Evidently you've not shopped for a laser printer recently. Toner isn't any cheaper. I think they migrated the laser printers to inkjet printer model some time ago. Cost of toner cartridge today can go over a hundred dollars easily. Some manufacturers even have built in page counters on toner cartridges that would refuse to print once certain page count is reached, irrespective of the actual amount of toner remaining in the cartridge.
The cost per page for toner is less than the cost per page for ink. For example, this HP ink cartridge costs 4.4 cents per page, while this HP toner cartridge costs 1.3 cents per page.
In that case, it's worthless. A different guess, and no less reasonable, is that Apple has decided the iPad's TTS feature is no different than Acrobat Reader's "Read Out Loud" feature or the TTS software that ships with Windows. Do authors get to sue Adobe or Microsoft just because Acrobat Reader and Windows can read out loud any text the computer can recognize? If not, why is Apple any different?
Starting next year Cleveland residents face paying a $100 fine if they don't recycle, and the city's new high-tech trash cans will keep track if they don't. The new cans are embedded with radio frequency identification chips and bar codes which keep track of how often residents take them to the curb. If the chip shows you haven't brought your recycle can out in a while, a lucky trash supervisor will go through your can looking for recyclables.
I expect there's no legal requirement to actually put out recyclables every so many days, but only that your regular trash may not consist of more than 10% recyclables, right? If so, what I'd do in that position -- purely out of spite -- is to do my own recycling, thus preventing the city from making money on my recyclables (and on the effort it takes for me to separate my trash) while the city gets to waste money on checking trash bags that never contain any recyclables.
That's why I mentioned VOIP as an example of a protocol ISPs would want to prioritize. Since no ISP is likely to keep track of all applications and protocols that call for low latency, giving preferential access on a per-protocol or per-application basis becomes a matter of playing favorites, which is precisely what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.
but will swallow all the available bandwidth, given the chance & prevent low latency protocols from working as intended
Then come up with an application-agnostic QoS scheme that lets the application itself decide whether it needs low latency, and further limit each customer's connection to prevent any one user from hogging the entire pipe. If you can't do that then stop advertising bandwidth you're obviously not equipped to provide.
Yes, there are some nitwits who try and conflate net neutrality as being in conflict with QoS or Tiered ISP service levels like offering (slower lite vs regular vs higher speed connections), etc, etc, but that's not the "net neutrality" that net neutrality advocates are interested in.
Having read an online post where the owner of an ISP bragged about slowing down P2P connections and laughed about customers thinking the problem was on the peer's end rather than on the ISPs end, I tend to take a more expansive view of the concept of net neutrality. Call me a nitwit, if you will, but I think the concept of neutrality should also prohibit those kinds of shady behaviors. Go ahead and use QoS to ensure equitable access to bandwidth for all your customers, but don't cripple certain protocols under the guise of improving quality of service for others.
Generalize QoS, you idiot. If the packet is marked to reduce latency, respect that, out to some cap per month or so. That way, it doesn't matter if it's a game or SSH.
Exactly. If we let ISPs decide for us which packets are more important than others, what's to stop them from favoring popular games while ignoring the rest? It's not as if all games use the same protocol, so instead of optimizing the network for particular applications or protocols, why not optimize it based on particular needs?
This prioritizing of gaming traffic would be illegal if Net Neutrality existed.
Would that be such a bad thing? Instead of prioritizing gaming traffic over other kinds of traffic, or doing the same for VOIP, or YouTube, or whatever else an ISP decides is more important than other protocols, why not adopt a QoS scheme that ensures equitable access to available bandwidth while allowing customers to set their own priorities within those equitable access constraints?
I don't think even today's systems have enough memory to load an entire megatexture into memory. Remember that Carmack is using megatextures to provide terrain detail, so the texture can get pretty huge. Then again, I don't think Carmack has ever released any technical details on megatextures, so I could be wrong.
Right. Apple provides installed access to the UNIX terminal underlying the OS, includes an X server on the install DVD so you can run most (free) UNIX software with a simple recompile, and also puts their development suite, including full documentation, on the install DVD so you can do that recompile, or write some apps of your own.
Very locked down.
