Maybe Apple should pay Nokia's patent royalties first before they go bullying others?
Is that still in litigation?
Too bad the mobile phone industry is a small one, everyone of the existing players cross-license between each one and ass behaving Apple is in serious trouble if the other companies stop licensing their technology.
This isn't aimed at HTC; it's aimed at Google. Don't kid yourself. To whom, is Google paying license fees?
I understand yours....sarcasm was mine for the green alchemy jobs push so talked about in Washington these days. Corn Ethanol is a non-starter. Wind energy can't provide enough; yes, it can supplement, but not be a primary source. The prescribed solution for lighting, CFLs, are rapidly being overtaken by white LEDs developed by private sources. When I was in Sam's Club last week, there were all sorts of LED arrays on sale for just a few bucks more than the comparable CFLs.
Nuclear energy works. 2nd-generation hybrids (direct electric drive, with supplemental generator backup, like the Chevy Volt) will most likely work. Little of the other stuff does work, yet it's being touted as a revolutionary job-creator. Good luck with that.
As opposed to "green" technologies that are difficult, and don't work....? This is one of the few good things Obama's gotten behind. At the same time, the regulatory red tape instituted over the last 50 years guarantee that none of this work will be completed by the time re-election rolls around.
You can spend more money on an even faster system for myth. But its just money down the drain, unless you're doing something totally exotic with high def, or trying to do more than five things at once like Yeechang, or attempting to do dual simultaneous displays, or trying to run a backend on the frontend machine, etc.
Pretty much true. I have a frontend-only host that does fine with MythTV high-def (1080i OTA). Where it falls hard is playing flash. YouTube HD stuff is passable, but Hulu is an exercise in futility.
Was trying to RTFA, but it appears to be slashdotted. First page doesn't tell much.:-(
Was considering moving to a Conroe-based CPU replacement, hoping that would fix the problems. Might be worth the ~$50 they're running now. Probably would run cooler, at least.
Let me guess....you do not have, and have never had a girlfriend.
Anyway, this talk at Shmoocon opened my eyes quite a bit. Users jailbreak their iPhones for whatever reason, then leave them flagging insecure on the network. While AT&T have taken steps to mitigate some of the vulnerabilities introduced by n00bs pwning their iphonez, it's still not 100%.
Think your cable company would still let you buy their on-demand shiat if you'd rooted your cable box? How about Windows Update and Microsoft?
It's not like Android is really that open a platform, and it wouldn't surprise me if other carriers start doing similar things to rooted Android devices.
The iPhone is a wonderful device that works fine for 90% of the users, just as it's supposed to. This feigned outrage at Apple is disgusting.
Golden parachutes aren't a Republican phenomena, and the Silicon Valley tech companies aren't exactly fertile ground for the GOP as far as fundraising goes.
Nor is rewarding mediocrity limited to the upper-echelons of society (see: Detroit).
What the author did get right is that the boards of directors make these decisions. In companies where a scant few hold lots of sway, they look out for themselves instead of the working minions. Think Carl Ichan ever got a raw deal on a company he came in and dismantled?
The fixes are simple, but neither political party has the political will to do it. The tax reforms in 1986 allowed most of this, and it benefits wealthy interests (read: donors) on both sides of the aisle. Think Bear Stearns was a high-time GOP operation? How about Fannie and Freddie?
1. Tax stock options as regular compensation, taxed at normal income tax rates. Tax it at the stock's full price on the day the option is exercised. If the option is never exercised, fine. The executive doesn't pay the tax. 2. Place a time limit on option execution. 3. Tax fringe benefits as compensation (hello, "Cadillac" health plans). 4. Encourage firms to hire executives on fixed-term contracts with fixed compensation. Stop making compensation based on stock price performance.
But it'll never happen. And, while I'm glad to see that they're taking notice, the stupid from dKos burns. It burns a lot.
The problem with the moon missions is that the big defense corporations running the US... just can't justify such large profits with moon missions. The population (or its politicians) are much less willing to fund if there is no fear factor.
I call BS, to an extent. The thing about moon missions is that it's not a high-volume, medium-skill production, unlike, say The C-17. If space travel was well-refined, and high volume, the story might be different. Instead, Congress is pointing funding at programs that keep people in their districts employed, for better or for worse. And that's despite what the "evil" Department of Defense, and President ask for.
The Feds need to recall the loans immediately. They were specifically made for the sedan, but their mere presence allowed Tesla to continute working on the roadster.
Recall them now. Immediate payment. If Tesla goes bankrupt because of it, so be it. Preston Tucker, what?
