNot. I don't care if someone posts my picture, and I don't care if someone did, that I was rated poorly. In my opinion, the fact that people do care, demonstrates their low self esteem and is a poor reflection of society. I think the site is an accurate representation of the mentality of young poeple in the United States... (take that as you will).
However, this is not why I'm posting a comment... but I want my viewpoint on this subject to be clear before I begin.
One of my cousins was browsing a similar (not AmIHotOrNot) site and was rating the people as they came up. You know how it goes. I was sitting next to her watching her do this. She told me it was "fun." She was rating attractive girls (not models mind you) very low, at least according to the scale she was given. When males came up, she was rating them far better, even if they were not the most attractive people. Perhaps I was biased because I am a male and thus found the females proportionately more attractive. But it seemed to me she was somewhat critical of the girls even though they were not unattractive (she was rating what I considered (using the scale, which I think we can argree is arbitrary) 5/6 girls as 1/2/3).
I sat there and watched this for a while, and didn't say much. Finally she tired of it, and said she should put her picture up, along with a friend of hers (they are attractive women). I told her not to. She wanted to find out how people would rate her, and I told her that she didn't want to know. Not because she wasn't attractive, but because people would rate her as she had rated others.
In her case, the concern is not that she (or her friend) will be rated poorly and become depressed. They are old enough to know that they are attractive (according to societal/cultural/psychological/etc standards). The concern is that young girls will browse the site and see them (possibly rated poorly) and compare themselves. If they are "as attractive" or "less attractive" than the pictures they see, and those people are rated poorly, what is the logical reaction of those young girls?
Not good. Don't forget that those kind of sites can hurt those with pictures on the site as much as those who view those pictures and compare themselves.
My cousin decided not to put their pictures on the site.
But keep in mind that all 1.5GHz P4 systems are not alike.
It's always sad when you have to state the obvious because it isn't obvious to those who should know...?
Your point is 100% valid, and I agree entirely, but at the same time, I think that you shouldn't have to make that point in the first place...
::sigh::
Why would you say Intel is likely to dominate the platform?
Fact: AMD now holds twenty- to thirty-percent marketshare.
Fact: AMD Duron and Athlon processors are now spec'd by all but one mainstream, brand name supplier.
Fact: The latest AMD processors outperform -- and are widely reported as such -- the latest Intel processors.
Fact: AMD K6-2 mobile processors have a 20% marketshare, and AMD K7-family processors are gaining marketshare.
Fact: Intel keeps fucking things up. And I mean *seriously* fucking up. From backing Rambus to failing chipsets to bolloxing up its relationship with their customers... oh, gahd, the list is endless.
Just because you, and every other computer guy/gal knows this, does not mean your average consumer (assumed to be reasonably informed -- we'll ignore the idiot consumer for now) also knows.
According to the average consumer, Intel is the only game in town. And don't tell me that they're stupid for thinking that, or anything equally naive. They are simply uninformed, and it is not economical to them to become properly informed. For them, anything being sold now will be grossly overpowered for their web surfing and email writing.
What I don't understand, is why companies don't sell decent computers that are low powered and quiet for web surfing. I mean a "real" computer, not a stupid internet terminal (that are only useful for haxoring and installing free OSes). Something like a Celeron 400, 128 MB RAM, and 20 GB drive.
Ah, Lord British... there's a name that brings me back. Not that I played any of the games mentioned thus far.
I remember his name from AutoDuel (a bit more info), a conversion for the Apple ][ (well, the one I played) by Lord British and Chuckles from the Steve Jackson Games PnP game Car Wars.
Why do I mention this? Becuase AutoDuel was the greatest game of all time. It was Road Warrior meets the eastern seaboard, and was great fun. Of course, my original 5.25" disks got corrupted, but I still have it on an Apple ][ emulator. I don't play much anymore, but it was a fantastic game.
I thought there were plans to make an updated version... did anyone hear anything about that? This was a few years ago. Google hasn't turned up much...
I always enjoyed Fallout's ads that they had... eg, a billboard for Razor blades is why a local gang named themselves the Razors.
Another ad was for a Chrysalys (I think) car that was 100% analog.
Some of the stuff is in the cut scenes, and helps place the game in a time period, while others are found while playing the game and help enhance the feel of being in a real location.
Cool stuff.
Plus, the Fallout ads always had that "nostalgic" touch to them, while still maintaining the subtle humor of the whole game. Great game.
Check out Fallout: Tactics, for those you who haven't seen it yet. And pick up a copy of Fallout 1 & 2 off of eBay for a song. I'm currently addicted to FO:T...
