Your missing the whole point. The business method behind Google is that the engineers will create products that will be innovative and good enough that they will stand out above the crowd and be noticed. It should not require a sales team hounding you and taking your CFO out to dinner to make the sale. In many ways, HP and DEC used to be like that.
My old Bronco II bumper hitch was stamped with "350 tounge weight, 3500 total capacity" It also had a regular frame mounted hitch installed that had the same exact capacity rating. With the exception of some commercial box trucks, I've never actually seen anyone using a bumper hitch.
your dress code can have a HUGE impact on that person's impressions of your company, which could in turn affect your companies revenue or potential revenue.
You are correct and that is sad. The problem is the client may be making a decision on your services from a factor that has nothing to do with your services. Sad that it does happen but your dress at work and your work quality ARE NOT RELATED in any way shape or form and anyone who believes that is quite honestly, just trying to be like everyone else with no valid reason. Forcing someone to wear a suit and tie does nothing to change a damn thing about you. Kind of like the girl that does a lap dance for you. Provided you keep the dollars flowing, she is there. As soon as your ugly fat ass runs out of dollar bills, you are worthless to her and she never comes back and you are not worth her time. You may somehow get the feeling there may be a spark there and maybe feel you are important and that person is there because of who you are but she is not. Forcing someone to wear a suit and tie is no different. The person is the same regardless of the cover or show you make them do for you. Wearing a suit is not a sign of respect for the other party, it is a cover to get your shallow mind to think otherwise. Take some support staff person at a hotel, very friendly and polite. If you saw that same person on your bus ride home later that day, would they be as polite to you and ask how your day was going and offer to let you in the door first? Hell no, they would be just like everyone else in the world. They are putting on an act while they are at work and not being themselves. It is 100% fake and IMHO, actually annoying. You can not realistically judge a person that is trying to provide you a service.
Another angle.. Suits do have leave first impressions on people (although not on me at all). That is really important for people you have little interaction with. A door man for example. You see him once and no more. People you work with on with day to day are far beyond first impressions, take the help desk person referenced for example. They work with the same fellow employees every day. After that first day and first impression, you are now judged on your technical skills alone. If you suck at support and can not help them, it does not matter what the hell you are wearing.
Software is not depreciated by wear and tear like a car is but it definately loses value by not being cutting edge. Take something like a game. The initial price a console/PC game is roughly $50USD at release, it loses value over time and drops significantly when version 2 comes out. That software reaches a point where those that want that specific software title have already bought it. The only potential buyers now are those that are passing buy and notice the low price. It all eventually ends up in the 3 for $20 bin until the supply is exhausted or a third party company negotiates a deal to package it together with other older titles and "bonus" material with very little technical support (like the EA sports does with their 1-3 year old titles). Oh, Tiger Woods 2004? That might be fun to play and it is only $10.
There is a big difference though in what I describe above and what this article is about. Above, EA or whoever, can control the sale and price of the older software titles to ensure it does not directly compete with their newer offerings. When they feel comfortable, they repackage, lower the price, and deal. With this article, the original company (MS) is out of the loop. We all know MS does not sell older versions of their software and obviosuly does not think they would benefit because by doing so. In fact, their license stategy is based on preventing further sales and go out of their way to prevent a secondary market.
Back to your comment specifically though. The linked article does not state what they were actually trying to sell. What if it is W2K or maybe Office 2000? Its market value should be much lower because it is outdated and not cutting edge. I'd even say the same would apply with XP and Office 2K3 but of course they are still selling that mainstream. Maybe they need to fire up the monopoly powers and restrict the license more to prevent loop holes, the method of licensing, or release newer versions of software faster! Maybe they should start a software rental program or make the software web based so you pay every month instead of just for new versions. Oh wait..
I am not discounting the complexity of taking the right photograph or trying to discount the art in any way but.. I could write an equally long and detailed description on how to replace a wheel bearing and brake pads, how to mix and master a sound board recording, how to diagnose and repair a vertical deflection circuit on a 27 in television, how to assemble a model airplane, how to do a good job hanging and finishing drywall, or how to detail and wax a car. Each requires a technical skill, practice, attention to detail, and patience to get it right. Getting the "right" photograph is not an absolute and is an opinion. ANYONE that can push a button and hold a camera can take a picture with decent equipment and a majority of the people looking at that actual picture would be decently satisfied with the results, it may not be the best, the lighting might be a little off but for the most part, it would be very acceptable to a majority of the general population. Throw in a little practice and maybe a basic understanding of photography and the results would be even better. How many times have you seen some random person get handed a camera and asked to take a shot for them? People are generally not picky or care about most of the things you described above. Maybe for the "hype" of a wedding where emotions and stress are involved everything must be right but that is the only time. Do you think you could ask anyone on the street to replace your wheel bearing, hang drywall for you, or hey quick, write me a software application that calculates the deflection of a piece of aluminum under load.
