Because his application is time-dependent and yours is not. If his application can't get packets through for thirty seconds, the connection is as good as dead. If you can't get packets through for thirty seconds, you probably don't even notice, and in the long run it doesn't make any difference.
Not my problem. Beside, who knows if my P2P application isn't time-dependent? One could probably make some sort of bittorrent streaming protocol. Also, I might be using some non-standard VoIP protocol that wouldn't receive the same priority just because it's not on the ISP's list. Makes no sense at all.
And the hell with anyone else and what they have paid to do. Yes, I know, the bad guy is the cable company that doesn't provide enough bandwidth so that every customer can get full throughput simultaneously. Because of that, you feel no compulsion to let someone who is doing real-time things get theirs done and over while yours can lag a bit and make no difference.
My ISP do not throttle anything and I can make VoIP calls just fine.
If your VoIP call suck, then switch to a better ISP. I shouldn't have to be throttled so that you be able to call. In the worse case YOU should be throttled, I mean, the 99% of your traffic that isn't VoIP, so that your call be priorized over the rest of your traffic.
They can offer incensitive to move big downloads at night, when the network is not used. They just have to put a data usage cap during peak time. In fact if they did that they could even lower the price instead of inscreasing it.
Let say we both pay $40/month for our internet connection. I use only 1GB P2P/month, and you use only 1GB VoIP/month. We both have no other traffic.
Why should you get priority over me? I paid as much as you and deserve what I paid for, at full speed. If an ISP can't offer unlimited traffic for $40/month, then they only have to put data usage caps (preferably only during peak time since that's when there is congestion). Until I bust my usage cap, I should be able to do what I want without being throttled.
When I buy a text book for $250, do you really think only $15*0.7=$10.50 goes to the authors/correctors/editors and that $239.50 is wasted on paper and printing?
It of course doesn't work this way. There are books with the same number of pages that retail for $40 and probably less.
Asking a maximum price of $15 won't magically reduce the student's final book costs by 70%. If the authors wanted to make only $10.50/book, they could easily sell them in PDF or HTML format on the web for $10.50. No need for Apple, but iPad users could still read them. I am sure they could host it for free on the university's servers so they would have no associated costs. These $250 books will probably be sold in the iBookstore for $15/chapter (circunventing Apple's maximum price), or not sold there at all. Basic economics. You can't force someone to sell something below cost. In the end, since the 30% Apple is asking is probably as much as the cost of paper and printing, the student won't save much, but will be locked into an Apple device.
What makes Lorn Michaels and Michael J. Fox more American than Canadian? If anything, can you not say that American culture is affected by Canadians?
Nothing. There is no distinction between the American and the Canadian culture. Most people just call it the American culture because the USA makes up for 90% of it.
Apple won't pretend it but people will somehow believe it anyway. Just make a pool asking the following question "what was the first 3G phone?". Average joe will answer iPhone 3G. Just like if you ask who made the first touch screen smart phone.
If Apple wanted Facetime to be an open standard they would publish the details somewhere on their web site. Not wait until someone ask for them. Also Facetime requires a certificate that is controlled by Apple.
Apple forked BSD, so they don't care about #1. And it's not as if OS X was to FreeBSD as Ubuntu was to Debian. OS X do not update itself to the latest freeBSD unstable on each release. It was forked once and for good. That do not mean that there is no longer some code sharing but it requires porting. #2 is the same thing as #1 if I undertstand it right #3 do not matter to Apple at all since they never intended to make a standard BSD or a standard Linux. #4 do not matter either as Apple do not use the BSD port system
So only point #5 is valid. And even then, many developpers are paid by corporations to work on both linux and their proprietary stuff, so it can be done too.
Apple gets away with selling a phone that needs a software install (iTunes) in order to talk to the computer. Not sure why LG or Samsung couldn't do the same.
You just described why I didn't buy an Apple phone. Having to install iTunes just to transfer files from phone to PC sucks.
It looks pretty big, and nicely proportioned, like the iPad. I have a Samsung Tab at work and I don't like the long, narrow aspect ratio; I suppose it's OK for watching movies but not so great for reading/browsing, at least in my experience.
