The question should be "Has software piracy increased disproportionately to Internet User growth?
Considering a vastly disproportionate amount of the internet growth and projected growth are in those 2nd and 3rd world countries (Vietnam, Ukraine, China, Zimbabwe and Indonesia) that don't care about piracy or don't enforce piracy laws, then the answer to your question is undoubtedly "yes".
Purposes of prisons: (1) To punish them. (2) To reform them.
(3) Remove convicts from society, where they can harm people again. (4) Not administer "cruel and unusual punishment" nor violate certain unalienable rights of the prisoners. (5) Not be an excessive financial burden on society
It is not intended to accomplish either of your two purposes. I added a few more "purposes" to the list. While the bracelets are not meant to enhance the punishment nor the reformation, they will hopefully: (3) help keep the prisoners in the jail by hopefully alerting the guards when the prisoner is outside of permissible regions, (4) protect prisoners from murderers and rapists by holding all prisoners accountable for their proximities to others at all times, and (5) since tracking is automated, perhaps computers can alert guards when a prisoner goes somewhere that is not allowed, reducing the need for guards to sit idle (or sleep) while simply watching closed-circuit video for potential break-outs or out-breaks.
Nintendo did NOT intend to show anything important about the Revolution at this E3. They said it before the conference. So what is everyone whining about?
Just because they told us in advance doesn't make it ok. It just gives us low expectations, which they have lived up to, I guess. It either shows:
1) they are being secretive (your theory) 2) they are trying to appear secretive, but in fact they do not have anything important to show and don't want their showing to be a big let-down.
Since they are not making it to market by Christmas, they could (ie. should) be hyping every angle they have at their disposal (a la PS3) in the hopes they can encourage a few potential Xbox 2 buyers that it is worth their while to wait. The fact that they are not implies (2).
OTOH, *maybe* they assume that the mega-PS3-hype will accomplish as much of this as possible, so what's the point of further muddying the water by hyping even more? In this case, they can save their advertising $$ until the actual PS3 vs. Revolution arrives in Spring'06. This would demonstrate their "frugal" or profitable nature you describe above. But... this is a bit far-fetched. So, I'm sticking with (2).
Specific heat is actually counterproductive if your sink is a solid. What you really want is thermal conductivity, because without that, you will have a hard time absorbing and dissipating heat. Infinite conductivity and minimal specific heat is ideal because you can effectively dissipate heat over an infinite area.
If the material is a fluid, you need higher capacity. While the fluid is absorbing heat at the source, you want really high conductivity and capacity. Then you need insulation until reaching the sink, and then you want conductivity again.
Water has low thermal conductivity compared to metal therefore requires relatively enormous heat transfer mechanisms compared to metal, effectively limiting the ability to dissipate a given heat density. (Metal thermal conductivity is several hundred times higher than water, IIRC.)
The whole reason that water is used in a curculatory cooling system instead of in a static heat sink fashion demonstrates its limitation due to low thermal conductivity.
You may be correct on a few points, but on the other hand, you are also somewhat ignorant of the entire ID argument. And you are certainly ignorant of the scientific process and how we define theory vs definition. Evolution is a theory. ID is a theory. Bill Gates status as a male (as we have defined what it means to be a male) is a physical property of Bill Gates. The location of a bridge is again based on complex set of definitions and assumptions that are not scientifically questioned. However the entire process that led to our current existence is definitely not fully known nor fully documented. There is insufficient evidence to claim whether evolution was completely responsible for our current state.
As many point out, there is extensive evidence across all walks of life that evolution is an ongoing process. You simply need to look at fossil samples taken across a span of time to demonstrate this. I don't think too many ID scientists find it possible to deny evolution entirely.
At the same time, there is no complete evidence documenting the entire evolution of all life forms starting at some premordial form. Consequently, it is impossible to say for a fact that evolution was the only factor bringing us to where we are today. And consequently, ID remains a theory that is is nearly impossible to prove incorrect.
I'm sure that most (but certainly not all) ID advocates are in some way or another religious, however there are notable differences from the literalist interpretation you assume. First, ID does not claim that the world was created in 7 days. Nor does it deny the existence of evolution as would a literalist. It merely tries to explain certain "irreducible complexities" that exist in nature that would have been formidable if not impossible for evolution to create on its own.
Second, there are actually those who believe not that we were created by some God, but rather by some super-intelligent extraterrestrial race as an experiment.