My points have nothing to do with copyright either. IMHO, if I want photos taken by someone, I want to pay them to do a job for me, the material they take and the chance to take those photos was at my request. I am paying for the expertise and their experience, just as a I would pay someone to do a professional job to pave my driveway.
Steve Jobs already said a long time ago that he doesn't believe that people like to "rent" music... thus Apple's lack of entry into the subscription tunes market.
I don't give a crap what Steve Jobs thinks. I pay $60/year for Yahoo music and I love it. I get unlimited access to listen to a large percentage of what Rhapsody and Itunes has on my portable player or on multiple computers. $60 is what I would pay to have access to only 60 songs of non subscribtion based music or roughly 4 actual purchased cds per year. My personal opinions and Steve Jobs's opinion aside, maybe it does not fit everyone and honestly, I don't care, it works great for me and my family.
How is this offering from NBC and CBS different from the iTunes Video Store? Instead of comparing this offering to iTunes video, think of it as an addition to standard Pay-Per-View, which people are using and apperently is a very big business and far from a failure.
There are two possible situations here and the mirror is not the cause of either.
1) Maybe that person is efficient, meets the bosses expectations and deadlines, and puts out quality work so that boss leaves well enough alone and does not need to question anything.
2) The boss is the problem and can not address or even realize the situation of obvious dead beats causing low production because he/she does not know how or is unwillingly or afraid to speak to people individually and instead acts on the whole group in the thought that something must be wrong but has no idea who or what. If that is the case? What is the purpose of that boss?
I agree with this as well but you can NOT put the internet secuity responsibity down to the ground level end users. It will not work. Just as you never trust the "client" on the network. You have to expect the unexpected. MS had this theory years ago and it did not work for them either. Remember the land and winnuke attacks? MS's initial response was that the Windows OS is not the problem, rogue applications from rogue OS's were the cause. Their thinking was that since the Windows/DOS ping command can not send a packet that large and there should never be a packet on the network that large, Windows was fine and Windows was not the problem, it was the idiots sending these large packets. Well, in some aspects, that is correct, the idiots are causing it but you need to fix the OS because of the idiots. Another fine example is Outlook/Exchange in a corporate environment. First think about plain old SMTP. You can specify any from address you'd like. In a corporate environment, that is not a good thing and could cause a lot of problmes. Outlook and Exchange has the ability to allow you to send email on behalf of another user. Basically, user A gives delegate rights to user B. User B can not send email and place user A's name in the from field. Works great and is secure right? No. This security is an artificial client/server barrier. User B can send mail as user C, D or E by using Outlook express and plain old SMTP port 25 to the same Exchange server. I know, there is more you can do to prvent that but bottom line.. You are trusting the client which is Outlook, to provide security. Outlook Express (which is already on every copy of the Windows OS by defualt), Kmail, Thunderbird, etc.. Do not have that restriction.
Using your example... If you do not want your users on your network sending spam, you have to put something in place to prevent it or make it harder. Block port 25 from client machines, force smtp auth so viruses and rogue applications do not have unrestricted access or some other method. The internet provider hoping you lock down your access point, hoping you never get a mass mailer virus, or placing a clause in your TOS is NOT going to work at all and is a useless plan. End users are not computer security people. If you want security, do not rely on them.
You are right, what goes in must come out in a closed system. Problem though is if the head is high, less goes in then original design may have called for and reduces the flow rate.
A simple approach but obviously not the status quo method of deciding on who should pay for what..
L3 customers are requesting more traffic from Cogents customers then is going the other way. Why is any one direction of traffic considered a load and another considered a source for income and different from each other? It seems to me as these two companies are concerned, more L3 customers desire and need Cogent traffic then Cogent people that need the L3 traffic as noted by the obvious business difference that is raising this issue. Why is the traffic from Cogent considered Cogents traffic when in reality, you could consider it traffic requested by L3 paying customers? The traffic from Cogent to L3 is a mutual benefit to both Cogent supplying and L3 customers requesting equally. Cogent could claim that L3 is sucking down a disproportionate amount of its bandwidth compared to what they are own customers are getting back?
