I realize that any individual on the planet has the right to an opinion (some governments do not allow this right). But globally, what right does a corporation have to publish an opinion, and whose opinion gets published (CEO, stockholders, etc.)?
Assuming that a corporation does not have the same rights of speech that an individual does (treading on very thin ice here since I'm too tired to do the research right now), how the heck does microscrew expect their stupid commentary to influence anything? (Insert flames here)
Yes, Australia does have some interesting (and wrong) policies, but where does microscrew get the right to tell a sovereign what to do?
Gates: Hey France, you have less than 95% microscrew usage. Pick it up or we will install a virus into all your wine.
France: Shove it.
Gates: Licenses just jumped up 300%. Hahahaha.
Well, depends. For long haul single modes is the only way to go. Comparing the cost of moderately cheaper multimode plus all those repeaters vs. the mederately higher price for single mode minus the cost of all those repeaters... single mode wins easily.
Do you really think that telcos run thousands of strands across the Atlantic?!?!?!! Think about repair costs!
Of all that is good and holy please mod this one up. Even here it seems that there is the assumption that web='net. Silly youngsters.
Besides, no matter how freaky it gets, there will be ways around it (unless we end up in some kinda military state- gotta love the 2nd Amendment in that case!)
How about we return to the 'net ala 1993, before the web was abundant? Lots o' fun at alt.talk.bizarre, but no jpgs? Nah. So Joe Artist can't find his way out of an IP bag, but now I get to view his kick-ass monkey photos- I'll take kick-ass monkeys any day!
Yes, we have to drive through the drivel, but the odds are that with more people, there will be more good stuff out there (unless good stuff equals only geek stuff in your opinion).
I don't know how old the average/.er is, but back in the 80's pretty much no one would even be able to conceive a concept such as the web, much less start bitching about it. "I can view pieces of art I would never get to see in real life, except for buying a book? But I have to deal with some stupid marketing messages everyday? I think I can deal with the stupid messages, I already throw out postal mail junk already."
10k years ago or so, barbarism meant that as you were hunting a rabbit, some mean guy with a club ended up eating you. You had to face these mean, club-wielding guys once in a while or not eat.
Fast forward 10k years- a digital barbarian with a club jumps out of my modem at eats me? Nope. Yes, we all love the 'net, but we don't NEED it to survive.
Yes, I understand the thin analogy being proposed, but I seem to come across an increasing amount of bad analogies.
As for topic- in recorded history there tends to be a cycle for governments- either get more repressive over time or get more indulgent over time. This tends to lead to revolution or invasion, respectively. In the US, we seem to be headed towards repression, but at least this time there are some who recognize this trend and are fighting against it. This fight extends into the 'net.
(BTW, my first/. post! Please be kind in the forthcoming spanking!)
Slashdot Mirror
For reference, I'm not an Aussie (proudly USA).
One thing that has not been addressed..
I realize that any individual on the planet has the right to an opinion (some governments do not allow this right). But globally, what right does a corporation have to publish an opinion, and whose opinion gets published (CEO, stockholders, etc.)?
Assuming that a corporation does not have the same rights of speech that an individual does (treading on very thin ice here since I'm too tired to do the research right now), how the heck does microscrew expect their stupid commentary to influence anything? (Insert flames here)
Yes, Australia does have some interesting (and wrong) policies, but where does microscrew get the right to tell a sovereign what to do?
Gates: Hey France, you have less than 95% microscrew usage. Pick it up or we will install a virus into all your wine.
France: Shove it.
Gates: Licenses just jumped up 300%. Hahahaha.
Is it possible to hit -5? Really. Please. AC dumb ass.
Just request a SLA (service level agreement) on bandwidth and availability (uptime).
"not down for more than 48 hours"- please, for this kind of connection you should be talking about 3 hours or so! OC-3= a whole lotta funk!
Mod request from an AC? Interesting.
Well, depends. For long haul single modes is the only way to go. Comparing the cost of moderately cheaper multimode plus all those repeaters vs. the mederately higher price for single mode minus the cost of all those repeaters... single mode wins easily.
Do you really think that telcos run thousands of strands across the Atlantic?!?!?!! Think about repair costs!
Single mode can run much further than multimode at the same dB loss and bandwidth. Cost is more (harder to make single mode).
Hope this helps.
I'm thinking that some of this may be competition based- "My box completed 300 units, how many has yours?"
:)
This coming from a seti user with 35 units....
... the psychological analysis is staggering!
Of all that is good and holy please mod this one up. Even here it seems that there is the assumption that web='net. Silly youngsters.
Besides, no matter how freaky it gets, there will be ways around it (unless we end up in some kinda military state- gotta love the 2nd Amendment in that case!)
How about we return to the 'net ala 1993, before the web was abundant? Lots o' fun at alt.talk.bizarre, but no jpgs? Nah. So Joe Artist can't find his way out of an IP bag, but now I get to view his kick-ass monkey photos- I'll take kick-ass monkeys any day! Yes, we have to drive through the drivel, but the odds are that with more people, there will be more good stuff out there (unless good stuff equals only geek stuff in your opinion). I don't know how old the average /.er is, but back in the 80's pretty much no one would even be able to conceive a concept such as the web, much less start bitching about it. "I can view pieces of art I would never get to see in real life, except for buying a book? But I have to deal with some stupid marketing messages everyday? I think I can deal with the stupid messages, I already throw out postal mail junk already."
This hurts my head.
/. post! Please be kind in the forthcoming spanking!)
10k years ago or so, barbarism meant that as you were hunting a rabbit, some mean guy with a club ended up eating you. You had to face these mean, club-wielding guys once in a while or not eat.
Fast forward 10k years- a digital barbarian with a club jumps out of my modem at eats me? Nope. Yes, we all love the 'net, but we don't NEED it to survive.
Yes, I understand the thin analogy being proposed, but I seem to come across an increasing amount of bad analogies.
As for topic- in recorded history there tends to be a cycle for governments- either get more repressive over time or get more indulgent over time. This tends to lead to revolution or invasion, respectively. In the US, we seem to be headed towards repression, but at least this time there are some who recognize this trend and are fighting against it. This fight extends into the 'net.
(BTW, my first