I'm using Unicode to get an upside down text. (Unfortunately, Slashdot seems not to want to show it, but see here https://www.fileformat.info/convert/text/upside-down.htm?text=upsidedown). As a bonus, it is a passwordless AP but uses a modern way of upside-down-ternet (see https://openoffice.nl/2016/01/01/upside-downternet/ for a howto) to flip any non-https-page.
As this links to a paid publication by Elsevier, I can't say anything about it. I can, however, link to another article, only months ago, and it's debunking (latter in Dutch, sorry) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers and https://www.nemokennislink.nl/publicaties/ernstige-zwakheden-in-alarmerend-onderzoek-naar-vliegende-insecten/
As said, I can't say anything about the Elsevier article and frankly, I don't think it serves a purpose to link to articles we can't read. Thinking of it, this would make a great business model: perform research with alarming outcome; get paywalled article linked on Slashdot... Profit!
Mass extinction in a few thousand years and a single species responsible - I see a parallel. It isn't mass extinction exactly, but mankind has caused quite some disturbance in both land and sea ecosystems already. A few thousand years should be plenty enough to cause real mass extinction.
The original article at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/neil-young-trademarks-new-audio-format-20120403 Rolling Stone says that Pono is "a revolutionary new audio music system" and "a modern-day iPod for the 21st Century". I'm not sure why that would include a new audio format - although Rolling Stone's URL seems to suggest that. I have seen this article misquoted all around the globe, though - everyone pointing at the same old Rolling Stone page, some mentioning "new audio formats", others mentioning "patents" for a new MP3-format - etc etc.. I'd say hoax. Educated hoax, with press releases and trademarks and the lot, but still a hoax. Wake me up when the Pono system is for sale at the Neil Young Store.
You don't understand. These countries (I live in the Netherlands, which has the same sort of system) have some history in getting their health care right. Negotiating how much various procedures should cost, how much the patient should pay, this is just business as usual: it happens every year.
Inflation as the only tool for a government to regulate it's health care costs feels a bit simplistic. In fact, it's a ridiculous idea, given the abundance of other options our government seems to have. I can only think that your misguided view is the result of coming from the hard & cold background of a runaway-free-market health care system, where there is actually NO options to get things right (it's a free market, right?) -- so the only thing you can think of is even worse than that.
Also, you forgot an important aspect. In our system, there's more money available for prevention, simply because that will keep general health care costs lower. There's hardly a place where prevention will fit in a true market driven system. (Yeah, your insurance company could have prevention programs, but an insurance company without these expensive programs would be cheaper, right? Exit prevention.)
... inventing a new battery, taming hurricanes, defeating disease... attracting lightning, tunneling it into the autoclave... Frankenstein! Just like he did when he managed the Windows codebase.
This is already European Law (which must be implemented in local laws in al member states). Once sold whithin the EU, you're free to resell your license.
The problem is in the details: if you buy software (i.e. a license to use it), you normally also get a bunch of other rights, like access to updates, maybe even the right to call someone. The law doesn't say that these rights are also transferrable (or transferred). So in most licenses, there's still plenty of "you cannot do this and that (resell, for example), or you will loose the right to such and so".
But the resale of the license to plainly use the software cannot be forbidden by contract in the EU.
As the Obama healthcare reform is also international news, I read an analysis of the US medical system here in the local newspaper in The Netherlands. The US as a country spends twice as much for it's healthcare as Germany and France, while only 83% of the US Americans have an insurance.
This is because US healthcare is not about health; it is about the caring industry. There's no room for prevention (as there's no profit from prevention), there's only room for Care.
Back in 1997 frames and tables were indeed the best way to organize your website for watching it with IE 3.0 or something. The admins aren't slow, they just wait for the right time to publish.
The author says... there would just be a different vendor peddling the dominant operating system.
Networks in a world in which Apple had won the operating systems wars would still be insecure.
That's where the author goes wrong in the first place. Look outside: how many car brands do you see? There's no "dominant car brand" there, is there? Look at your collegues' cell phones. There are some "dominant brands" but none of them has a 90% market share. By the way, interconnection is their purpose, but there's no security issues there, are there?