I know, not a status quo, that's the way is always has been, your an idiot, blah blah, but what makes one way right and accepted and the other not? Both ends have customers paying for the bandwidth they send and recieve.
I was trying to compare this to what a typical large usenet providers might have. Although the delivery method is different, the usage patterns are about the same. They have massive amounts of bandwidth and storage that would probably dwarf any porn web site. I can not find any current usenet providers equipment lists but in the past, the norm was nothing more then a few Sun boxes. usenetserver.com has some actual stats online like total connections and outbound bandwidth but they mention nothing about the actual quantity of equipment other then "multiple redundant spools load balanced on a solid UNIX Server architecture".
I'm a little skeptical here. Why would a porn site need 100 servers or even anything even close to that? That is insane. I could understand the need for bandwidth and storage space but not nothing more then a handful of actual servers.
Just like Apple with a portable music player, a portable video player and selling content online. The concept was already there and in use. Market forces and a specific companies application of that idea regardless of who first did it first, determines who gets a majority of the market share.
Unfortunately, after trashing my system several times and having to re-install from the countless floppies I was a little discouraged.
I still find boot and root disks laying around my area. My current Samba machine has been upgraded probably 20 times, I went back and forth between RH and Slackware at some points but I've never actually done a complete wipe and clear of all partitions since about 1995. I still have crap in my current home directory from 1995 and an/etc.old directory that I used for reference when I switched and upgraded. I can probably delete that.ppprc file for dial up and my termcap that I used when I had an off brand monochrome dumb terminal connected to the serial port because I did not have a dedicated monitor at the time. I still have mail from 1995 in my current maildir (if you maintain a dedicated running server, there are many advantages of using IMAP, procmail, and fetchmail).
My experience is that if something has to be done, just do it - don't ask! They will thank you later,' he said."
This is not the norm. 99.9% of managers will go with the flow and do what everyone else is doing for the sole purpose of avoiding being accountable and responsible for their own actions.
The real sweet spot here looks to be the Athlon 64 3800+. While lower-cost processors will give you a better frame rate-per-dollar ratio, some of the games tend to get a bit chunky in some titles--Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, for example.
Sorry, that was a quote from the article and I forgot the Italics tags.
They covered that as well. The real sweet spot here looks to be the Athlon 64 3800+. While lower-cost processors will give you a better frame rate-per-dollar ratio, some of the games tend to get a bit chunky in some titles--Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, for example.
Bascially, it is cheap and does well in the fps/dollar catagory but the fps is just too low overall to be acceptable in certain applications. An opinion I guess.
It is amazing to me how some people can see nothing wrong with that concept only because it is Apple. I know almost no one would agree to this same concept if we were talking about car parts and accessories.
Are you really being serious? Step out of the Apple box and think about the millions of products in this world and the millions of additions that you can buy for them without paying a kickback to the parent. The first thing that comes to mind is aftermarket products for cars which is probably a billion dollar industry. I do not have to pay Ford license fee to put a Fram filter, Monroe shocks, Michelin tires, Panasonic stereo, a Midwest Mustang hood scoop, BBS rims, a trailer hitch, a Vortech supercharger, larger after market fuel injectors, and a set of heads from some company in central Florida on my car. To even think that some licensing agreement with Ford should exist before hand 100% is completely insane. Even using the iPod for an example, do you think anyone selling headphones with a standard 3.5mm stero plug should have to pay Apple for it? Please don't give me that typical poor Apple story about Apple ensuring only quality accessories are available and no junk allowed. The free market will sort that out and has for every other after market product ever made for probably the last hundred years.
This is nothing more then an attempt by Apple to cash in on others improvements. Almost as bad and very similar to the RIAA wanting a part of the iPod sales money from Apple for the same thing. RIAA thinks Apple owes them money because iPods play their music and profits from their work --> Apple wants money from accessory companies because they use the iPod to make products for and profit from apples work. Wow, change your mind now? Do you consider one bad and one good? If anything, a heathly after market of iPod things would HELP overall iPod sales.
I am sorry to rant if I misunderstand your position on this
Hell, it's not like anyone actually cares what you print unless you're doing something illegal that would warrent them spending a lot of time and money to try and find you. The people that do not want their houses randomly searched must be hiding something, after all, why would they not want searched? I know, point taken to the extreme but where do you draw the line?
