"Thats not the mention the money lost through a week [sic] economy and the single currency. They know they're in trouble, and they need money fast."
Hmm, Germany has the strongest economy in Europe and the world's third largest economy, followed by the UK. Now, I'm a Brit, and I'm willing to accept that, please do not delude yourself by ignoring the facts. Germany already receives sizable amounts of cash from the EU for the reunionification process, this helps to explain why the UK losses £2-3 billion to the EU every year.
I'm told the single currency actually benefits Germany because it's primarily an exporting nation, therefore the weaker the currency the cheaper German goods are abroad (they sell more BMW's into the US for instance). Conversely, it also means foreign goods are more expensive, however this can be tolerated if your export ratio is high.
Also, this somewhat of a civil dispute not an international dispute against governments. Say I sue somebody in the US, it doesn't have a lot to do with either of our governments.
If you insist on being bigoted, please back your arguments up with facts. Do try and keep that comical absurdity though;)
I see your point here, there's a lot of room for corrupt or some under the table deal. My point was though, the licenses shouldn't purely go the basis of money, if a hybrid approach was adopted then the government would get its money and also ensure the company is making good investment in the local economy and uni's, then it would be a much fairer system.
This definitely is very cool, I've seen the police with 'wands' like this, basically they have a stick which the wave back and forth and a message appears in the air, it's a cool illusion, I saw a "slow down" message from one of them. I wonder if "you're a stupid moron" is too long to be made out;)
This assumes the government wants to take direct control over certain services and or put projects under public control, which is essentially a socialistic concept. The US government generally likes to subcontract everything out to private companies, so these huge monolithic projects that run into the millions (billions in some cases) that also over their dead lines, are essentially just part of the system. Anything difference requires a change of ideology, and generally the American populace deplores more government control in their life's.
Nice idea, I'm sure many people on this post will make some sort of synergy to communism, it's not quite that extreme, but there's a lot of politics (and $$$) involved.
It works, but partically, if you just want to map a couple of drives over, it works ok, mainly because Win2K is running in compatability mode.
However, they want to Samba to include PDC (Primary Domain Controller) support, and ActiveDirectory (LDAP based) support, with full support for kerbreos, access controls, SDP support etc.
MS also have a 'internet file system' standard to replace SMB, they've made the standard publicaclly available apparenltly:/
At the start of the 90's the EU mandated that Nokia & Ericsson should stop working on incompatible proprietary standards and form a joint working group to establish a common multi-featured standard, hence we have GSM which is used most places in the world, and in the US to a limited degree.
Since they can just make a phone that will work in numerous countries, the manufacturer knows the phone will sell lots of units and generate lots of profits, also the technology advances further so you get smaller/lighter phones. What incentive does a manufacturer have to spend $$ million developing a product which it knows will only sell to a limited/incompatible market?
In the US the FCC didn't mandate any sort of standard though, apart from controlling the frequency allotments. They went for the model where companies would just compete with incompatible standards until a winner was found. Nice idea and very free market orientated, however it never worked out and as you say it just left a mix of incompatible networks, and created a lot of politics and arrogance on the part of the competing companies.
Say company A has invested xx billion on developing a standard and installing networks nationwide, why would they decide to concede to company B's standard then have to replace their entire network and also pay royalties to company B for their technology? As you can see, you just end up with a deadlock, where each company is intransigent.
So, when the FCC is counting its numerous coffers generated from the auctions, it would be wise of them to make sure a common, royalty free standard is adopted by the providers. This may sound like I want the FCC to dictate standards to private industry (bad government?), however the companies should take a lesson from history and form a joint working group and develop some form of synergy. It might be a good idea to adopt the new UMTS standard from the GSM group, and while they're at it, the DAB digital radio standard, also the DVB digital tv standard, but these are royalty free technologies from Europe, which means no royalties for US companies and a shed load of jingoism/politics. Oh well.
Spectrum = the RF spectrum, so when part of the specrum is released from old 1G phone networks or old anologue tv or fm stations, it will be auctioned off by the government for huge amounts of cash.
defense to identify spectrum suitable, this probably just means the celluar companies are probably looking for a suitable high frequency allotment of the specrum since they'd be able to carry more data.
The 'beauty contest' concept of allotting licenses is actually much better than buying your way in, the Nordic nations go for the beauty contest approach, where each company is asked how many jobs their company will generate, what investment the company will put into local universities, the cost of the end product, etc.
When you have cellular companies throwing ridiculous amounts of cash to the government for licenses, who you think ends up paying the bill? The consumer of course, so the auctions are just an indirect form of tax.
The cellular companies over here spend $35 Billion to get their licenses, this means they've gotta charge the consumer extortionate amounts of money to get a return on investment, the companies themselves have just thrown themselves into huge amounts of debt without really knowing the uptake of 3G services, while the government is sitting pretty with its huge wad of cash.
Who exactly is selling this bandwidth, and to who?
The government (well FCC) to celluar providers, Sprint, AT&T, Airtouch, Vodaphone etc.