The only point you have been able to clearly argue to me is that you are ignorant, your mind is closed, and you are not a scientist.
The US legislature created laws requiring employers to allow employees to visit their families in the hospital. They did NOT create laws allowing employees to visit their friends.
And the vast majority of companies comply with the law. So... I ask again: How does this have anything to do with discrimination in the workplace?
The one way to resolve this through the legal system is to petition the government to create legislation allowing gay marriage. As it stands, not only does a large majority of the public not want this, but many states have passed laws or are considering laws to make sure it is not allowed in their state.
People need to maintain work conduct appropriate for the workplace. This goes equally for both sides. I keep my personal phone calls to a minimum just like I am expected to do. And if it is unavoidable, I find a conference room or take my mobile outside -- because my private life is private. In any case, there is no special rule that my company makes that allows me to call my spouse from work. Likewise I have never heard of a special rule denying people from calling their gay partner.
As for hospital visits, it is simple to say you are visiting a close friend in the hospital. If your employer does not allow you to visit close friends in the hospital, then you need to visit your state legislation and ask them to allow gay marriage so you can visit your spouse. It would not be employer discrimination if they had a blanket policy that you were not to visit close friends hetero/homo boy/girlfriends in the hospital. If the state considered your partner as part your family, then things would be different. But as it stands, this is not discrimination in the workplace.
As for making fun of people in the workplace... For any reason, this is extremely unprofessional behavior and not cohesive to a team environment. It is your company's responsibility to prevent sexual harrassment for any reason, and I believe this qualifies.
Therefore, I stand by my conclusion that there is nothing particular about being gay that should require special protection from employers as there is about religions. There is enough legislation set up currently to protect people from harrassment.
Some religions require practices that one cannot avoid telling his employer.
Examples: 1) Strong Catholics may come to work on Ash Wednesday with a cross on their forehead. And will need to take some time off of work to observe Holy days 2) Indian women may dress according to religious requirments or wear the dot on their forehead or not eat meat at business functions 3) Orthodox Jewish will require Kosher meals at business functions and wear a yamika 4) Some Muslims need to pray to Mecca various times during the day and wear traditional clothes and turbans
On the gay side, there are no requirements. It is your choice if you want to take off of work to attend gay day at Disney world. It is your choice if you want to take a a week to go on the gay cruise with Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen Degenerates. It is your choice if you want to take time off to go to the million gay march.
It is also your choice to speak without a lisp and keep your sexual preference to yourself, just like the heteros do.
The majority of those PC's retain that OS as well, because the vast majority of those are destined for a corporate environment, where like it or not Linux has made almost no impact.
Absolutely wrong. I work in a huge semiconductor company. In our engineering environments, we have *many* linux servers per person, and each person has exactly one Windows machine on his desk. I assure you we would not purchase a Windows license for each of those linux servers. Linux has had a profound impact at our company, mostly in the form of huge pools of servers which can run our distributed jobs.
Granted, Linux has taken share mostly away from other unix platforms. To that extent, Linux occupies a market segment that Microsoft has no prayer of touching. But it also is our preferred S/W development platform of choice for many of the same reasons, so it has impacted MS in those ways.
Actually this is more like someone suing Ford motor company for putting the brake pedal where the clutch should be and the clutch where the brake should be. Then when the user drives off the lot and hits the clutch and the car doesn't stop but instead rolls out into traffic and kills the driver.
911 is in POTS, 911 is in any mobile phone network. There are emergency protocols on almost all FCC-regulated communication channels. The public expects this to be in place for VoIP. Vonage agrees with this or else they wouldn't advertise this 911-like service. All they need to do to solve the problem is *require* that users activiate their 911 service and then of course make sure the proper routing is in place to make it happen.
I live in Texas. I don't want our attorney general educating anyone about anything. Just like I don't want him teaching my 7-year-old about safe sex, and I don't want him educating for and advertising for VoIP. He is elected to enforce laws and represent the people and state in the courts. And in this case the people clearly demand and expect a usable 911 service, particularly when it is advertised as such. He is doing his job, and I commend him for that.
On another note, I know about these 911 limitations, mostly because I understand what is behind the VoIP technology. My mom OTOH thinks that VoIP + cable modem over her cable network is analogous to POTS + DSL on her copper network. So to her, they are equivalent. It is an understandable assumption.
Unless I'm missing something, you can totally port GPL'ed code to other platforms. You just have to distribute the source if you distribute binaries (or a platform with the binaries embedded)
Just because both companies release a small PC, both of which look like a game console doesn't mean that either have innovated. As the article states, this is only a reference platform that Intel created to demonstrate that IA is a viable candidate for the living room.