Or have a short fuse and do not feel like debating the issue any longer with that specific person. It does not take long in a discussion with someone to realize they are not open to your opinion or ideas and they are not going to change their views regardless of what points you bring up. In a real organized debate in front of an interested crowd, you can continue to pound the points home and although the direct person you are debating with may not change or even acknowledge your points, there is a chance that you can get people in crowd to understand them. The incentive to continue a debate under some circumstances is much less if the surrounding crowd is small or non existent and you are debating in a non live event in front of people like email or over the phone.
For those of you that do not agree with what I just said above, too bad and I think you are all dirtbag losers.
You completely missed the point. People get in such an uproar and want to blame the internet when they hear of a child running away with someone they meet on the internet and getting molested but yet this appears to be such a small number of total incidents compared to the other times children get molested by neighbors, relatives, parents etc where the internet was not involved at all. No one is trying to claim any molestation is okay. The internet part is a much smaller percentage of the total but yet gets a much more coverage. I assume the type of child that could easily be swayed and fooled into spending secret time with a much older adult they meet in the internet could probably be swayed just as easily into the same situation by a neighbor or family friend. Instead of blindly keeping the internet away from the children and providing a flase sense of security, discuss the concept of bad people and the hazards of some adults in general and what the child should look for weather online or offline. From what I hear and read about internet incidents, this concept is never mentioned, only the big bad internet is the cause. From my experience, children and tweens will take guidance and advice from adults/teachers/consulors but will really not completely believe it will happen to them until it does. You can provide real world examples that can can recall when the situation comes up and hopefully they will make the right decision. Giving children the impression the internet is the major cause of these encounters leaves them wide to a statistically much larger threat.
Well.. seeing as how a simple age restriction does nothing to prevent children under the ages required to smoke, drink or view porn You are right.. IMHO, this is not about 'protecting the children', it is about Yahoo protecting itself. In the end, the benefits of allowing children to use the chat room did not exceed the risk or liability. Some online services may not specifically restrict by age but they do require a credit card for verification and/or payment. Just tonight, I had to use my CC to allow my son to enable advanced online fucntions like friends lists and joining of clans in Socom3. Socom 1 & 2 did not have such a restriction. It is no cost but they still wanted a card number. Xbox live is the same. Even with the prepaid cards you buy in the store for an annual Xbox online subscription requires a valid CC to complete the signup.
I am kind of wondering why no mobile maker has released a phone which lets the user do anything.
The phone would not sell because the carriers would not activate it for you because it is not one of their phones. I have been pondering this exact point for years. The carriers will not support the "bring your own phone" until either the government or consumers can apply enough pressure. Cellular phone service will eventually become a base level commodity service but the carriers are trying everything they can to prevent that from happening. I believe we will eventually get to that point but it will take a long looong time. Number portability was the first step and without the continued pushing by consumers which got the attention of the government, that would have never happened.
The grandparent thinks there should be a law allowing him to breach contract at any time.
On that note. Remember that charge or fee you started getting about 2 years ago for WNP? That was a breach of contract. The carriers complained to the FCC that the cost of adding portability was going to cost them a lot of money. The FCC gave the carriers the "right" to charge a fee to recoup those costs. That fee was not a tax and not a surcharge. It was an across the board increase in your monthly bill which was not part of your contract. The phone companies justified this as making up for the cost of doing business. Basically, they locked you into a long contract and got burned when the cost for them went up. The FCC gave them the authority to break the contract and charge you more and they did. The real questionable part of this was there was no checks and balances or justification or reporting required back to the FCC or the customers as to what the carriers could charge to make up for this cost and what these costs actually were. There still is not to this day. I know there was a lot of noise on alt.cellular.sprintpcs at the time and people were able to cancel their service without penalty because of the contract change by Sprint to add to the monthly fees. Sprint first tried to claim that this was a government surcharge and later backed down and were honoring contract cancellations and service credits to those that complained.
So yes, the carriers already have the ability to lock YOU into a long contract and also the ability to modify that long contract after the fact.
Clarification. There is some confusion on the way some people looked at this additional charge. Bottom line though is that was/is a recurring static monthly fee, and not a tax. The money goes straight to the carrier and not the government. If the government raised the minimum wage, the carriers would not be allowed to pass the increase in costs on to your exisiting contract, how were they able to pass number portability charges on?
Slashdot Mirror
Your missing the whole point.