I didn't say Mac OS X was locked down as tightly as the iPhone. I only wondered how long it might take Apple to lock it down so it can only run software that's been approved by Apple. As for being locked down in general, do please point me to non-Apple hardware that will run Mac OS X without first having to defeat the operating system's protections against running it on non-Apple hardware.
Otherwise, I don't recall the Mac platform being any more locked down than Windows and while it's not as open as Linux, a lot more of it has been open sourced than Windows.
The Mac platform comprises both hardware and software, and Mac OS X is tied to Apple's hardware through artificial means. It's not as locked down as the iPhone, where you can't even run any software without Apple's approval, but it's still more locked down than the PC platform.
Seriously.. the laptops available for Windows fucking suck. They're shit. They're all shit since IBM sold Thinkpad to Lenovo. Dell makes shit. HP makes shit.
Aren't much of a Mac's guts made by the same companies that make the guts for the likes of Dell?
Apple has always dominated the K-12 school market. What's new here is that students themselves are often choosing Apple over Microsoft, at least in the case of those who were surveyed.
And switching from one monopoly with crappy products to another potential monopoly with ok products is to be debated.
Microsoft (a software company) has a near-total monopoly on the PC OS market, while Apple (a hardware company) has an absolutely total monopoly on the Apple-compatible computer market and is quite litigious about getting rid of its competitors.
Apple sells image to its users, and image sells product to the young. Apple is cool (or whatever term kids use for "cool" these days), while PCs are not. Nevermind that Apple is even worse than Microsoft when it comes to keeping its users on a leash, because Apple computers are young and hip (or whatever terms are used for "young" and "hip" these days -- heh) and they aren't Microsoft.
PS - I wonder how long it will take Apple to lock down the Mac platform as tightly as the iPhone platform.
... and having people who are inclined to sympathize with people rather than arcane precedents is a good thing.
"Inclined to sympathize with people" is a meaningless phrase in this context, as every court decision favors one person's claim against another's (and you can sympathize with either side). Even when the other side is the government or a corporation, there are always real people affected regardless of which way the court decides a case. The "arcane precedents" you speak of may often be cold and rational rather than emotionally sympathetic, but that's not necessarily a bad thing -- courts should never allow emotion to get in the way of justice when justice and emotion are in conflict.
All this talk about easements is very misleading. An ISP with direct connections to other ISPs already has deals in place with those ISPs covering how traffic between them should be billed. Any data coming from ISPs with no direct connection to the first must ultimately pass through the networks of those who do have a direct connection, in which case the traffic is covered by whatever peering arrangement is already in place between the directly-connected ISPs. At no point is any kind of easement involved, because an ISP only ever connects to those of its peers with which it has a business relationship while other ISPs have similar relationships with those they are themselves connected to.
- ISP A peers with ISP B. - ISP B peers with ISP C. - ISP A does not peer with ISP C. - Traffic between ISP C and ISP A passes through ISP B. - There are therefore two channels: A <--> B and B <--> C, both of which are covered by existing peering arrangements and neither of which becomes an easement simply because the government tells A it cannot discriminate against C for not having a contract specifically with A.
Only 13 percent of the professors surveyed said they used blogs in teaching; 12 percent had tried videoconferencing; and 13 percent gave interactive quizzes using 'clickers,' or TV-remotelike devices that let students respond and get feedback instantaneously.
You forgot Twitter. You can't have a proper classroom without Twitter!
Indeed, it's only the third world--Africa, parts of Latin America, small island areas like Micronesia--which will certainly be negatively impacted. And while the humanitarian in me says, "It would be nice to help them," the realist in me says "Our civilizations got to the next level first. If the unadvanced civilizations wither away so that the advanced can prosper, that's how it should be."
The little humanitarian inside you appears rather weak and malnourished. Indeed, you're probably breaking a number of international treaties concerning the humane treatment of inner humanitarians.
... liberals are ONLY concerned with the man-made "portion" of the effect...
Perhaps because it's rather difficult to convince the non-human portion of the need to prevent global warming?
Also, why is opposition to anthropogenic climate change a "liberal" characteristic? While it's certainly a trait of conservative extremists to oppose any notion that threatens the pursuit of insane profits (and damn the consequences), politics ultimately have nothing to do with whether humans are responsible for significant, harmful changes to our planet's climate. "Global warming" isn't a liberal issue, but a human issue.
