1) Many people won't get and don't need the monitoring on the alarm system (they don't HAVE one)
2) I pay $60 for two lines from Verizon.
3) I pay $50 for a combined loop from Verizon and ISP from Internet America.
4) I don't make many long-distance calls ($50 from AT&T presumes a call volume...)- many people regulate their usage such that they don't have a regular bill for long distance calling.
So, let's re-work those numbers...
Cable Internet (AT&T) - $50
Local telephone (with all the services butv oicemail - Verizon) - $60
Cable television (AT&T - local channels only) $14)
Total for just Cable, Phone, and ISP : $124
Even then, this is kind of extravagant as most people don't have all the features, Cable and/or Cable Internet. Having said this, the amount for that is a very far cry from the $200+ that AOL/TW are grabbing for. Now maybe the bundled deal is nice for those that can afford it, most people will not blow $200+ except the upper middle class and above where the pain of that is not as noticable. (I accept and tolerate the $130 or so I'm spending on things- the $200+ would result in me quickly looking for alternatives such as Dish network and other ISP options.)
Windows is "easy" for many because it's what they are used to. It's not intuitive (Click on "Start" button to shut down machine is not intuitive or "easy) as people keep making it seem to be.
They could patent the improvement possibly, but not the main idea (which is what this patent seems to cover from a read of the copy...). If that is the case, the IBM prior art does invalidate it.
The Internet wouldn't be what it is today without it having been released the way it was. If they tried to profit from the protocols, etc. the thing wouldn't have been much different than the other networks of the day- they'd have not seen the money they think they would have. Basically, that UC Berkley guy's a clueless fool for thinking that it was a mistake and that Berkley would have seen much of anything from it.
They're doing this because they're trying to make these things massive profit centers. Problem is, while colleges can be profitable, they're supposed to be more of an investment in the future, not research mills. But then, we've apparently forgotten a lot of things with the people with money in search of more money.
The person you replied to indicated that the mole may not even be an adressee- if the guy's box has been compromised with netbus or BO2k, etc. then the guy on the controlling end of the backdoor can do just about anything they want, possibly without ever being caught doing it.
It may be the sender's box that's compromised or one of the recipients for this to work, but because it's out in the wild (and assuming it's not a hoax by anyone including MS themselves...) doesn't always mean that the parties violated policy.
Having said this, the likelyhood of the mole being one of the recipients is very high.
It wouldn't help so long as the CPUs couldn't utilize the gigabit bandwidth. Swap out the 100 megabit lan cards for the cheapo gigabit ones for slightly more money- I think you'll find that this cluster's still starved for bandwidth.
Palm bought it to get an advanced OS that they could put in super PDAs and WebPad type systems (supposedly...). Why else would Palm buy the company- to gut it a loss?
"Spending less on buying fewer IP addresses" isn't the real reason for using non-routable blocks for most customers. IPv4 space is running out- slowly but surely. Sure, they can get another class C, possibly a class B block, but that only buys you 254 in the case of the class C and 65534 in the case of the class B- and you're going to pay a premium from the upstream provider for those blocks and justify your usage because there's only a limited number of them available. Right now, if you want the cheap prices, you're going to get a non-routable because the price figure doesn't factor in the cost of having the routable address. Instead of $30-60 per month, expect it to jump to $100-200 per month. In many cases, you are getting what you're paying for.
If they outlaw your ability to even attempt circumvent the challenging preventative measures (Which is what DMCA and SSSCA are all about)- then you effectively don't have fair use rights even though the law allows you them.
That is what school is all about, isn't it? If you're going to teach them about the real world, then perhaps yes, you need to teach them about MS Office, but you also need to teach them about WordPerfect (MS Office doesn't run on Mainframes, but it does- and there is a LOT of places that still use Mainframes in the office context), StarOffice (there's a lot of places out there using that as well- more than you'd like to think), and others.