The business method behind Google is that the engineers will create products that will be innovative and good enough that they will stand out above the crowd and be noticed. It should not require a sales team hounding you and taking your CFO out to dinner to make the sale. In many ways, HP and DEC used to be like that.
My old Bronco II bumper hitch was stamped with "350 tounge weight, 3500 total capacity"
It also had a regular frame mounted hitch installed that had the same exact capacity rating. With the exception of some commercial box trucks, I've never actually seen anyone using a bumper hitch.
Do you see the problem here?
your dress code can have a HUGE impact on that person's impressions of your company, which could in turn affect your companies revenue or potential revenue.
You are correct and that is sad.
The problem is the client may be making a decision on your services from a factor that has nothing to do with your services. Sad that it does happen but your dress at work and your work quality ARE NOT RELATED in any way shape or form and anyone who believes that is quite honestly, just trying to be like everyone else with no valid reason. Forcing someone to wear a suit and tie does nothing to change a damn thing about you. Kind of like the girl that does a lap dance for you. Provided you keep the dollars flowing, she is there. As soon as your ugly fat ass runs out of dollar bills, you are worthless to her and she never comes back and you are not worth her time. You may somehow get the feeling there may be a spark there and maybe feel you are important and that person is there because of who you are but she is not. Forcing someone to wear a suit and tie is no different. The person is the same regardless of the cover or show you make them do for you. Wearing a suit is not a sign of respect for the other party, it is a cover to get your shallow mind to think otherwise. Take some support staff person at a hotel, very friendly and polite. If you saw that same person on your bus ride home later that day, would they be as polite to you and ask how your day was going and offer to let you in the door first? Hell no, they would be just like everyone else in the world. They are putting on an act while they are at work and not being themselves. It is 100% fake and IMHO, actually annoying. You can not realistically judge a person that is trying to provide you a service.
Another angle..
Suits do have leave first impressions on people (although not on me at all). That is really important for people you have little interaction with. A door man for example. You see him once and no more. People you work with on with day to day are far beyond first impressions, take the help desk person referenced for example. They work with the same fellow employees every day. After that first day and first impression, you are now judged on your technical skills alone. If you suck at support and can not help them, it does not matter what the hell you are wearing.
Software is not depreciated by wear and tear like a car is but it definately loses value by not being cutting edge. Take something like a game. The initial price a console/PC game is roughly $50USD at release, it loses value over time and drops significantly when version 2 comes out. That software reaches a point where those that want that specific software title have already bought it. The only potential buyers now are those that are passing buy and notice the low price. It all eventually ends up in the 3 for $20 bin until the supply is exhausted or a third party company negotiates a deal to package it together with other older titles and "bonus" material with very little technical support (like the EA sports does with their 1-3 year old titles). Oh, Tiger Woods 2004? That might be fun to play and it is only $10.
There is a big difference though in what I describe above and what this article is about. Above, EA or whoever, can control the sale and price of the older software titles to ensure it does not directly compete with their newer offerings. When they feel comfortable, they repackage, lower the price, and deal. With this article, the original company (MS) is out of the loop. We all know MS does not sell older versions of their software and obviosuly does not think they would benefit because by doing so. In fact, their license stategy is based on preventing further sales and go out of their way to prevent a secondary market.
Back to your comment specifically though. The linked article does not state what they were actually trying to sell. What if it is W2K or maybe Office 2000? Its market value should be much lower because it is outdated and not cutting edge. I'd even say the same would apply with XP and Office 2K3 but of course they are still selling that mainstream. Maybe they need to fire up the monopoly powers and restrict the license more to prevent loop holes, the method of licensing, or release newer versions of software faster! Maybe they should start a software rental program or make the software web based so you pay every month instead of just for new versions. Oh wait..
I am not discounting the complexity of taking the right photograph or trying to discount the art in any way but.. I could write an equally long and detailed description on how to replace a wheel bearing and brake pads, how to mix and master a sound board recording, how to diagnose and repair a vertical deflection circuit on a 27 in television, how to assemble a model airplane, how to do a good job hanging and finishing drywall, or how to detail and wax a car. Each requires a technical skill, practice, attention to detail, and patience to get it right. Getting the "right" photograph is not an absolute and is an opinion. ANYONE that can push a button and hold a camera can take a picture with decent equipment and a majority of the people looking at that actual picture would be decently satisfied with the results, it may not be the best, the lighting might be a little off but for the most part, it would be very acceptable to a majority of the general population. Throw in a little practice and maybe a basic understanding of photography and the results would be even better. How many times have you seen some random person get handed a camera and asked to take a shot for them? People are generally not picky or care about most of the things you described above. Maybe for the "hype" of a wedding where emotions and stress are involved everything must be right but that is the only time. Do you think you could ask anyone on the street to replace your wheel bearing, hang drywall for you, or hey quick, write me a software application that calculates the deflection of a piece of aluminum under load.