You must not like desktop and laptop monitors either. They all are 16:9 or 16:10 these days, just like Android tablets.
Except that everyone can adopt the Android platform while noone can adopt iOS or BBOS. That's why I say that the first one removes fragmentation and the other two add fragmentation to the mobile world.
But just like for religions, languages and cultures in general, more fragmentation isn't always a bad thing. Choice, whether in mobile OS or in tourist destinations, is good.
Fragmentation enablers are those proprietary OSes not licensed to third parties such as iOS and BBOS. If RIM and Apple just died, there would be two less OSes on the market so there would be LESS fragmentation. This just show how stupid the fragmentation argument is.
It seems that you didn't get my point so let me rephrase.
In a world without Android, Samsung, LG, Motorolla, Sony and HTC could each have their own OS. The mobile market would be fragmented between these 6, as well as, say, Apple, RIM and Nokia.
By joining together in a common OS (or 2 OSes if you count Windows Phone 7), these companies reduce fragmentation in the mobile phone world. By keeping their own OS, RIM and Apple creates fragmentation. Developers needs to write their apps for at least 3-4 OS, this is fragmentation. Just like the deskop OS market is fragmented between Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. This is true even if there are slight customization between different Android devices.
I call this choice. Not fragmentation. Choice is good. Apple could stop making iPhones to reduce fragmentation in the mobile world. It would not be a good thing, because it would reduce choice.
Slashdot Mirror
How does Rogers make the distinction between the two? It's just impossible.
Because his application is time-dependent and yours is not. If his application can't get packets through for thirty seconds, the connection is as good as dead. If you can't get packets through for thirty seconds, you probably don't even notice, and in the long run it doesn't make any difference.
Not my problem. Beside, who knows if my P2P application isn't time-dependent? One could probably make some sort of bittorrent streaming protocol.
Also, I might be using some non-standard VoIP protocol that wouldn't receive the same priority just because it's not on the ISP's list. Makes no sense at all.
And the hell with anyone else and what they have paid to do. Yes, I know, the bad guy is the cable company that doesn't provide enough bandwidth so that every customer can get full throughput simultaneously. Because of that, you feel no compulsion to let someone who is doing real-time things get theirs done and over while yours can lag a bit and make no difference.
My ISP do not throttle anything and I can make VoIP calls just fine.
If your VoIP call suck, then switch to a better ISP.
I shouldn't have to be throttled so that you be able to call.
In the worse case YOU should be throttled, I mean, the 99% of your traffic that isn't VoIP, so that your call be priorized over the rest of your traffic.
They can offer incensitive to move big downloads at night, when the network is not used. They just have to put a data usage cap during peak time. In fact if they did that they could even lower the price instead of inscreasing it.
Why?
Let say we both pay $40/month for our internet connection.
I use only 1GB P2P/month, and you use only 1GB VoIP/month. We both have no other traffic.
Why should you get priority over me? I paid as much as you and deserve what I paid for, at full speed.
If an ISP can't offer unlimited traffic for $40/month, then they only have to put data usage caps (preferably only during peak time since that's when there is congestion).
Until I bust my usage cap, I should be able to do what I want without being throttled.
When I buy a text book for $250, do you really think only $15*0.7=$10.50 goes to the authors/correctors/editors and that $239.50 is wasted on paper and printing?
It of course doesn't work this way. There are books with the same number of pages that retail for $40 and probably less.
Asking a maximum price of $15 won't magically reduce the student's final book costs by 70%. If the authors wanted to make only $10.50/book, they could easily sell them in PDF or HTML format on the web for $10.50. No need for Apple, but iPad users could still read them. I am sure they could host it for free on the university's servers so they would have no associated costs.
These $250 books will probably be sold in the iBookstore for $15/chapter (circunventing Apple's maximum price), or not sold there at all. Basic economics. You can't force someone to sell something below cost.
In the end, since the 30% Apple is asking is probably as much as the cost of paper and printing, the student won't save much, but will be locked into an Apple device.