I imagine that the government will sell it off. But what is their requirments for being able to buy it
After they auction off the bandwidth, it's no longer a public eternity, to buy it you basically need a shed load of cash (way into the billions of $), they don't have to pay rent since the license usually lasts ~ 20 years.
How de we know that Ted Turner won't buy the whole junk of bandwidth
I doubt even he would have enough cash, also I think there are restrictions so one company = one license, some of the licenses have bigger allotments of frequencies though (in the UK at least). The UK licenses went for $35 Billion in total, and the UK only has 1/4 the population of the US, so you can only guess what these auctions will generate.
And why is the government putting so much energy into finding ways for yuppies to have as many toys as they want?
The last time I saw a yuppie thinking a mobile phone was flash was in the 80's, they're hardly a status icon anymore, nearly all the kids over here (from about 11 up) have phones thanks to the pay-as-you talk packages. Some kids even have much smarter phones than me or even rich businessmen, smug little shits;)
Unless you can't send abusive SMS messages to yer mates mobile in the playground, you're just not hip anymore.
The British 3G bandwidth auction netted a total of $35 Billion for the government, that's for a 20 yr licence, the German licenses went for even more than that since the have a lower cellular penetration rate (UK = 53% penetration) and therefore there's more opportunity for growth.
The US license will go for a pretty penny, however what are the penetration rates over there?
The slot is totally arbitrary since Slot A is just an inverted Slot 1 anyway, AMD wanted a fast bus whilst avoiding the patents and technical limitations of the GTL+ bus that Intel controls, hence the EV6 bus from DEC.
Intel boards can do this already, it's not really effective though since the faster chip is usually left waiting because the schedulers aren't too clever. Also, SMP can be unstable if you combine chips of different steppings.
It was a two-fold problem, the original Irongate 750 chipset had problems with "super-bypass", which allows the AGP board to directly write to system memory without the need for the CPU to intervene. This was actually fixed in later revisions, but the 750 was replaced with Via's KX133 pretty soon (and now the KT133).
The second problem was the power constraints, this was the fault of the motherboard manufacturers, they were sloppy with their designs and didn't implement proper voltage regulators, this problem also affected the Athlon CPU itself. I guess you could put this down to teething problems since none of the manufacturers every produced an Athlon board before, things are much better these days.
Anyway, the problems were never the fault of the CPU or the archtecure; it was just sloppy implementation or problems in early chipsets.
Slashdot Mirror
I hereby bestow Mr Katz with the Monty Python award for "stating the bleedin obvious", his visionarly insights surprise us all.
I'm told the single currency actually benefits Germany because it's primarily an exporting nation, therefore the weaker the currency the cheaper German goods are abroad (they sell more BMW's into the US for instance). Conversely, it also means foreign goods are more expensive, however this can be tolerated if your export ratio is high.
Also, this somewhat of a civil dispute not an international dispute against governments. Say I sue somebody in the US, it doesn't have a lot to do with either of our governments.
If you insist on being bigoted, please back your arguments up with facts. Do try and keep that comical absurdity though
I see your point here, there's a lot of room for corrupt or some under the table deal. My point was though, the licenses shouldn't purely go the basis of money, if a hybrid approach was adopted then the government would get its money and also ensure the company is making good investment in the local economy and uni's, then it would be a much fairer system.
This definitely is very cool, I've seen the police with 'wands' like this, basically they have a stick which the wave back and forth and a message appears in the air, it's a cool illusion, I saw a "slow down" message from one of them. I wonder if "you're a stupid moron" is too long to be made out ;)
I've also seen this technology on TV a while ago.
Very clever.
This is basically due to paranoia though, since the US has a habit putting certain backdoors in particular products.
This assumes the government wants to take direct control over certain services and or put projects under public control, which is essentially a socialistic concept. The US government generally likes to subcontract everything out to private companies, so these huge monolithic projects that run into the millions (billions in some cases) that also over their dead lines, are essentially just part of the system. Anything difference requires a change of ideology, and generally the American populace deplores more government control in their life's.
Nice idea, I'm sure many people on this post will make some sort of synergy to communism, it's not quite that extreme, but there's a lot of politics (and $$$) involved.
It works, but partically, if you just want to map a couple of drives over, it works ok, mainly because Win2K is running in compatability mode.
:/
However, they want to Samba to include PDC (Primary Domain Controller) support, and ActiveDirectory (LDAP based) support, with full support for kerbreos, access controls, SDP support etc.
MS also have a 'internet file system' standard to replace SMB, they've made the standard publicaclly available apparenltly
heh, I knew I shouldn't of left an open question like that! sheesh, you people ;)
At the start of the 90's the EU mandated that Nokia & Ericsson should stop working on incompatible proprietary standards and form a joint working group to establish a common multi-featured standard, hence we have GSM which is used most places in the world, and in the US to a limited degree.
Since they can just make a phone that will work in numerous countries, the manufacturer knows the phone will sell lots of units and generate lots of profits, also the technology advances further so you get smaller/lighter phones. What incentive does a manufacturer have to spend $$ million developing a product which it knows will only sell to a limited/incompatible market?