The real world is less homogenous than you and MS would like for to believe it is. Teaching them just MS Office isn't preparing them for office work- it's preparing them for insisting on a monopolist's product offering. Doing what I suggest would be real training for that.
And, I hold that schools are not for training laborers (office or otherwise)- they're to get everyone on the same common ground of knowlege so that we can work together in many contexts.
Most people will not use the "wealth" of features Office provides. What they use, is already there for Linux. Seems you're missing out on something as I've been using Star Office with MS Office only workplaces for 5 years now without any real issues on my or anyone else's part. "Behind" is a relative term, mister_sparkle, and I've seen Office XP and wasn't impressed- the offerings are less behind than what you think.
How many of them are there out there? Name a few truly independent labels that are on store shelves.
Not a lot of them is there?
Tell me again that they had much of a choice- no, nobody forced them to do anything. Neither did the sweatshop workers of the past- they could have not worked effective slave labor hours, etc. for a pittance.
And, BTW, the big labels DO have an effective monopoly- they have over 90% of a given market between them. The smaller players don't matter for the most part and don't really have an impact on things.
And they'd better be careful of games like that- too big of a price spike and nobody will really buy memory. If nobody really buys memory, they don't make the profits they thought of, etc. I suspect that memory will maybe go up half again or double itself in price, but not too much more than that. It'll push things out of control the other way for them.
3 Acre plot of land; 3-4 machines needing to be networked but with 500 foot separations and metal buildings in the way; power comes in via a central pole with no pole pigs between the house wireups.
Yes, Ethernet would be faster, but for this one, you'd have to resort to shielded cable or step down to 10-base-2 (which is getting really hard to find). Even then, you'd end up with this really iffy setup at best.
Expand your horizons at least a little bit- not everything is best served by wireline Ethernet networking.
You have a 2 story house. Now, you can go through the fun of running cat-5 throughout (which can be very entertaining given that the builders can do all kinds of FUN things in the floor joists, etc.) or you can use a wireless or powerline solution to bridge the two floors of your house. Wireless leaves you open to drive-by hackings. Powerline might be a good idea in this context. Another one that's a good idea would be my inlaw's property where they have a central phoneline and several buildings that have computers needing to get to the Internet. Wireless won't work because there's metal buildings all in the way- no clean line of sight pathways.
Like online games, you WILL have to subscribe to Passport as it stands now- and you WILL have to fill in the right info or it's called 'credit fraud' and you could get prosecuted over it.
Technically, yes. But it's not the whole constituents of the gas- it's got propane, butane, ethane, etc. in it. The bulk is methane, but there's more to it than that.
You're talking local versus server context. In the case of a local file, MS and Windows "KNOW" that it's not an executable because of extention. However, if the server tells the browser it's something completely different, it'll do it's level best to try to carry out the cuing from the server- i.e. if it swears it's an aplication of the type MS understands, it'll try to run it, even if the extention is ".txt". At least that is my understanding of the flaw in the browser.
Could be that the ones that DID know about it didn't say anything. How would you have known? Security through obscurity may "work" but there's no audit checks to determine if it does or not unless someone aggressively uses a security flaw.
While we were in Edinburgh, we went into one that was about a block off of Queen Street in Edinburgh. While the area where we were in was something that tourists would have enjoyed being, it seemed that a substantive number (definitely more than 50%) were locals with all the brogues and british accents that were present.
While it's not a representative sample by any stretch, it does disprove your generalization.
I expected to find at least a couple of MacDonalds in the UK (I went out of my way to avoid them for the most part) but when we broke down and went into one to get some soft drinks and a snack in Edinburgh, we didn't expect it to be quite as busy as it was. (Oh, one had to wonder what was going on in their heads with that "Silver Straw" contest...)
Slashdot Mirror
1) Many people won't get and don't need the monitoring on the alarm system (they don't HAVE one)
2) I pay $60 for two lines from Verizon.