So basically you prefer a giant union of 300 million people that you're forced to join and be represented by before being allowed to work anywhere.
Are you suggesting I'm not "allowed to work anywhere" in the United States without first joining the ruling political party? That's just silly.
I object to any law forcing me to join or be represented by any kind of private entity, and that includes unions. I do not object to passing laws that require employers to treat employees fairly, provided those laws are fair and reasonable and do not merely reflect the whims of the majority.
How do you think such specific legislation comes into being? Through political lobbying.
Are you suggesting only unions can successfully lobby for employee rights?
I don't deny unions do often lead to positive results, but the fact remains they can be awfully bureaucratic and will in some cases act against the interests of individual employees who may nevertheless have no choice but to be represented by a particular union (just Google "sole bargaining agent" and "national labor relations act").
I realize that many people in IT-related fields especially in the US have some subconscious aversion against unions, but maybe it's time for you to become realistic..
What you see as a "subconscious aversion" I see as conscious and rational aversion to the negative aspects of union-dominated workplaces. As for becoming "realistic", unless you can explain exactly how my views are unrealistic I'll just dismiss it as an empty attack devoid of any real meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
The cost per page for toner is less than the cost per page for ink. For example, this HP ink cartridge costs 4.4 cents per page, while this HP toner cartridge costs 1.3 cents per page.
In that case, it's worthless. A different guess, and no less reasonable, is that Apple has decided the iPad's TTS feature is no different than Acrobat Reader's "Read Out Loud" feature or the TTS software that ships with Windows. Do authors get to sue Adobe or Microsoft just because Acrobat Reader and Windows can read out loud any text the computer can recognize? If not, why is Apple any different?
I expect there's no legal requirement to actually put out recyclables every so many days, but only that your regular trash may not consist of more than 10% recyclables, right? If so, what I'd do in that position -- purely out of spite -- is to do my own recycling, thus preventing the city from making money on my recyclables (and on the effort it takes for me to separate my trash) while the city gets to waste money on checking trash bags that never contain any recyclables.
The ISP guy bragged about slowing down P2P traffic to practically unusable levels, not even taking available bandwidth into account.
He knows he's guilty, but he thinks that if he lies often enough then people will believe that he's innocent. He's a pathological liar.
That's why I mentioned VOIP as an example of a protocol ISPs would want to prioritize. Since no ISP is likely to keep track of all applications and protocols that call for low latency, giving preferential access on a per-protocol or per-application basis becomes a matter of playing favorites, which is precisely what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.
Then come up with an application-agnostic QoS scheme that lets the application itself decide whether it needs low latency, and further limit each customer's connection to prevent any one user from hogging the entire pipe. If you can't do that then stop advertising bandwidth you're obviously not equipped to provide.
Having read an online post where the owner of an ISP bragged about slowing down P2P connections and laughed about customers thinking the problem was on the peer's end rather than on the ISPs end, I tend to take a more expansive view of the concept of net neutrality. Call me a nitwit, if you will, but I think the concept of neutrality should also prohibit those kinds of shady behaviors. Go ahead and use QoS to ensure equitable access to bandwidth for all your customers, but don't cripple certain protocols under the guise of improving quality of service for others.
Exactly. If we let ISPs decide for us which packets are more important than others, what's to stop them from favoring popular games while ignoring the rest? It's not as if all games use the same protocol, so instead of optimizing the network for particular applications or protocols, why not optimize it based on particular needs?
Would that be such a bad thing? Instead of prioritizing gaming traffic over other kinds of traffic, or doing the same for VOIP, or YouTube, or whatever else an ISP decides is more important than other protocols, why not adopt a QoS scheme that ensures equitable access to available bandwidth while allowing customers to set their own priorities within those equitable access constraints?
I don't think even today's systems have enough memory to load an entire megatexture into memory. Remember that Carmack is using megatextures to provide terrain detail, so the texture can get pretty huge. Then again, I don't think Carmack has ever released any technical details on megatextures, so I could be wrong.
It turns out if you don't shut your mind while reading my posts you can see I am in fact talking about Apple computers.