It is obvious (i.e. no innovation here) that people don't want a tower in their living room. And it is obvious that consumers are ok with putting a game console form factor in their living room. So, it is not a stretch that a PC which looks like a game console (i.e. Xbox) is a tolerable form factor for IA in the living room.
Giving Apple credit for this idea is a bit absurd and making a mountain out of a mole hill. Blaming Intel for taking so long is also absurd since they only supply the CPU and chipset. The motherboard and system design (and to a lesser extent the CPU heat dissipation) dictate the unit size. It has been within the power of the OEMs to create a small PC for a long time, but most people obviously don't care how big their PC in their office is. As long as it performs well and they can swap out IO cards if needed.
I just had a row of shingles torn off my house in a 75+ mph storm recently. I got quote for $800 to replace them. I balked at the cost and ended up figuring out how to do it myself. It cost me $23 to do the work, including purchase of the following: 1 pack of 20-year asphalt shingles, 1 pack shingling nails, one cat claw, tube of tar
The rest of the cost is labor, liability, and all the safety precautions needed, scaffolding, etc. You are equating this total cost for asphalt installation vs. the cost of the materials for solar installation.
On top of typical installation, for the solar cells you have to drill the decking to add the wiring, you have to wire them up in your attic, you have to integrate them into your electrical infrastructure, etc. You will not be breaking even by a long shot.
I've been waiting for a viable one of these for years. One that has AM talk radio support, so I can fast forward the ample commercials.
Tivo-like functionality requires storage. That is why it will not cost $10.
If there is sirius support, that would be enough, because all the talk shows are available there too. And the quality is better than AM.
The only issue is: the antenna. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think a satellite antenna will fit in a slim ipod. And it may be somewhat directional too. I don't want to have to keep my ipod oriented correctly to avoid losing the signal. If I am listening to a buffered station, it may be minutes or hours before I know to fix the orientation, and then it is too late. The device would have to provide a real-time audible indicator of whether it is oriented incorrectly or not.
I don't believe in contracts. Whether you believe in contracts is not relevant. Furthermore, I didn't see any mention of any contract details, so yours is all speculation anyhow.
They've already taken the money. This isn't refusing service. It's retracting service which is already established. If the contract to which they agreed has any kind of exit clause, then service can be retracted accordingly. Regardless of how much money was paid. I will assume that the provider will not bill for services unrendered.
The market is hardly free when government controls are placed on it I don't know of any government controls that were placed on the market. How did you get onto that tangent?
In fact, the fact that there are no government controls regulating the contents of the contract indicate that the government is actually providing the provider the ultimate freedom of choosing with whom to do business. How can you argue against the provider's freedom of association?
you're using the word objectionable so liberally that it has lost any meaning I hardly think that an Iranian organization has to bend over backwards to become "objectionable" to an American company. You have no idea if there were any steps leading up to the terminiation. Furthermore, if they are so concerned with business continuity, they might try contracting service from a more neutral place of business, perhaps Sweden.
The only restrictive rule here is the one imposed by The Planet. Every ISP that I have ever evaluated has subjective and restrictive rules such as this. Like the previous poster said, you will have to compensate the provider much more in order to accept your additional liabilities when you deal in a controversial subject matter.
Subscriber acknowledges and agrees that Operator shall each have the right to monitor Subscriber's "bandwidth consumption" (i.e. aggregate volume of data that may be sent or received) at any time and on an on-going basis, and to limit excessive bandwidth consumption by Subscriber (as determined by Operator) by any means available to Operator, including suspension or termination of Service.
And this one:
Subscriber shall use the Service for lawful purposes only, and in accordance with this Agreement and any Terms of Use. Subscriber shall not upload, post, transmit or otherwise make available on or via the Service any material (including any message or series of messages) that violates or infringes in any way upon the rights of others, that is unlawful, threatening, abusive, obstructive, harassing, libelous, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, that in the circumstances would be obscene or indecent, that constitutes hate speech, that is otherwise offensive or objectionable, or that encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any law.
And so on and so forth...
Essentially, they can revoke my contract for many subjective reasons. They would of course refund my money, and I would of course take it to another ISP. However, I can't imagine any ISPs would not have similar clauses in their contracts, and I can't imagine that any responsibly ISP would enter a contract with an iranian student news agency without some very creative flexible exit clauses.