And my guess is, the average nerd doesn't want to pay $179 a month. The point isn't whether the price per month is $200 or $2000. The consideration is how much are they paying now? $40 a month or so is reasonable for most, maybe even $70. But $179 is expensive, again, for most nerds. Some will have the money, and will get it.
I am not considering those who can actually justify the expense. I'm talking about Joe User who wants to run a Quake server for his buddies and maybe a related website.
I don't care how my service comes, but this is what I want:
(1) minimum 384 kbps, both ways, 24 hours per day
(2) static IP addresses with reverse DNS set to my domain name
(3) permission to run (low-volume) servers
I haven't found any cable provide that has that, but Speakeasy DSL and Telocity DSL do.
And what do you want to pay for it? $40 a month? $100 a month? What you want is equivalent (at least in the service provided) to frame relay... be prepared to pay for it. Also, remember that these services that you want are usually what businesses request. Did you notice that you can often get much better services if you look in their "Business Pricing" sections? That's because business want to run their own mail servers/websites/blah blah blah and they are willing to pay a premium to do so.
Most of what I've seen is nerdy guys (like me) and gals who want a fat pipe for no dough. Unfortunately for you and me, there are people/companies willing to pay $200 a month for the services you want... so why would the DSL providers ever sell it to us for less?
And that "well, then everyone will get DSL from them" is a retarded argument. Think about that... their network will be overtaxed, they won't be making money. There will be more demand than they can supply... so what do they do? Raise prices. That'll filter out the chaff...
Imagine a market where there is one product with many companies selling that product, but there are no competiting products.
In some markets, the companies selling the product will compete with each other in such a way as to both lower the price for the consumer and to actually provide a better product for that price. Let's call this place, Wonderland.
Now, there's another market, let's call it, You-Get-Shafted-Land, the companies do not compete on price/value. There are a number of reasons for this:
1. The company/companies sell the only product -- the product itself has no competition, thus you have to buy that one product. The companies realize this and end up following the leader... whoever is the largest company sets their price and everyone else more or less uses that price. Thus, the consumer has a lot of choice of manufacturers/providers, but they are not realizing true "market" prices.
2. One company controls the infrastructure. A local telephone company can charge their competitors (who must use their lines) just enough to keep themselves competitive.
This is the problem with DSL (at least in San Francisco): The DSL providers don't have much competition from cable providers, thus the price/value of DSL has not changed in two years. When I signed up for DSL over two years ago, I signed up for year, fully expecting to be paying "too much" at the end of that term, because prices dropped through the floor while my year contract was in place. Prices actually went up (well, value went down); eg: I got a static IP for free, now they cost extra. Prices did not go down because the DSL providers know everyone wants it (that's fine) but they know that there is no alternative. Why try to undercut your competitor when you can make money selling at their rate? If people want T1 speeds on their DSL (assuming their line supports it), they'd better be ready to pay through the nose for it. I should mention, though, that it is cheaper than frame relay, although far less reliable. I have PacBell DSL, and there is no reason for me to switch to another provider... they all cost more for less service.
Right now, companies would rather charge a lot of money for broadband access, while the market is still relatively young (despite the technology being relatively old in comparison). When DSL starts to get into every home, then the value will increase: economies of scale should kick in. In the meantime, expect companies to charge too much for the current services...
Think of it this way: If you are willing to pay $40 a month for a service (say, 384kbit down/128 kbit up with a dynamic IP), why would they ever offer you T1 speeds for the same price (assuming they could)? Remember, think as the producer, not as the consumer. The question is not "What is best for the consumer?" it is, "How do I make the most profit." And there's nothing wrong with that.
My problem with "modern" DSL is the use of PPPoE and software DSL modems. Why can't we just use bridged connections? The routers are the same, you can still get a DHCP address over it... And software DSL modems are not compatible... WinModems, anyone? Sure, they work on Linux now, but what about other OSes? Why not use existing standards that work, rather than making up your own?
I realize that the Kyro offers a very good price/performance ratio, but why don't they offer a model (for a higher price, obviously) that had higher memory clocks? This way, those who wanted to pay for more performance could do so, and they could continue to sell their current cards at their competitive price.
Isnt't this why the GeForce 2 Ultras even exist? Some people always want the fastest cards, and are willing to pay premiums to be on the bleeding edge... my guess is that the "bleeding edgers" will reap a higher percentage profit on each unit...
The rest of that...
"...in fact, we plan to kill you just for asking about it."
Have one system (Napster) that you can control easily, rather than one which is distributed and you cannot control at all.
If I may give a terrible example, if I want to stop a bicycle from moving easily, should I remove the wheels or the pedals? Well, let's say killing Napster is like removing the pedals. It is still possible to (somewhat comfortably, albiet at a greater inconvenience) ride the bike around by pushing it with your feet.