My points have nothing to do with copyright either. IMHO, if I want photos taken by someone, I want to pay them to do a job for me, the material they take and the chance to take those photos was at my request. I am paying for the expertise and their experience, just as a I would pay someone to do a professional job to pave my driveway.
Steve Jobs already said a long time ago that he doesn't believe that people like to "rent" music... thus Apple's lack of entry into the subscription tunes market.
I don't give a crap what Steve Jobs thinks. I pay $60/year for Yahoo music and I love it. I get unlimited access to listen to a large percentage of what Rhapsody and Itunes has on my portable player or on multiple computers. $60 is what I would pay to have access to only 60 songs of non subscribtion based music or roughly 4 actual purchased cds per year. My personal opinions and Steve Jobs's opinion aside, maybe it does not fit everyone and honestly, I don't care, it works great for me and my family.
How is this offering from NBC and CBS different from the iTunes Video Store? Instead of comparing this offering to iTunes video, think of it as an addition to standard Pay-Per-View, which people are using and apperently is a very big business and far from a failure.
There are two possible situations here and the mirror is not the cause of either.
1) Maybe that person is efficient, meets the bosses expectations and deadlines, and puts out quality work so that boss leaves well enough alone and does not need to question anything.
2) The boss is the problem and can not address or even realize the situation of obvious dead beats causing low production because he/she does not know how or is unwillingly or afraid to speak to people individually and instead acts on the whole group in the thought that something must be wrong but has no idea who or what. If that is the case? What is the purpose of that boss?
Internet security is everyone's problem.
I agree with this as well but you can NOT put the internet secuity responsibity down to the ground level end users. It will not work. Just as you never trust the "client" on the network. You have to expect the unexpected. MS had this theory years ago and it did not work for them either. Remember the land and winnuke attacks? MS's initial response was that the Windows OS is not the problem, rogue applications from rogue OS's were the cause. Their thinking was that since the Windows/DOS ping command can not send a packet that large and there should never be a packet on the network that large, Windows was fine and Windows was not the problem, it was the idiots sending these large packets. Well, in some aspects, that is correct, the idiots are causing it but you need to fix the OS because of the idiots.
Another fine example is Outlook/Exchange in a corporate environment. First think about plain old SMTP. You can specify any from address you'd like. In a corporate environment, that is not a good thing and could cause a lot of problmes. Outlook and Exchange has the ability to allow you to send email on behalf of another user. Basically, user A gives delegate rights to user B. User B can not send email and place user A's name in the from field. Works great and is secure right? No. This security is an artificial client/server barrier. User B can send mail as user C, D or E by using Outlook express and plain old SMTP port 25 to the same Exchange server. I know, there is more you can do to prvent that but bottom line.. You are trusting the client which is Outlook, to provide security. Outlook Express (which is already on every copy of the Windows OS by defualt), Kmail, Thunderbird, etc.. Do not have that restriction.
Using your example... If you do not want your users on your network sending spam, you have to put something in place to prevent it or make it harder. Block port 25 from client machines, force smtp auth so viruses and rogue applications do not have unrestricted access or some other method. The internet provider hoping you lock down your access point, hoping you never get a mass mailer virus, or placing a clause in your TOS is NOT going to work at all and is a useless plan.
End users are not computer security people. If you want security, do not rely on them.
You are right, what goes in must come out in a closed system. Problem though is if the head is high, less goes in then original design may have called for and reduces the flow rate.
A simple approach but obviously not the status quo method of deciding on who should pay for what..
L3 customers are requesting more traffic from Cogents customers then is going the other way. Why is any one direction of traffic considered a load and another considered a source for income and different from each other? It seems to me as these two companies are concerned, more L3 customers desire and need Cogent traffic then Cogent people that need the L3 traffic as noted by the obvious business difference that is raising this issue. Why is the traffic from Cogent considered Cogents traffic when in reality, you could consider it traffic requested by L3 paying customers? The traffic from Cogent to L3 is a mutual benefit to both Cogent supplying and L3 customers requesting equally. Cogent could claim that L3 is sucking down a disproportionate amount of its bandwidth compared to what they are own customers are getting back?