3) I pay $50 for a combined loop from Verizon and ISP from Internet America.
4) I don't make many long-distance calls ($50 from AT&T presumes a call volume...)- many people regulate their usage such that they don't have a regular bill for long distance calling.
So, let's re-work those numbers...
Cable Internet (AT&T) - $50
Local telephone (with all the services butv oicemail - Verizon) - $60
Cable television (AT&T - local channels only) $14)
Total for just Cable, Phone, and ISP : $124
Even then, this is kind of extravagant as most people don't have all the features, Cable and/or Cable Internet. Having said this, the amount for that is a very far cry from the $200+ that AOL/TW are grabbing for. Now maybe the bundled deal is nice for those that can afford it, most people will not blow $200+ except the upper middle class and above where the pain of that is not as noticable. (I accept and tolerate the $130 or so I'm spending on things- the $200+ would result in me quickly looking for alternatives such as Dish network and other ISP options.)
Windows is "easy" for many because it's what they are used to. It's not intuitive (Click on "Start" button to shut down machine is not intuitive or "easy) as people keep making it seem to be.
They could patent the improvement possibly, but not the main idea (which is what this patent seems to cover from a read of the copy...). If that is the case, the IBM prior art does invalidate it.
The Internet wouldn't be what it is today without it having been released the way it was. If they tried to profit from the protocols, etc. the thing wouldn't have been much different than the other networks of the day- they'd have not seen the money they think they would have. Basically, that UC Berkley guy's a clueless fool for thinking that it was a mistake and that Berkley would have seen much of anything from it.
They're doing this because they're trying to make these things massive profit centers. Problem is, while colleges can be profitable, they're supposed to be more of an investment in the future, not research mills. But then, we've apparently forgotten a lot of things with the people with money in search of more money.
I mean, if they're rousting people, perhaps it's time to see who they're cracking the whip over and show them a better way of doing things.
The person you replied to indicated that the mole may not even be an adressee- if the guy's box has been compromised with netbus or BO2k, etc. then the guy on the controlling end of the backdoor can do just about anything they want, possibly without ever being caught doing it.
It may be the sender's box that's compromised or one of the recipients for this to work, but because it's out in the wild (and assuming it's not a hoax by anyone including MS themselves...) doesn't always mean that the parties violated policy.
Having said this, the likelyhood of the mole being one of the recipients is very high.
It wouldn't help so long as the CPUs couldn't utilize the gigabit bandwidth. Swap out the 100 megabit lan cards for the cheapo gigabit ones for slightly more money- I think you'll find that this cluster's still starved for bandwidth.
Palm bought it to get an advanced OS that they could put in super PDAs and WebPad type systems (supposedly...). Why else would Palm buy the company- to gut it a loss?
"Spending less on buying fewer IP addresses" isn't the real reason for using non-routable blocks for most customers. IPv4 space is running out- slowly but surely. Sure, they can get another class C, possibly a class B block, but that only buys you 254 in the case of the class C and 65534 in the case of the class B- and you're going to pay a premium from the upstream provider for those blocks and justify your usage because there's only a limited number of them available. Right now, if you want the cheap prices, you're going to get a non-routable because the price figure doesn't factor in the cost of having the routable address. Instead of $30-60 per month, expect it to jump to $100-200 per month. In many cases, you are getting what you're paying for.
If they outlaw your ability to even attempt circumvent the challenging preventative measures (Which is what DMCA and SSSCA are all about)- then you effectively don't have fair use rights even though the law allows you them.
It only does one. Think of VNC under Windows as more of a Carbon Copy replacement (which it does a fairly good job of...).
That is what school is all about, isn't it? If you're going to teach them about the real world, then perhaps yes, you need to teach them about MS Office, but you also need to teach them about WordPerfect (MS Office doesn't run on Mainframes, but it does- and there is a LOT of places that still use Mainframes in the office context), StarOffice (there's a lot of places out there using that as well- more than you'd like to think), and others.