So... how do you figure it was a breach of contract?
I fully agree that bullish statements by both companies were all over the place, especially stepping up after AMD beat Intel to the 1GHz punch, which also coincided relatively well with the added desparation created by the dot-bomb. The result is that as you pointed out, unofficial technology roadmaps to 4 years down the line were being quoted, compounding the possibility for gross inaccuracies.
But, I can assure you (I am part of the industry) that back then, the technology roadmap outlook was drastically different than today. It was impossible back then to understand the massive leakage issues at those speeds in 65nm and beyond since at the time, the warning signs were not unusual (i.e. they were overcome many times before on larger geometries). And believe me, the entire industry was practically blindsided by this. I think Intel was hit hardest simply because they were among the first to get there and were therefore aggressive on its adoption.
To say they were lying, and hold them accountable some kind of liability due to their confidence in 65nm would stifle future growth of the entire technology industry.
To single them out among all others who did the same would be unfair.
To even try to assign a dollar amount to this would be absurd. The entire industry took a beating at the same time. How much of Intel's stock plunge can be attributed to the failure of 65nm and frequency scaling promises? Is Intel not free to achieve these performance gains through other means such as core parallelism, memory architecture, higher levels of integration, and i/o architecture? Does this mitigate these dollar amounts?
Lying? How so? This is a prediction. How many of us know exactly what will happen in the future? You didn't *really* think they knew the future did you? They just had a roadmap based on their expectations of the process technology. It didn't pan out, so they changed the roadmap. Everyone else did too. AMD has delayed the hell out of their technology scaling, higher frequency and dual core procs to the point where Intel will beat them to a dual-core release, but I don't see you complaining about that, do I? Transmeta is pulling out of the IA-compatible CPU business, but you aren't crying foul there either.
The quote from the marketing rep you included does not have a date on it, and I'm sure the roadmap you remember seeing had an appropriate disclaimer on it, if it were even published by Intel (Intel doesn't generally publish these officially).
Furthermore, you can rest assured that some day there will still be 10GHz chips sold.
Haven't you ever noticed this clause at the bottom of similar PR? It's a shame that people actually need to cover their ass with legalese like this, really.
This Business Outlook contains certain forward-looking statements that are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the Risk Factors noted in the Business Outlook as well as in the Earnings Releases, Business Update press releases and Intel's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission on, e.g., Form 10-K and Form 10-Q.
From what I remember, LCD response time and contrast decrease as pixel size decreases. As resolution increases, response decreases. There is a point where response time must not be reasonable any longer.
Presumably, OLED has a much higher threshold, therefore higher resolution can be reached before response time becomes an issue.
You must have a gas furnace. (IMHO, there is no way that $20 of electricity can heat a Michigan house for a month in the winter since it costs $40 for me to heat mine in the mild winters of Texas, and I have a relatively efficient unit and good insulation. If so, then the November/Michigan stat is not relevant.)
I have to add this up: Replace PC with low-power system: $1k at least Replace fridge: $600 Replace lighting: $50 LCD projector: $2k
Cost savings per month: $50
Payoff: 6 years In that time frame, you will again pay a 20-40% premium to replace many of those appliances with low-power ones. It's no wonder why people don't concern themselves with all the details you underwent.
My solution: Computer goes into standby when I'm not using it: free programmable thermostat raises A/C when I'm not home: $20 appliances are somewhat energy efficient: 10% premium Replace the 2 light bulbs that burn the most with flourescent: $8
I save about $35/month average using this strategy. Payoff: a few months.
I figure I end up paying about as much as you do. Plus I don't throw out a PC, monitors, TV, etc, which wastes tons of power just to manufacture in the first place.
A light bulb tax? That's retarded. Why a gas tax but not an electricity tax?
I assume the gas tax encourages you to use less gas. Then an electricity tax would encourage you to use less electricity. But a light bulb tax? That's stupid. So a 40W bulb pays the same amount as a 120W? If I have 3 40's, I have to pay 3x the tax as the 120? How about I just pay a tax per KWH used instead? That seems a bit more intelligent. Not intelligent enough though.. So if I have solar cells powering my house, I still have to pay the stupid light bulb tax?
Or instead... why don't you just let the free market decide what to charge for electricity. So, if I make more money, I can burn more fuel.
If US really wants to tax someone, they should make fossil fuel electricity more expensive. Consumers would decide pretty quickly how to source their electricity.