I know, not a status quo, that's the way is always has been, your an idiot, blah blah, but what makes one way right and accepted and the other not? Both ends have customers paying for the bandwidth they send and recieve.
I was trying to compare this to what a typical large usenet providers might have. Although the delivery method is different, the usage patterns are about the same. They have massive amounts of bandwidth and storage that would probably dwarf any porn web site. I can not find any current usenet providers equipment lists but in the past, the norm was nothing more then a few Sun boxes. usenetserver.com has some actual stats online like total connections and outbound bandwidth but they mention nothing about the actual quantity of equipment other then "multiple redundant spools load balanced on a solid UNIX Server architecture".
I'm a little skeptical here. Why would a porn site need 100 servers or even anything even close to that? That is insane. I could understand the need for bandwidth and storage space but not nothing more then a handful of actual servers.
Just like Apple with a portable music player, a portable video player and selling content online. The concept was already there and in use. Market forces and a specific companies application of that idea regardless of who first did it first, determines who gets a majority of the market share.
Unfortunately, after trashing my system several times and having to re-install from the countless floppies I was a little discouraged.
/etc.old directory that I used for reference when I switched and upgraded. I can probably delete that .ppprc file for dial up and my termcap that I used when I had an off brand monochrome dumb terminal connected to the serial port because I did not have a dedicated monitor at the time. I still have mail from 1995 in my current maildir (if you maintain a dedicated running server, there are many advantages of using IMAP, procmail, and fetchmail).
I still find boot and root disks laying around my area.
My current Samba machine has been upgraded probably 20 times, I went back and forth between RH and Slackware at some points but I've never actually done a complete wipe and clear of all partitions since about 1995. I still have crap in my current home directory from 1995 and an
My experience is that if something has to be done, just do it - don't ask! They will thank you later,' he said."
This is not the norm. 99.9% of managers will go with the flow and do what everyone else is doing for the sole purpose of avoiding being accountable and responsible for their own actions.
The real sweet spot here looks to be the Athlon 64 3800+. While lower-cost processors will give you a better frame rate-per-dollar ratio, some of the games tend to get a bit chunky in some titles--Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, for example.
Sorry, that was a quote from the article and I forgot the Italics tags.
They covered that as well.
The real sweet spot here looks to be the Athlon 64 3800+. While lower-cost processors will give you a better frame rate-per-dollar ratio, some of the games tend to get a bit chunky in some titles--Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, for example.
Bascially, it is cheap and does well in the fps/dollar catagory but the fps is just too low overall to be acceptable in certain applications. An opinion I guess.
It is amazing to me how some people can see nothing wrong with that concept only because it is Apple. I know almost no one would agree to this same concept if we were talking about car parts and accessories.
Are you really being serious?
Step out of the Apple box and think about the millions of products in this world and the millions of additions that you can buy for them without paying a kickback to the parent. The first thing that comes to mind is aftermarket products for cars which is probably a billion dollar industry. I do not have to pay Ford license fee to put a Fram filter, Monroe shocks, Michelin tires, Panasonic stereo, a Midwest Mustang hood scoop, BBS rims, a trailer hitch, a Vortech supercharger, larger after market fuel injectors, and a set of heads from some company in central Florida on my car. To even think that some licensing agreement with Ford should exist before hand 100% is completely insane.
Even using the iPod for an example, do you think anyone selling headphones with a standard 3.5mm stero plug should have to pay Apple for it?
Please don't give me that typical poor Apple story about Apple ensuring only quality accessories are available and no junk allowed. The free market will sort that out and has for every other after market product ever made for probably the last hundred years.
This is nothing more then an attempt by Apple to cash in on others improvements. Almost as bad and very similar to the RIAA wanting a part of the iPod sales money from Apple for the same thing. RIAA thinks Apple owes them money because iPods play their music and profits from their work --> Apple wants money from accessory companies because they use the iPod to make products for and profit from apples work. Wow, change your mind now? Do you consider one bad and one good?
If anything, a heathly after market of iPod things would HELP overall iPod sales.
I am sorry to rant if I misunderstand your position on this
Hell, it's not like anyone actually cares what you print unless you're doing something illegal that would warrent them spending a lot of time and money to try and find you.
The people that do not want their houses randomly searched must be hiding something, after all, why would they not want searched? I know, point taken to the extreme but where do you draw the line?