Even if you remove the wheels (which are a bad metaphor for the Internet as a whole), one could still carry the bike on their back.
That's not to say I think Napster is good. The legality of their business is mired in an endless gray area ("How gray?" "Charcoal." -- Fletch) but the RIAA needs to understand that they are going to lose out (not legally, tho) anyways. When you can't beat em, join em. But the RIAA has gone too far, too long to turn back now (which, IMHO, is why Metallica got on the anti-Napster bandwagon... the RIAA needed a "hip" band, and probably managed to convince poor weak-minded Lars... by the time they were getting hit from their fans' backlash, it was too late to back out).
Or maybe car alarms or the "ADT" (IIRC) sticker people put on their house windows to alert the bad people that they have a security system, when they don't.
This is all a bunch of fooey, for the benefit of the RIAA and the stupid users they hope will believe their smoke and mirrors.
"Beware of dog" signs might work for the casual criminal, but are they really going to stop someone who wants to break into your house? (By the way, DeCSS is the tool used to break into your house, did you know that?). They're going to realize real fast that the Beware of Dog sign is a fake, and that if you have a dog, it's been dead a long long time.
Good luck implementing this, Napster. Why don't you bring out your poster child and have him explain how a poor company like Napster is forced to do these horrible things by the RIAA.
Apple has been promising themes since the first glimpses of Copland hit the news media (read: Mac magazines). At the time, everyone thought it was a great idea... let the user decide how they want their interface to look. This was when the "Platinum" look that OS 8 and 9 currently have was initially released. There was a "kiddie" scheme and another "Techno" scheme, in addition to the Platinum one. Some of the fonts from those schemes did make it into OS 8.
At any rate, Copland promised this and Apple denied it to us. However, the Appareance Manager calls were there, and developers slowly implemented them (some wrote their own, which defeated the whole purpose). Then Greg Landweber and Arlo Rose wrote Kaleidoscope and brought themes to the Mac, thanks to the Appearance Manager hooks (which they wrote, IIRC).
But Kaleidoscope has been a third party product, and has had its various conflicts with programs. Had it been an Apple program, there would not have been these problems, as developers would have written their program to support it.
Now, with their Carbon base, Apple will finally have full Appearance Manager support under OS X, and they have a much greater ability to force companies to write 100% Appearance Manager compliant apps (this is good). Apple wants to have a coherent user interface (whether it be Aqua or something else), and now it is finally available in the Appearance Manager.
However, while themes are something that CAN be done, they will likely not be. Again a third party developer will have to come along and write an app to allow themes. My guess is that Kaleidoscope will be updated for OS X. Maybe not... but one can only hope.
This brings up an important issue. Apple may have a patent (in fact, the patent is from the Copland era), but if they don't use it, don't they lose rights to it?
With Windows XP built for themes, and OS X using the Appearance Manager, Apple needs to include themes with their final product.
With the exception of the Final Fantasy Sagas (an anomaly of their class) turn-based action is (at least to me) boring and banal.
Ah, yes, the infamous FF games. I remember when VII (I think, this would have been in late 97 or early 98) came out it had eye-catching ads on TV, and gamers around the world were heralding it as the second coming of Christ.
As we soon found out, the TV ads simply played back the cut scenes, and the game play was hardly challenging. Keep pressing circle until you or your foe is dead.
At the time a friend of mine and I were trying to explain why we thought FF7 was the worst game of all time and was hyped way to far. We brought up the gameplay issue (we never criticized the story -- having never played the game all the way through I can't comment on that aspect) on several occasions to some guys we knew who revered the game. They didn't take to kindly to our ideas.
The turning point came when one of these lads had to go to class, but he was fighting some sort of boss or the like, and wanted to keep playing while he was at class. So he calls in his girlfriend and tells her, "I need to go to class, can you sit here and press circle until I come back?"
We witnessed this, and made a point to make our point one final time. We never spoke of it again...
And for good reason... it's a blast to play. I have the original, as well as the sequel, and have already pre-ordered the "squad based combat" version called Fallout: Tactics. It is a "real time" game but you disable the real time play for the classic Fallout turn-based mayhem.
I highly recommend Fallout if you like the isometric view of Diablo but don't like the real time game play.
Plus, you get the fantastic post-apocalypic environment of The Road Warrior with some good humor (making fun of themselves at times). Definitely worth picking up a used copy on eBay or from a friend.
Some Fallout sites:
Duck And Cover
No Mutants Allowed
From Everything2:
CLEC: An acronym for Competitive Local Exchange Carrier which is a telephone company that is independent and challenging a monopoly and or mainstay carrier in the business of telecom service.