Slashdot Mirror
The question should be "Has software piracy increased disproportionately to Internet User growth?
Considering a vastly disproportionate amount of the internet growth and projected growth are in those 2nd and 3rd world countries (Vietnam, Ukraine, China, Zimbabwe and Indonesia) that don't care about piracy or don't enforce piracy laws, then the answer to your question is undoubtedly "yes".
Purposes of prisons:
(1) To punish them.
(2) To reform them.
(3) Remove convicts from society, where they can harm people again.
(4) Not administer "cruel and unusual punishment" nor violate certain unalienable rights of the prisoners.
(5) Not be an excessive financial burden on society
It is not intended to accomplish either of your two purposes. I added a few more "purposes" to the list. While the bracelets are not meant to enhance the punishment nor the reformation, they will hopefully: (3) help keep the prisoners in the jail by hopefully alerting the guards when the prisoner is outside of permissible regions, (4) protect prisoners from murderers and rapists by holding all prisoners accountable for their proximities to others at all times, and (5) since tracking is automated, perhaps computers can alert guards when a prisoner goes somewhere that is not allowed, reducing the need for guards to sit idle (or sleep) while simply watching closed-circuit video for potential break-outs or out-breaks.
Hope this helps!
Nintendo did NOT intend to show anything important about the Revolution at this E3. They said it before the conference. So what is everyone whining about?
Just because they told us in advance doesn't make it ok. It just gives us low expectations, which they have lived up to, I guess. It either shows:
1) they are being secretive (your theory)
2) they are trying to appear secretive, but in fact they do not have anything important to show and don't want their showing to be a big let-down.
Since they are not making it to market by Christmas, they could (ie. should) be hyping every angle they have at their disposal (a la PS3) in the hopes they can encourage a few potential Xbox 2 buyers that it is worth their while to wait. The fact that they are not implies (2).
OTOH, *maybe* they assume that the mega-PS3-hype will accomplish as much of this as possible, so what's the point of further muddying the water by hyping even more? In this case, they can save their advertising $$ until the actual PS3 vs. Revolution arrives in Spring'06. This would demonstrate their "frugal" or profitable nature you describe above. But... this is a bit far-fetched. So, I'm sticking with (2).
And you forgot release date....
XBox: Fall 2005
PS3: Spring 2006
This could put PS3 at a big disadvantage.
Man, I bet you -- I mean "that friend of yours" --- really felt like an ass after doing that..
Specific heat is actually counterproductive if your sink is a solid. What you really want is thermal conductivity, because without that, you will have a hard time absorbing and dissipating heat. Infinite conductivity and minimal specific heat is ideal because you can effectively dissipate heat over an infinite area.
If the material is a fluid, you need higher capacity. While the fluid is absorbing heat at the source, you want really high conductivity and capacity. Then you need insulation until reaching the sink, and then you want conductivity again.
Water has low thermal conductivity compared to metal therefore requires relatively enormous heat transfer mechanisms compared to metal, effectively limiting the ability to dissipate a given heat density. (Metal thermal conductivity is several hundred times higher than water, IIRC.)
The whole reason that water is used in a curculatory cooling system instead of in a static heat sink fashion demonstrates its limitation due to low thermal conductivity.
You may be correct on a few points, but on the other hand, you are also somewhat ignorant of the entire ID argument. And you are certainly ignorant of the scientific process and how we define theory vs definition. Evolution is a theory. ID is a theory. Bill Gates status as a male (as we have defined what it means to be a male) is a physical property of Bill Gates. The location of a bridge is again based on complex set of definitions and assumptions that are not scientifically questioned. However the entire process that led to our current existence is definitely not fully known nor fully documented. There is insufficient evidence to claim whether evolution was completely responsible for our current state.
As many point out, there is extensive evidence across all walks of life that evolution is an ongoing process. You simply need to look at fossil samples taken across a span of time to demonstrate this. I don't think too many ID scientists find it possible to deny evolution entirely.
At the same time, there is no complete evidence documenting the entire evolution of all life forms starting at some premordial form. Consequently, it is impossible to say for a fact that evolution was the only factor bringing us to where we are today. And consequently, ID remains a theory that is is nearly impossible to prove incorrect.
I'm sure that most (but certainly not all) ID advocates are in some way or another religious, however there are notable differences from the literalist interpretation you assume. First, ID does not claim that the world was created in 7 days. Nor does it deny the existence of evolution as would a literalist. It merely tries to explain certain "irreducible complexities" that exist in nature that would have been formidable if not impossible for evolution to create on its own.