Or have a short fuse and do not feel like debating the issue any longer with that specific person. It does not take long in a discussion with someone to realize they are not open to your opinion or ideas and they are not going to change their views regardless of what points you bring up. In a real organized debate in front of an interested crowd, you can continue to pound the points home and although the direct person you are debating with may not change or even acknowledge your points, there is a chance that you can get people in crowd to understand them. The incentive to continue a debate under some circumstances is much less if the surrounding crowd is small or non existent and you are debating in a non live event in front of people like email or over the phone.
For those of you that do not agree with what I just said above, too bad and I think you are all dirtbag losers.
You completely missed the point. People get in such an uproar and want to blame the internet when they hear of a child running away with someone they meet on the internet and getting molested but yet this appears to be such a small number of total incidents compared to the other times children get molested by neighbors, relatives, parents etc where the internet was not involved at all. No one is trying to claim any molestation is okay. The internet part is a much smaller percentage of the total but yet gets a much more coverage. I assume the type of child that could easily be swayed and fooled into spending secret time with a much older adult they meet in the internet could probably be swayed just as easily into the same situation by a neighbor or family friend. Instead of blindly keeping the internet away from the children and providing a flase sense of security, discuss the concept of bad people and the hazards of some adults in general and what the child should look for weather online or offline. From what I hear and read about internet incidents, this concept is never mentioned, only the big bad internet is the cause. From my experience, children and tweens will take guidance and advice from adults/teachers/consulors but will really not completely believe it will happen to them until it does. You can provide real world examples that can can recall when the situation comes up and hopefully they will make the right decision. Giving children the impression the internet is the major cause of these encounters leaves them wide to a statistically much larger threat.
The point is, look at this BIG PICTURE.
Well.. seeing as how a simple age restriction does nothing to prevent children under the ages required to smoke, drink or view porn
You are right..
IMHO, this is not about 'protecting the children', it is about Yahoo protecting itself. In the end, the benefits of allowing children to use the chat room did not exceed the risk or liability. Some online services may not specifically restrict by age but they do require a credit card for verification and/or payment. Just tonight, I had to use my CC to allow my son to enable advanced online fucntions like friends lists and joining of clans in Socom3. Socom 1 & 2 did not have such a restriction. It is no cost but they still wanted a card number. Xbox live is the same. Even with the prepaid cards you buy in the store for an annual Xbox online subscription requires a valid CC to complete the signup.
I am kind of wondering why no mobile maker has released a phone which lets the user do anything.
The phone would not sell because the carriers would not activate it for you because it is not one of their phones. I have been pondering this exact point for years. The carriers will not support the "bring your own phone" until either the government or consumers can apply enough pressure. Cellular phone service will eventually become a base level commodity service but the carriers are trying everything they can to prevent that from happening. I believe we will eventually get to that point but it will take a long looong time. Number portability was the first step and without the continued pushing by consumers which got the attention of the government, that would have never happened.
The grandparent thinks there should be a law allowing him to breach contract at any time.
On that note. Remember that charge or fee you started getting about 2 years ago for WNP? That was a breach of contract. The carriers complained to the FCC that the cost of adding portability was going to cost them a lot of money. The FCC gave the carriers the "right" to charge a fee to recoup those costs. That fee was not a tax and not a surcharge. It was an across the board increase in your monthly bill which was not part of your contract. The phone companies justified this as making up for the cost of doing business. Basically, they locked you into a long contract and got burned when the cost for them went up. The FCC gave them the authority to break the contract and charge you more and they did. The real questionable part of this was there was no checks and balances or justification or reporting required back to the FCC or the customers as to what the carriers could charge to make up for this cost and what these costs actually were. There still is not to this day.
I know there was a lot of noise on alt.cellular.sprintpcs at the time and people were able to cancel their service without penalty because of the contract change by Sprint to add to the monthly fees. Sprint first tried to claim that this was a government surcharge and later backed down and were honoring contract cancellations and service credits to those that complained.
So yes, the carriers already have the ability to lock YOU into a long contract and also the ability to modify that long contract after the fact.
Clarification. There is some confusion on the way some people looked at this additional charge. Bottom line though is that was/is a recurring static monthly fee, and not a tax. The money goes straight to the carrier and not the government. If the government raised the minimum wage, the carriers would not be allowed to pass the increase in costs on to your exisiting contract, how were they able to pass number portability charges on?