ILEC: Incumbant Local Exchange Carrier. Perhaps an RBOC, basically, well, the Incumbant Local Exchange Carrier.
A real server, not something on a Abit-VP6, but something on a Tyan dual or quad CPU board, would be best served by dual or quad SDR-SDRAM channels.
It's called the ServerWorks series of chipsets, read up here (on AnandTech): ServerWorks HEsl: DDR bandwidth without DDR SDRAM
It'd add a few hundred dollars to the price, but it'd easily outpace anything RDRAM could throw at it, with all the bandwidth needed AND the low latency of a good technology.
And they are expensive too...
Macs did this a long time ago (memory interleaving) and it's nice to finally see this feature implemented in motherboards again. It'd be nicer if they'd be implemented in lower-end motherboards as well (if Apple did it years and years ago, it can't be some sort of trade secret...).
Abit's "-RAID" boards should have it... they have RAID, why not use a "RAM RAID" as well?
Marathon was cool because the maps could be "4D." Eg, two hallways could pass through the same point without intersecting. So using the radar it would appear that you were right on top of someone else, yet in reality you were just at the same point in the XYZ plane, but your origins were different (you were actually in different hallways).
Cool stuff, I think my explanation was a bit lacking however.
Knowing Congress, they'll probably comply with IDSA's request, in the interest of "protecting the children". As an avid gamer, I believe this is a crock of $#!+, but Congress is known to be unclueful about such things.
Wait and see who gets re-elected.
This is a good point to advocate voting. Did you vote in the last non-presidential election?
A lot of pissed off gamers is going to get the Congressional membership to turn over like people leaving an XFL game. There are a lot of gamers in the States, not just computer gaming. Consoles are huge... take away people's mature-rated games (leaving them with Pokemon) and watch the "unprecedented" incumbant defeats in Congress.
The question is, though, will "M" rated games be available to those over 18? I would assume so... if you can go to war and actually shoot someone, why won't the government let you do it in a video game?
I always though Unreal Tourney, Quake, and Half Life were good for nation... if we ever had to go to war and had a national draft, most of the young men would already be partially trained.
The age of your peers (at the office) will have an effect, as well as your boss's age as mentioned previously.
I'm 22 and still in college. I am one of the younger guys in the office, but I probably have the most wide-ranging knowledge of topics... so I'm the first one asked when someone wants a quick answer. My age is less of an issue, though, because my boss specifically hires younger employees.
Another consideration is your understanding of businesses and how they operate (or, "understanding management"). Do you speak up for yourself when you succeed at a project? Sometimes you need to make a bit of noise even if it was a small project. Not too much though, or people will dislike you; but make sure you take full credit for your successes.
You also need to realize your position in the company. If you're the janitor, it's unlikely that the CEO is going to want to hear your opinions on whether or not they should expand production in Southern California. If you're as smart as I'm sure you are, you shouldn't be in that janitorial position... when you're too smart for your job, it hurts you and it hurts the company. Maybe you need a promotion, a transfer to another division, or a new job.
If you can get a job somewhere else where people will respect what you have to say, you might as well go for it. You're young and you can afford to take risks like starting a new job just because you don't like where you're working.
If you find a new job, you can sit down with your boss and flat out tell him/her that you enjoy your current job, but don't feel your opinions are respected. You are prepared to leave this job and go to XYZ company. See what they say. If they tell you to get lost you probably didn't want to work there anyway...
Burn her!
I wonder how long it takes for the public (after sufficient inundation by governmental FUD), to want to ban things like SSL.
"Secure shopping, my ass! It uses encryption... terrorists are using to take away Ahmehrican dream!"
What would be ironic...
Government employee, under new anti-encryption laws, sends un-encrypted (or poorly encrypted) data to someone else in the government.
It is intercepted by "terrorists" and easy read. Valuable information (eg, location of the president at ABC on XYZ) is acquired and damage is done.
An investigation traces the trail back to the unencrypted data, the "leak" is identified publicly, and then the public can't understand: "But you said encryption caused cancer!"
768 GB of RAM
Five 18.2-GB disks via RAID5
That'll make one hell of a RAM disk.
You can cache your whole RAID array in it!
This is a test of the Emergency Fact Posting System. This is only a test.
::beeeeeeep::
Seven plus two equals nine
::beeeeeeep::
This has been a test of the Emergecy Fact Posting System. Had this been an actual thread on Slashdot, this system would have been delayed beyond all usefulness and fact-less posts would have already been moderated up. Read at your own discretion.
Only you can prevent inaccurate posts. Research first. - Smokey The Bear