Second, there are actually those who believe not that we were created by some God, but rather by some super-intelligent extraterrestrial race as an experiment.
The only point you have been able to clearly argue to me is that you are ignorant, your mind is closed, and you are not a scientist.
All that, and I do not even believe in ID... lol.
You completely ignored what I wrote.
The US legislature created laws requiring employers to allow employees to visit their families in the hospital. They did NOT create laws allowing employees to visit their friends.
And the vast majority of companies comply with the law. So... I ask again: How does this have anything to do with discrimination in the workplace?
The one way to resolve this through the legal system is to petition the government to create legislation allowing gay marriage. As it stands, not only does a large majority of the public not want this, but many states have passed laws or are considering laws to make sure it is not allowed in their state.
People need to maintain work conduct appropriate for the workplace. This goes equally for both sides. I keep my personal phone calls to a minimum just like I am expected to do. And if it is unavoidable, I find a conference room or take my mobile outside -- because my private life is private. In any case, there is no special rule that my company makes that allows me to call my spouse from work. Likewise I have never heard of a special rule denying people from calling their gay partner.
As for hospital visits, it is simple to say you are visiting a close friend in the hospital. If your employer does not allow you to visit close friends in the hospital, then you need to visit your state legislation and ask them to allow gay marriage so you can visit your spouse. It would not be employer discrimination if they had a blanket policy that you were not to visit close friends hetero/homo boy/girlfriends in the hospital. If the state considered your partner as part your family, then things would be different. But as it stands, this is not discrimination in the workplace.
As for making fun of people in the workplace... For any reason, this is extremely unprofessional behavior and not cohesive to a team environment. It is your company's responsibility to prevent sexual harrassment for any reason, and I believe this qualifies.
Therefore, I stand by my conclusion that there is nothing particular about being gay that should require special protection from employers as there is about religions. There is enough legislation set up currently to protect people from harrassment.
Some religions require practices that one cannot avoid telling his employer.
Examples:
1) Strong Catholics may come to work on Ash Wednesday with a cross on their forehead. And will need to take some time off of work to observe Holy days
2) Indian women may dress according to religious requirments or wear the dot on their forehead or not eat meat at business functions
3) Orthodox Jewish will require Kosher meals at business functions and wear a yamika
4) Some Muslims need to pray to Mecca various times during the day and wear traditional clothes and turbans
On the gay side, there are no requirements. It is your choice if you want to take off of work to attend gay day at Disney world. It is your choice if you want to take a a week to go on the gay cruise with Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen Degenerates. It is your choice if you want to take time off to go to the million gay march.
It is also your choice to speak without a lisp and keep your sexual preference to yourself, just like the heteros do.
The majority of those PC's retain that OS as well, because the vast majority of those are destined for a corporate environment, where like it or not Linux has made almost no impact.
Absolutely wrong. I work in a huge semiconductor company. In our engineering environments, we have *many* linux servers per person, and each person has exactly one Windows machine on his desk. I assure you we would not purchase a Windows license for each of those linux servers. Linux has had a profound impact at our company, mostly in the form of huge pools of servers which can run our distributed jobs.
Granted, Linux has taken share mostly away from other unix platforms. To that extent, Linux occupies a market segment that Microsoft has no prayer of touching. But it also is our preferred S/W development platform of choice for many of the same reasons, so it has impacted MS in those ways.
Actually this is more like someone suing Ford motor company for putting the brake pedal where the clutch should be and the clutch where the brake should be. Then when the user drives off the lot and hits the clutch and the car doesn't stop but instead rolls out into traffic and kills the driver.
911 is in POTS, 911 is in any mobile phone network. There are emergency protocols on almost all FCC-regulated communication channels. The public expects this to be in place for VoIP. Vonage agrees with this or else they wouldn't advertise this 911-like service. All they need to do to solve the problem is *require* that users activiate their 911 service and then of course make sure the proper routing is in place to make it happen.
I live in Texas. I don't want our attorney general educating anyone about anything. Just like I don't want him teaching my 7-year-old about safe sex, and I don't want him educating for and advertising for VoIP. He is elected to enforce laws and represent the people and state in the courts. And in this case the people clearly demand and expect a usable 911 service, particularly when it is advertised as such. He is doing his job, and I commend him for that.