What makes Lorn Michaels and Michael J. Fox more American than Canadian? If anything, can you not say that American culture is affected by Canadians?
Nothing. There is no distinction between the American and the Canadian culture. Most people just call it the American culture because the USA makes up for 90% of it.
Apple won't pretend it but people will somehow believe it anyway.
Just make a pool asking the following question "what was the first 3G phone?". Average joe will answer iPhone 3G.
Just like if you ask who made the first touch screen smart phone.
If Apple wanted Facetime to be an open standard they would publish the details somewhere on their web site. Not wait until someone ask for them.
Also Facetime requires a certificate that is controlled by Apple.
Given that there are still no 3rd party facetime-compatible applications I take it for granted that it would be a loss of time.
video cards are not the best for sound
What is nice with HDMI is that it is digital so the video card do not have to produce analog sound.
So basically it's as "open" as Facetime (which is supposed to be using open standards).
Will it be useful? I mean, will it be locked-down to Apple products only or if it will have a real use?
You mean you will walk right through it?
And yet, they will carry an extra USB key to be able to move their files around.
Java
C
C#
C++
Objective-C
PHP
(Visual)
Python
Perl
JavaScript
Delphi/Object
Ruby
Lisp
Pascal
Transact-SQL
PL/SQL
Ada
Logo
R
Lua
most people are not aware of that extra step however
Apple forked BSD, so they don't care about #1. And it's not as if OS X was to FreeBSD as Ubuntu was to Debian. OS X do not update itself to the latest freeBSD unstable on each release. It was forked once and for good. That do not mean that there is no longer some code sharing but it requires porting.
#2 is the same thing as #1 if I undertstand it right
#3 do not matter to Apple at all since they never intended to make a standard BSD or a standard Linux.
#4 do not matter either as Apple do not use the BSD port system
So only point #5 is valid. And even then, many developpers are paid by corporations to work on both linux and their proprietary stuff, so it can be done too.
Apple gets away with selling a phone that needs a software install (iTunes) in order to talk to the computer. Not sure why LG or Samsung couldn't do the same.
You just described why I didn't buy an Apple phone. Having to install iTunes just to transfer files from phone to PC sucks.
If you don't want to use FAT you can use EXT4. ZFS has some advantages but these are not really important for SD cards.
There's a reason Apple used FreeBSD as their basis for OSX and not Linux.
Of course. And that reason is that they wanted to keep OS X a proprietary OS.
It looks pretty big, and nicely proportioned, like the iPad. I have a Samsung Tab at work and I don't like the long, narrow aspect ratio; I suppose it's OK for watching movies but not so great for reading/browsing, at least in my experience.
You must not like desktop and laptop monitors either. They all are 16:9 or 16:10 these days, just like Android tablets.
Except that everyone can adopt the Android platform while noone can adopt iOS or BBOS.
That's why I say that the first one removes fragmentation and the other two add fragmentation to the mobile world.
But just like for religions, languages and cultures in general, more fragmentation isn't always a bad thing. Choice, whether in mobile OS or in tourist destinations, is good.
Fragmentation enablers are those proprietary OSes not licensed to third parties such as iOS and BBOS.
If RIM and Apple just died, there would be two less OSes on the market so there would be LESS fragmentation.
This just show how stupid the fragmentation argument is.
It seems that you didn't get my point so let me rephrase.
In a world without Android, Samsung, LG, Motorolla, Sony and HTC could each have their own OS. The mobile market would be fragmented between these 6, as well as, say, Apple, RIM and Nokia.
By joining together in a common OS (or 2 OSes if you count Windows Phone 7), these companies reduce fragmentation in the mobile phone world. By keeping their own OS, RIM and Apple creates fragmentation. Developers needs to write their apps for at least 3-4 OS, this is fragmentation. Just like the deskop OS market is fragmented between Windows, Mac OS X and Linux.
This is true even if there are slight customization between different Android devices.
I call this choice. Not fragmentation. Choice is good. Apple could stop making iPhones to reduce fragmentation in the mobile world. It would not be a good thing, because it would reduce choice.