In the US the FCC didn't mandate any sort of standard though, apart from controlling the frequency allotments. They went for the model where companies would just compete with incompatible standards until a winner was found. Nice idea and very free market orientated, however it never worked out and as you say it just left a mix of incompatible networks, and created a lot of politics and arrogance on the part of the competing companies.
Say company A has invested xx billion on developing a standard and installing networks nationwide, why would they decide to concede to company B's standard then have to replace their entire network and also pay royalties to company B for their technology? As you can see, you just end up with a deadlock, where each company is intransigent.
So, when the FCC is counting its numerous coffers generated from the auctions, it would be wise of them to make sure a common, royalty free standard is adopted by the providers. This may sound like I want the FCC to dictate standards to private industry (bad government?), however the companies should take a lesson from history and form a joint working group and develop some form of synergy. It might be a good idea to adopt the new UMTS standard from the GSM group, and while they're at it, the DAB digital radio standard, also the DVB digital tv standard, but these are royalty free technologies from Europe, which means no royalties for US companies and a shed load of jingoism/politics. Oh well.
Az.
Spectrum = the RF spectrum, so when part of the specrum is released from old 1G phone networks or old anologue tv or fm stations, it will be auctioned off by the government for huge amounts of cash.
defense to identify spectrum suitable, this probably just means the celluar companies are probably looking for a suitable high frequency allotment of the specrum since they'd be able to carry more data.
The 'beauty contest' concept of allotting licenses is actually much better than buying your way in, the Nordic nations go for the beauty contest approach, where each company is asked how many jobs their company will generate, what investment the company will put into local universities, the cost of the end product, etc.
When you have cellular companies throwing ridiculous amounts of cash to the government for licenses, who you think ends up paying the bill? The consumer of course, so the auctions are just an indirect form of tax.
The cellular companies over here spend $35 Billion to get their licenses, this means they've gotta charge the consumer extortionate amounts of money to get a return on investment, the companies themselves have just thrown themselves into huge amounts of debt without really knowing the uptake of 3G services, while the government is sitting pretty with its huge wad of cash.
Who exactly is selling this bandwidth, and to who?
;)
The government (well FCC) to celluar providers, Sprint, AT&T, Airtouch, Vodaphone etc.
I imagine that the government will sell it off. But what is their requirments for being able to buy it
After they auction off the bandwidth, it's no longer a public eternity, to buy it you basically need a shed load of cash (way into the billions of $), they don't have to pay rent since the license usually lasts ~ 20 years.
How de we know that Ted Turner won't buy the whole junk of bandwidth
I doubt even he would have enough cash, also I think there are restrictions so one company = one license, some of the licenses have bigger allotments of frequencies though (in the UK at least). The UK licenses went for $35 Billion in total, and the UK only has 1/4 the population of the US, so you can only guess what these auctions will generate.
And why is the government putting so much energy into finding ways for yuppies to have as many toys as they want?
The last time I saw a yuppie thinking a mobile phone was flash was in the 80's, they're hardly a status icon anymore, nearly all the kids over here (from about 11 up) have phones thanks to the pay-as-you talk packages. Some kids even have much smarter phones than me or even rich businessmen, smug little shits
Unless you can't send abusive SMS messages to yer mates mobile in the playground, you're just not hip anymore.
The British 3G bandwidth auction netted a total of $35 Billion for the government, that's for a 20 yr licence, the German licenses went for even more than that since the have a lower cellular penetration rate (UK = 53% penetration) and therefore there's more opportunity for growth.
The US license will go for a pretty penny, however what are the penetration rates over there?
For anyone in the UK, Simon Singh has a new series on crypto on channel4, the second program is on tonight at 9pm (BST). You can find out more here
There's also a competetion where you can win a trip to Eygpt if you crack the code.
AMD Zone certainly has a lot of info on this lot. You can pretty well find out most things if you dig deep enough.
The slot is totally arbitrary since Slot A is just an inverted Slot 1 anyway, AMD wanted a fast bus whilst avoiding the patents and technical limitations of the GTL+ bus that Intel controls, hence the EV6 bus from DEC.
Intel boards can do this already, it's not really effective though since the faster chip is usually left waiting because the schedulers aren't too clever. Also, SMP can be unstable if you combine chips of different steppings.
It was a two-fold problem, the original Irongate 750 chipset had problems with "super-bypass", which allows the AGP board to directly write to system memory without the need for the CPU to intervene. This was actually fixed in later revisions, but the 750 was replaced with Via's KX133 pretty soon (and now the KT133).
The second problem was the power constraints, this was the fault of the motherboard manufacturers, they were sloppy with their designs and didn't implement proper voltage regulators, this problem also affected the Athlon CPU itself. I guess you could put this down to teething problems since none of the manufacturers every produced an Athlon board before, things are much better these days.
Anyway, the problems were never the fault of the CPU or the archtecure; it was just sloppy implementation or problems in early chipsets.