On another note, I know about these 911 limitations, mostly because I understand what is behind the VoIP technology. My mom OTOH thinks that VoIP + cable modem over her cable network is analogous to POTS + DSL on her copper network. So to her, they are equivalent. It is an understandable assumption.
Unless I'm missing something, you can totally port GPL'ed code to other platforms. You just have to distribute the source if you distribute binaries (or a platform with the binaries embedded)
Just because both companies release a small PC, both of which look like a game console doesn't mean that either have innovated. As the article states, this is only a reference platform that Intel created to demonstrate that IA is a viable candidate for the living room.
It is obvious (i.e. no innovation here) that people don't want a tower in their living room. And it is obvious that consumers are ok with putting a game console form factor in their living room. So, it is not a stretch that a PC which looks like a game console (i.e. Xbox) is a tolerable form factor for IA in the living room.
Giving Apple credit for this idea is a bit absurd and making a mountain out of a mole hill. Blaming Intel for taking so long is also absurd since they only supply the CPU and chipset. The motherboard and system design (and to a lesser extent the CPU heat dissipation) dictate the unit size. It has been within the power of the OEMs to create a small PC for a long time, but most people obviously don't care how big their PC in their office is. As long as it performs well and they can swap out IO cards if needed.
You are probably off by a factor of 10.
I just had a row of shingles torn off my house in a 75+ mph storm recently. I got quote for $800 to replace them. I balked at the cost and ended up figuring out how to do it myself. It cost me $23 to do the work, including purchase of the following: 1 pack of 20-year asphalt shingles, 1 pack shingling nails, one cat claw, tube of tar
The rest of the cost is labor, liability, and all the safety precautions needed, scaffolding, etc. You are equating this total cost for asphalt installation vs. the cost of the materials for solar installation.
On top of typical installation, for the solar cells you have to drill the decking to add the wiring, you have to wire them up in your attic, you have to integrate them into your electrical infrastructure, etc. You will not be breaking even by a long shot.
I've been waiting for a viable one of these for years. One that has AM talk radio support, so I can fast forward the ample commercials.
Tivo-like functionality requires storage. That is why it will not cost $10.
If there is sirius support, that would be enough, because all the talk shows are available there too. And the quality is better than AM.
The only issue is: the antenna. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think a satellite antenna will fit in a slim ipod. And it may be somewhat directional too. I don't want to have to keep my ipod oriented correctly to avoid losing the signal. If I am listening to a buffered station, it may be minutes or hours before I know to fix the orientation, and then it is too late. The device would have to provide a real-time audible indicator of whether it is oriented incorrectly or not.
I don't believe in contracts.
Whether you believe in contracts is not relevant. Furthermore, I didn't see any mention of any contract details, so yours is all speculation anyhow.
They've already taken the money. This isn't refusing service. It's retracting service which is already established.
If the contract to which they agreed has any kind of exit clause, then service can be retracted accordingly. Regardless of how much money was paid. I will assume that the provider will not bill for services unrendered.
The market is hardly free when government controls are placed on it
I don't know of any government controls that were placed on the market. How did you get onto that tangent?
In fact, the fact that there are no government controls regulating the contents of the contract indicate that the government is actually providing the provider the ultimate freedom of choosing with whom to do business. How can you argue against the provider's freedom of association?
you're using the word objectionable so liberally that it has lost any meaning
I hardly think that an Iranian organization has to bend over backwards to become "objectionable" to an American company. You have no idea if there were any steps leading up to the terminiation. Furthermore, if they are so concerned with business continuity, they might try contracting service from a more neutral place of business, perhaps Sweden.
The only restrictive rule here is the one imposed by The Planet.
Every ISP that I have ever evaluated has subjective and restrictive rules such as this. Like the previous poster said, you will have to compensate the provider much more in order to accept your additional liabilities when you deal in a controversial subject matter.
I don't know. Where they over bandwidth or unlawful? If you don't know, then how can you say the provider is breaching their contract?
What about this:
"any material... that is otherwise offensive or objectionable"
Now that can include almost anything, so again, tell me whether the provider is in breach of contract?
And this one:
And so on and so forth...
Essentially, they can revoke my contract for many subjective reasons. They would of course refund my money, and I would of course take it to another ISP. However, I can't imagine any ISPs would not have similar clauses in their contracts, and I can't imagine that any responsibly ISP would enter a contract with an iranian student news agency without some very creative flexible exit clauses.
So... how do you figure it was a breach of contract?