A 90% dominant market share is simply wrong and will cause problems in almost any situation.
This is the same spin we've seen before. I've got a news item from last August on paper that says *exactly* the same thing ("Microsoft buigt voor Brussel" - meaning MS gives in). The one-but-latest news came from the EU a couple of weeks ago, saying "You know, these protocols aren't innovative at all, your fee is too high", so now it's MS's turn again: "Hey, we finally open up, here are all our protocols, for a most reasonable fee that we don't exactly know yet".
The lawsuit *is* about the licensing. It is not about the protocols. Saying "you'll get the protocols but we'll define the licensing and the fees next time" is like saying "I will make you rich, and I'll define rich for you".
These days, all I hear is stuff about power consumption of various electronic equipment, stand-by mode or not. Not having the power consumption in a Joe Consumer article sounds pretty useless to me.
It's a common misconception (even among VOIP providers) that you can run modem conversations over VOIP lines. You cannot. Modems rely on a statically behaving line quality. VOIP, by design, will have changing echo, changing line delays (very disturbing for a modem) and even changing sound quality. This will annoy your modem, even at lower baud rates. I've seen setups where even 9600 baud fax receiving would not work, while codec (711u), echo cancellation (off), jitter buffer (low, medium, high, very high), dynamic jitter buffer correction (off) were all carefully tuned. Yes, you could receive some faxes, or almost all, or even hardly any faxes would get lost but you would lose connections at random times - very annoying if your faxed document is large enough. This is with two different VOIP providers, with two different VOIP ATAs, even telling the VOIP company we were going to use the line for faxing and having tech support commenting on our ATA setup. I should add that this was an international operating law firm, so they would receive rather large documents (50+ pages) over international phone lines, which makes it a perfect test setup.
After a lot of trial-and-error, they chose to get a POTS fax line and all their faxing problems were gone instantly.
There is, however, one exception to the above. You can use the T38 protocol to send faxes over VOIP, but *both* sides should support that. T38 is basically a protocol that interprets the faxing information at the modem (ATA) side, sends it over IP to the provider, who re-creates the buzzing your modem made originally. This also means that T38 is a property of your ATA, not a fax machine property (unless off course you have a real IP fax that has it's own internal SIP configuration). VOIP providers that tell you "your fax should have T38" are wrong - like telling "your car should have asphalt" when you ask if it's safe to drive 50Km/h on a certain road. And here's the caveat: there are not that many VOIP providers that do support T38 - they may not even know what it is, what it does and why you would need it - hence the common "yes, you can fax as long as your fax had T38".
Well, if your VOIP provider tells you your fax should have T38, you can be pretty sure that your fax will not work. And neither will your alarm system. Or your BBS;-)
In some situations, more supply means higher prices, as more supply means more recognition (brands), more fame (music), more compatibility (technical formats, classical example being the fax). This is not to say that classical economics don't work here (they do!), but that you might want to see how things work out for you. For example, your market (i.e. where you make the money) could be concerts, but your "product" (the deliverable) could be music. Your market could be training and support, while your product is a word processor. Naturally, if the "market" you're going to start is your own and the product is your own as well, you'd think twice before giving any of the two away. I doubt if DRM is the only way to do that, however.
As far as I remember, Microsoft has been calling the OSS community a bunch of hobbyists since the OSS movement appeared on their radar (as a threat, of course). The article agrees, as MS tells "the intention is to reduce the number of licensors [...] to lock out "hobbyists" and other entities that Microsoft doesn't want to have to trouble itself with", the article says this is plain anticompetitive: "I was pretty surprised to hear an executive from Microsoft describe his company's strategy as intentionally anti-competitive and intended solely to freeze out certain classes of operators [...]"
Now we Linux and Mac users from all over the world can try to test the site. That will at least help stress the servers to the point that simply no one will be able to file their requests.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm using Unicode to get an upside down text. (Unfortunately, Slashdot seems not to want to show it, but see here https://www.fileformat.info/convert/text/upside-down.htm?text=upsidedown). As a bonus, it is a passwordless AP but uses a modern way of upside-down-ternet (see https://openoffice.nl/2016/01/01/upside-downternet/ for a howto) to flip any non-https-page.