I didn't say Mac OS X was locked down as tightly as the iPhone. I only wondered how long it might take Apple to lock it down so it can only run software that's been approved by Apple. As for being locked down in general, do please point me to non-Apple hardware that will run Mac OS X without first having to defeat the operating system's protections against running it on non-Apple hardware.
What do you mean sound like?
The Mac platform comprises both hardware and software, and Mac OS X is tied to Apple's hardware through artificial means. It's not as locked down as the iPhone, where you can't even run any software without Apple's approval, but it's still more locked down than the PC platform.
Aren't much of a Mac's guts made by the same companies that make the guts for the likes of Dell?
Apple has always dominated the K-12 school market. What's new here is that students themselves are often choosing Apple over Microsoft, at least in the case of those who were surveyed.
Microsoft (a software company) has a near-total monopoly on the PC OS market, while Apple (a hardware company) has an absolutely total monopoly on the Apple-compatible computer market and is quite litigious about getting rid of its competitors.
Apple sells image to its users, and image sells product to the young. Apple is cool (or whatever term kids use for "cool" these days), while PCs are not. Nevermind that Apple is even worse than Microsoft when it comes to keeping its users on a leash, because Apple computers are young and hip (or whatever terms are used for "young" and "hip" these days -- heh) and they aren't Microsoft.
PS - I wonder how long it will take Apple to lock down the Mac platform as tightly as the iPhone platform.
"Inclined to sympathize with people" is a meaningless phrase in this context, as every court decision favors one person's claim against another's (and you can sympathize with either side). Even when the other side is the government or a corporation, there are always real people affected regardless of which way the court decides a case. The "arcane precedents" you speak of may often be cold and rational rather than emotionally sympathetic, but that's not necessarily a bad thing -- courts should never allow emotion to get in the way of justice when justice and emotion are in conflict.
All this talk about easements is very misleading. An ISP with direct connections to other ISPs already has deals in place with those ISPs covering how traffic between them should be billed. Any data coming from ISPs with no direct connection to the first must ultimately pass through the networks of those who do have a direct connection, in which case the traffic is covered by whatever peering arrangement is already in place between the directly-connected ISPs. At no point is any kind of easement involved, because an ISP only ever connects to those of its peers with which it has a business relationship while other ISPs have similar relationships with those they are themselves connected to.
- ISP A peers with ISP B.
- ISP B peers with ISP C.
- ISP A does not peer with ISP C.
- Traffic between ISP C and ISP A passes through ISP B.
- There are therefore two channels: A <--> B and B <--> C, both of which are covered by existing peering arrangements and neither of which becomes an easement simply because the government tells A it cannot discriminate against C for not having a contract specifically with A.
You forgot Twitter. You can't have a proper classroom without Twitter!
The little humanitarian inside you appears rather weak and malnourished. Indeed, you're probably breaking a number of international treaties concerning the humane treatment of inner humanitarians.
Perhaps because it's rather difficult to convince the non-human portion of the need to prevent global warming?
Also, why is opposition to anthropogenic climate change a "liberal" characteristic? While it's certainly a trait of conservative extremists to oppose any notion that threatens the pursuit of insane profits (and damn the consequences), politics ultimately have nothing to do with whether humans are responsible for significant, harmful changes to our planet's climate. "Global warming" isn't a liberal issue, but a human issue.
Amazing! Simply ama...
Are you suggesting I'm not "allowed to work anywhere" in the United States without first joining the ruling political party? That's just silly.
I object to any law forcing me to join or be represented by any kind of private entity, and that includes unions. I do not object to passing laws that require employers to treat employees fairly, provided those laws are fair and reasonable and do not merely reflect the whims of the majority.
Are you suggesting only unions can successfully lobby for employee rights?
I don't deny unions do often lead to positive results, but the fact remains they can be awfully bureaucratic and will in some cases act against the interests of individual employees who may nevertheless have no choice but to be represented by a particular union (just Google "sole bargaining agent" and "national labor relations act").
What you see as a "subconscious aversion" I see as conscious and rational aversion to the negative aspects of union-dominated workplaces. As for becoming "realistic", unless you can explain exactly how my views are unrealistic I'll just dismiss it as an empty attack devoid of any real meaning.