I fully agree that bullish statements by both companies were all over the place, especially stepping up after AMD beat Intel to the 1GHz punch, which also coincided relatively well with the added desparation created by the dot-bomb. The result is that as you pointed out, unofficial technology roadmaps to 4 years down the line were being quoted, compounding the possibility for gross inaccuracies.
But, I can assure you (I am part of the industry) that back then, the technology roadmap outlook was drastically different than today. It was impossible back then to understand the massive leakage issues at those speeds in 65nm and beyond since at the time, the warning signs were not unusual (i.e. they were overcome many times before on larger geometries). And believe me, the entire industry was practically blindsided by this. I think Intel was hit hardest simply because they were among the first to get there and were therefore aggressive on its adoption.
To say they were lying, and hold them accountable some kind of liability due to their confidence in 65nm would stifle future growth of the entire technology industry.
To single them out among all others who did the same would be unfair.
To even try to assign a dollar amount to this would be absurd. The entire industry took a beating at the same time. How much of Intel's stock plunge can be attributed to the failure of 65nm and frequency scaling promises? Is Intel not free to achieve these performance gains through other means such as core parallelism, memory architecture, higher levels of integration, and i/o architecture? Does this mitigate these dollar amounts?
Lying? How so? This is a prediction. How many of us know exactly what will happen in the future? You didn't *really* think they knew the future did you? They just had a roadmap based on their expectations of the process technology. It didn't pan out, so they changed the roadmap. Everyone else did too. AMD has delayed the hell out of their technology scaling, higher frequency and dual core procs to the point where Intel will beat them to a dual-core release, but I don't see you complaining about that, do I? Transmeta is pulling out of the IA-compatible CPU business, but you aren't crying foul there either.
The quote from the marketing rep you included does not have a date on it, and I'm sure the roadmap you remember seeing had an appropriate disclaimer on it, if it were even published by Intel (Intel doesn't generally publish these officially).
Furthermore, you can rest assured that some day there will still be 10GHz chips sold.
Haven't you ever noticed this clause at the bottom of similar PR? It's a shame that people actually need to cover their ass with legalese like this, really.
This Business Outlook contains certain forward-looking statements that are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the Risk Factors noted in the Business Outlook as well as in the Earnings Releases, Business Update press releases and Intel's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission on, e.g., Form 10-K and Form 10-Q.
From what I remember, LCD response time and contrast decrease as pixel size decreases. As resolution increases, response decreases. There is a point where response time must not be reasonable any longer.
Presumably, OLED has a much higher threshold, therefore higher resolution can be reached before response time becomes an issue.
You must have a gas furnace. (IMHO, there is no way that $20 of electricity can heat a Michigan house for a month in the winter since it costs $40 for me to heat mine in the mild winters of Texas, and I have a relatively efficient unit and good insulation. If so, then the November/Michigan stat is not relevant.)
I have to add this up:
Replace PC with low-power system: $1k at least
Replace fridge: $600
Replace lighting: $50
LCD projector: $2k
Cost savings per month: $50
Payoff: 6 years
In that time frame, you will again pay a 20-40% premium to replace many of those appliances with low-power ones. It's no wonder why people don't concern themselves with all the details you underwent.
My solution:
Computer goes into standby when I'm not using it: free
programmable thermostat raises A/C when I'm not home: $20
appliances are somewhat energy efficient: 10% premium
Replace the 2 light bulbs that burn the most with flourescent: $8
I save about $35/month average using this strategy. Payoff: a few months.
I figure I end up paying about as much as you do. Plus I don't throw out a PC, monitors, TV, etc, which wastes tons of power just to manufacture in the first place.
Look at your receipt when you buy a light bulb at Home Depot. I am SURE you will see you are already paying sales tax on the bulb.
So... your point is...?
A light bulb tax? That's retarded. Why a gas tax but not an electricity tax?
I assume the gas tax encourages you to use less gas. Then an electricity tax would encourage you to use less electricity. But a light bulb tax? That's stupid. So a 40W bulb pays the same amount as a 120W? If I have 3 40's, I have to pay 3x the tax as the 120? How about I just pay a tax per KWH used instead? That seems a bit more intelligent. Not intelligent enough though.. So if I have solar cells powering my house, I still have to pay the stupid light bulb tax?
Or instead... why don't you just let the free market decide what to charge for electricity. So, if I make more money, I can burn more fuel.
If US really wants to tax someone, they should make fossil fuel electricity more expensive. Consumers would decide pretty quickly how to source their electricity.