Taking it...no, not to the absurd at all, explain to me why we have laws against child labour. How do they harm the family? Or, other way around, why people are so obsessed with dismissing sexuality of their teen children?
But the OP seems to indicate that, then, if some thug group steps in, that's wonderful. I disagree vehemently.
"Right" of parents to do things is not an absolute. You ned to find better argument than that.
Showing that you didn't read what I wrote; parents' rights aren't absolute. The state can step in when compelling government interest exists. What constitutes compelling government interest? Generally, in the US, the fundamental liberties identified in the Bill of Rights, and, especially, the Fourteenth Amendment. Ever actually read Roe v. Wade? It addresses this concept pretty thoroughly.
Religion with which you are likely most familiar with does actually much more rightous thing than not proposing tax cuts for the rich - it promotes, as one of its basic virtues, disregard of material wealth.
Again, just setting straight what the OP said....
Which is of course completelly ignored by most of its adherents. There's importatnt lesson here - what religion claims and what it actually does, promotes are two different things. That it accepts generous, relatively speaking, donations from the rich and doesn't condemn them does ring a bell...
I know lots of people who do tithe (mostly Catholic and LDS friends/family). Sure, there are people fall into the greedy-and-pious category. But to pigeonhole all believers is stupid.
And Catholics promote spread of HIV by disregarding scientific evidence that "abstinence sex ed" is not effective. Heck, you even have priests advising against proved effective measures. Yes, that's "only one thing", right now (Vatican seems to be reconsidering its position regarding condoms)
Have little doubt that they'll change that policy. Still, "abstinence only" isn't something that's purely a Catholic Church effort. And understanding something doesn't necessarily require condoning it....but acceptance of science generally evolves over time to avoid having religion in a position of ridicule and contempt.
Which, is why distinctions need to be drawn between religions that a) do value human enlightenment, and b) accept religious texts as divinely-inspired, and somewhat allegorical, and fundamentalism. There is a big difference.
I do hope and expect that more and more people will find other means to fill that existencial void (though, ironically, that requires IMHO being actually more convinced in the continuation of your being after you cease to exist, more than in the case of most "faithful")...and hey, we might even help with that.
Maybe. But with attitudes like the OP's, I don't have much...what's the word...hope.
As long as parents have the legal "right" to force their (property) offspring into organized religion, ethical people have the RIGHT to use force to oppose such religions.
So, taking it to the absurd, let's assume that a parent makes his/her kid eat lima beans. And then you've got a group who think that lima beans are a threat to the world.....using violence against lima bean growers by the no-lima people is justified? No, of course it's not. Parents have the legal power to force their custodial kids to do things. When they do something that truly endangers a child's safety, that's when the state gets involved. Not some unaffiliated pressure group, but a government tasked with protecting the child's fundamental rights.
The State and Capital depend on religion to keep people focused on social wedge issues so they don't question the fundamental power structures of our society. Poor Americans vote for tax cuts for the rich, ecological policies that will make the world unlivable for future generations, and imperialistic wars, all because the candidates supporting such insanity also pander to "faith" by attacking science and LGBTQ folk.
Um, so which religions teach tax cuts for the rich? I'm really curious about that -- citation needed, as it were. Refocusing it onto the Xenu nuts.....a lot of them would probably not fall into any of those disjointed categories you lay out.
And you haven't been paying much attention. The largest Christian sect in the world I don't think could really be described as attacking science, anymore. Catholics acknowledge evolution. The pope talks about the environment, etc. etc.
Unfortunately, the most victimized sectors of the working class are also the most exploited by religion. Each generation passes the meme on to the next. We can only end this vicious cycle of enforced irrationality by attacking the source.
Again, you're just not paying attention. Religious adherence drops every damn year. Traditional religions drop, too. But for many people, there's a fundamental need to have a supernatural answer for questions that can't be easily answered. I mean, as an atheist, I'd really like to believe that I'll live forever after I die, and be rewarded for being a good person. There's not. But it's a fundamental choice that can't be answered by the state, much less another group or individual.
Your ignorance burns brighter than the Xenu nuts', and hotter than the volcano where their souls live, yet it gets modded a five, interesting. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me, but it is disappointing. You have no understanding of why governments exist, and what powers individuals give up to the state in order to have other rights protected. Social contract theory, etc. Admittedly, the Scientologists severely abuse those protections in some countries for their own gain, but it doesn't mean the system is fundamentally flawed, and it doesn't mean that the power to harm them is then passed to an unaccountable group.
No Gods! No Masters!
Unless those masters are fighting something you, personally don't like.....then it's all good.