As this links to a paid publication by Elsevier, I can't say anything about it. I can, however, link to another article, only months ago, and it's debunking (latter in Dutch, sorry) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers and https://www.nemokennislink.nl/publicaties/ernstige-zwakheden-in-alarmerend-onderzoek-naar-vliegende-insecten/
As said, I can't say anything about the Elsevier article and frankly, I don't think it serves a purpose to link to articles we can't read. Thinking of it, this would make a great business model: perform research with alarming outcome; get paywalled article linked on Slashdot... Profit!
Mass extinction in a few thousand years and a single species responsible - I see a parallel. It isn't mass extinction exactly, but mankind has caused quite some disturbance in both land and sea ecosystems already. A few thousand years should be plenty enough to cause real mass extinction.
The original article at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/neil-young-trademarks-new-audio-format-20120403 Rolling Stone says that Pono is "a revolutionary new audio music system" and "a modern-day iPod for the 21st Century". I'm not sure why that would include a new audio format - although Rolling Stone's URL seems to suggest that. I have seen this article misquoted all around the globe, though - everyone pointing at the same old Rolling Stone page, some mentioning "new audio formats", others mentioning "patents" for a new MP3-format - etc etc..
I'd say hoax. Educated hoax, with press releases and trademarks and the lot, but still a hoax. Wake me up when the Pono system is for sale at the Neil Young Store.
A good test should include battery life.
You don't understand. These countries (I live in the Netherlands, which has the same sort of system) have some history in getting their health care right. Negotiating how much various procedures should cost, how much the patient should pay, this is just business as usual: it happens every year.
Inflation as the only tool for a government to regulate it's health care costs feels a bit simplistic. In fact, it's a ridiculous idea, given the abundance of other options our government seems to have. I can only think that your misguided view is the result of coming from the hard & cold background of a runaway-free-market health care system, where there is actually NO options to get things right (it's a free market, right?) -- so the only thing you can think of is even worse than that.
Also, you forgot an important aspect. In our system, there's more money available for prevention, simply because that will keep general health care costs lower. There's hardly a place where prevention will fit in a true market driven system. (Yeah, your insurance company could have prevention programs, but an insurance company without these expensive programs would be cheaper, right? Exit prevention.)
... inventing a new battery, taming hurricanes, defeating disease... attracting lightning, tunneling it into the autoclave... Frankenstein! Just like he did when he managed the Windows codebase.
This is already European Law (which must be implemented in local laws in al member states). Once sold whithin the EU, you're free to resell your license.
The problem is in the details: if you buy software (i.e. a license to use it), you normally also get a bunch of other rights, like access to updates, maybe even the right to call someone. The law doesn't say that these rights are also transferrable (or transferred). So in most licenses, there's still plenty of "you cannot do this and that (resell, for example), or you will loose the right to such and so".
But the resale of the license to plainly use the software cannot be forbidden by contract in the EU.
The real problem with "classic" RAID is that 1 single error means a total rebuild of the array.
As the Obama healthcare reform is also international news, I read an analysis of the US medical system here in the local newspaper in The Netherlands. The US as a country spends twice as much for it's healthcare as Germany and France, while only 83% of the US Americans have an insurance.
This is because US healthcare is not about health; it is about the caring industry. There's no room for prevention (as there's no profit from prevention), there's only room for Care.
TFA seems just like another example of it.
- speakers so loud, they can demolish buildings
- perfume so strong, you can use it for riot control
- food so nutricious, it will kill you
I mean, what's the use of a flashlight so strong? Ran out of matches, is that it?
Back in 1997 frames and tables were indeed the best way to organize your website for watching it with IE 3.0 or something. The admins aren't slow, they just wait for the right time to publish.
Well, joking. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/01/014821 0 had an article about the first skycar being for sale, but the rebuttals for their technology are to be found in the comments, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163945&cid=136 93215 and http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163945&cid=136 92203 for example (but the others make a good read as well).
We used to not read the article to reply. Well, I admit: this time I didn't listen to it.
A 90% dominant market share is simply wrong and will cause problems in almost any situation.