The real world is less homogenous than you and MS would like for to believe it is. Teaching them just MS Office isn't preparing them for office work- it's preparing them for insisting on a monopolist's product offering. Doing what I suggest would be real training for that.
And, I hold that schools are not for training laborers (office or otherwise)- they're to get everyone on the same common ground of knowlege so that we can work together in many contexts.
Most people will not use the "wealth" of features Office provides. What they use, is already there for Linux. Seems you're missing out on something as I've been using Star Office with MS Office only workplaces for 5 years now without any real issues on my or anyone else's part. "Behind" is a relative term, mister_sparkle, and I've seen Office XP and wasn't impressed- the offerings are less behind than what you think.
How many of them are there out there? Name a few truly independent labels that are on store shelves.
Not a lot of them is there?
Tell me again that they had much of a choice- no, nobody forced them to do anything. Neither did the sweatshop workers of the past- they could have not worked effective slave labor hours, etc. for a pittance.
And, BTW, the big labels DO have an effective monopoly- they have over 90% of a given market between them. The smaller players don't matter for the most part and don't really have an impact on things.
And they'd better be careful of games like that- too big of a price spike and nobody will really buy memory. If nobody really buys memory, they don't make the profits they thought of, etc. I suspect that memory will maybe go up half again or double itself in price, but not too much more than that. It'll push things out of control the other way for them.
Ethernet doesn't work everywhere.
3 Acre plot of land; 3-4 machines needing to be networked but with 500 foot separations and metal buildings in the way; power comes in via a central pole with no pole pigs between the house wireups.
Yes, Ethernet would be faster, but for this one, you'd have to resort to shielded cable or step down to 10-base-2 (which is getting really hard to find). Even then, you'd end up with this really iffy setup at best.
Expand your horizons at least a little bit- not everything is best served by wireline Ethernet networking.
You have a 2 story house. Now, you can go through the fun of running cat-5 throughout (which can be very entertaining given that the builders can do all kinds of FUN things in the floor joists, etc.) or you can use a wireless or powerline solution to bridge the two floors of your house. Wireless leaves you open to drive-by hackings. Powerline might be a good idea in this context. Another one that's a good idea would be my inlaw's property where they have a central phoneline and several buildings that have computers needing to get to the Internet. Wireless won't work because there's metal buildings all in the way- no clean line of sight pathways.
About all I can say here on that.
Like online games, you WILL have to subscribe to Passport as it stands now- and you WILL have to fill in the right info or it's called 'credit fraud' and you could get prosecuted over it.
Technically, yes. But it's not the whole constituents of the gas- it's got propane, butane, ethane, etc. in it. The bulk is methane, but there's more to it than that.
You're talking local versus server context. In the case of a local file, MS and Windows "KNOW" that it's not an executable because of extention. However, if the server tells the browser it's something completely different, it'll do it's level best to try to carry out the cuing from the server- i.e. if it swears it's an aplication of the type MS understands, it'll try to run it, even if the extention is ".txt". At least that is my understanding of the flaw in the browser.
Could be that the ones that DID know about it didn't say anything. How would you have known? Security through obscurity may "work" but there's no audit checks to determine if it does or not unless someone aggressively uses a security flaw.
While we were in Edinburgh, we went into one that was about a block off of Queen Street in Edinburgh. While the area where we were in was something that tourists would have enjoyed being, it seemed that a substantive number (definitely more than 50%) were locals with all the brogues and british accents that were present.
While it's not a representative sample by any stretch, it does disprove your generalization.
I expected to find at least a couple of MacDonalds in the UK (I went out of my way to avoid them for the most part) but when we broke down and went into one to get some soft drinks and a snack in Edinburgh, we didn't expect it to be quite as busy as it was. (Oh, one had to wonder what was going on in their heads with that "Silver Straw" contest...)