We've seen bugs that crash the application not getting fixed after a year. Bug reports do not make an application stable.
This is the same spin we've seen before. I've got a news item from last August on paper that says *exactly* the same thing ("Microsoft buigt voor Brussel" - meaning MS gives in). The one-but-latest news came from the EU a couple of weeks ago, saying "You know, these protocols aren't innovative at all, your fee is too high", so now it's MS's turn again: "Hey, we finally open up, here are all our protocols, for a most reasonable fee that we don't exactly know yet".
The lawsuit *is* about the licensing. It is not about the protocols. Saying "you'll get the protocols but we'll define the licensing and the fees next time" is like saying "I will make you rich, and I'll define rich for you".
These days, all I hear is stuff about power consumption of various electronic equipment, stand-by mode or not. Not having the power consumption in a Joe Consumer article sounds pretty useless to me.
It's a common misconception (even among VOIP providers) that you can run modem conversations over VOIP lines. You cannot. Modems rely on a statically behaving line quality. VOIP, by design, will have changing echo, changing line delays (very disturbing for a modem) and even changing sound quality. This will annoy your modem, even at lower baud rates. I've seen setups where even 9600 baud fax receiving would not work, while codec (711u), echo cancellation (off), jitter buffer (low, medium, high, very high), dynamic jitter buffer correction (off) were all carefully tuned. Yes, you could receive some faxes, or almost all, or even hardly any faxes would get lost but you would lose connections at random times - very annoying if your faxed document is large enough. This is with two different VOIP providers, with two different VOIP ATAs, even telling the VOIP company we were going to use the line for faxing and having tech support commenting on our ATA setup. I should add that this was an international operating law firm, so they would receive rather large documents (50+ pages) over international phone lines, which makes it a perfect test setup.
;-)
After a lot of trial-and-error, they chose to get a POTS fax line and all their faxing problems were gone instantly.
There is, however, one exception to the above. You can use the T38 protocol to send faxes over VOIP, but *both* sides should support that. T38 is basically a protocol that interprets the faxing information at the modem (ATA) side, sends it over IP to the provider, who re-creates the buzzing your modem made originally. This also means that T38 is a property of your ATA, not a fax machine property (unless off course you have a real IP fax that has it's own internal SIP configuration). VOIP providers that tell you "your fax should have T38" are wrong - like telling "your car should have asphalt" when you ask if it's safe to drive 50Km/h on a certain road. And here's the caveat: there are not that many VOIP providers that do support T38 - they may not even know what it is, what it does and why you would need it - hence the common "yes, you can fax as long as your fax had T38".
Well, if your VOIP provider tells you your fax should have T38, you can be pretty sure that your fax will not work. And neither will your alarm system. Or your BBS
... I had a faint hope of Intel having a Flash Player 9 for Linux and AMD64 ready. Yes, I feel stupid now, but I'll call it preoccupation.
In some situations, more supply means higher prices, as more supply means more recognition (brands), more fame (music), more compatibility (technical formats, classical example being the fax). This is not to say that classical economics don't work here (they do!), but that you might want to see how things work out for you. For example, your market (i.e. where you make the money) could be concerts, but your "product" (the deliverable) could be music. Your market could be training and support, while your product is a word processor.
Naturally, if the "market" you're going to start is your own and the product is your own as well, you'd think twice before giving any of the two away. I doubt if DRM is the only way to do that, however.
The headlines are wrong. The fine is retroactive to December 15, 2005.
As far as I remember, Microsoft has been calling the OSS community a bunch of hobbyists since the OSS movement appeared on their radar (as a threat, of course). The article agrees, as MS tells "the intention is to reduce the number of licensors [...] to lock out "hobbyists" and other entities that Microsoft doesn't want to have to trouble itself with", the article says this is plain anticompetitive: "I was pretty surprised to hear an executive from Microsoft describe his company's strategy as intentionally anti-competitive and intended solely to freeze out certain classes of operators [...]"
Now we Linux and Mac users from all over the world can try to test the site. That will at least help stress the servers to the point that simply no one will be able to file their requests.
Economists amuse me as well. The only way to deal with starvation is food.