Not only that, they're cleanly managed with apt and dpkg. Ports has grown so unwieldy that when I do use FreeBSD these days (admittedly, it's pretty rare), I don't build anything from ports, and use pkgsrc. On the rare occasion that pkgsrc doesn't have something I need, I'll just build it from source manually. But, but, but, but portsupgrade!!!1! It sucks compared to apt/dpkg and pkgsrc. 8, 10 years ago, maybe it was great. But notsomuch anymore.
I also use pkgsrc on Slackware, OpenBSD, and OS X.
You can have your program both licensed under BSD, and also offer the same code/library as closed-source for $xx at the same time, with different conditions and fewer restrictions.
Or just have them incorporate your BSD-licensed code into their larger work licensed under a more restrictive license. This is in contrast to say, LGPL, where the changes do have to be released back if any are made. If none are made, the code doesn't need to be released.
If it makes them feel any better, license it under a 4-clause BSD license, where they actually have to give you credit for it, but also provide it under a 3-clause license for everybody else. I've done exactly that, but in reverse, for customers. The publicly-released code is 4-clause, but the customer can do WTF-ever he/she wants with it, and doesn't have to credit me.
The useless remains of my 12" iBook agree with you.:-/
And, addressing the AC comments, well, when it's a piece of equipment that needs man-hours for installation and subsequent replacement, combined with operational disruptions due to bad hardware, you pay more. To put it in IT terms, you can probably build something with essentially the same specs as a good HP server for a lot less money. But, when you look at TCO and incorporate expected reliability, well, that price difference evaporates quickly.
Sure there is; the manufacturing process to make them sufficiently long-lifed (>~5 years), prices them outside the range of consumer gear. I used to be a broadcast engineer; $10,000 cartridge CD players from 1988 still work fine today. The $25 portable CD player you buy from Walmart likely won't last two years, much less twenty.
Came here to say this.:-) But both demonstrate the need for IPv6 -- controlling your appliances remotely. That TV dinner you have to cook on 50% power for four minutes, then on high for two? Do it from your phone without ever getting up from the couch!
Lasers+moving mirror == great reliability! Have a feeling these are going to make DLP or LCD lamp replacement look downright economical. Still prefer Plasma, personally, but the LED/LCD my SO's dad bought isn't horrible. Even at 240Hz, I did still notice some streaking, though (watching a football game).
However, the username is important. Here in DC, if you're straight out of an internship and you still have an email along the lines of drinkingfiend01@gmail.com, that's a negative mark.
If you're in DC, there's probably a lot of people with @aol.com e-mail addresses around who are competent IT people looking for a new gig. I tend to view hotmail as a bigger negative than AOL, honestly. If you've got a non-weird AOL username, you've probably had it for years and years.
A former co-worker had an interesting gmail username; it was his first and last name spelled backwards (i.e. resulami@gmail.com). Not a black mark on that one, IMO.
Re:There's plenty of addresses left. Don't panic.
on
IPv4 Will Not Die In 2010
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The IPv6 designers made a terrible mistake by not including backward compatibility with IPv4.
How, praytell, would they have gone about doing that?
IPv6 is a lot like Intel's Itanium processor. It's unclear right now whether the the anointed successor will gain ground or whether some IPv4 extension hack will come along and make fools of the IPv6 crowd. (Wait, what's the opposite of "crowd"?) BTW, I'm using a x86_64 processor right now, like most people.
Sorry. Try again. The first Itaniums had IA-32 compatibility. Later ones do not. And AMD did some incredibly stupid things with x64, which are becoming rapidly apparent as time goes along. I'm guessing you haven't noticed. But the reason Microsoft has an emulated 32-bit XP VirtualPC instance running for compatibility is that amd64 can't do vmm86 when running in 64-bit mode. Consequently, sixteen-bit applications can't run at all, natively. Sure, they run fine if you run the processor in 32-bit mode, but then you still are stuck with PAE for >4GB memory, and there's no way to directly access 64-bit registers (which you can do on IA-64, Sparc64, and POWER). I'm not saying amd64 isn't without its merits, but, backwards compatibility sure ain't one of them.
"On June 30th 2008, OMB released a public statement indicating that all major USG agencies met the M-05-22 deadline, reporting successful demonstration of IPv6 capability resulting in "IPv6- enabled network backbones". Agencies were encouraged to move forward with IPv6 integration as part of their Enterprise Architecture planning and with IPv6-enabled backbone networks, agencies could begin the process of planning for phased integration of applications and users in a dual-stacked environment (IPv4 and IPv6 co-existing in the same network)." (emphasis added) From Planning Guide/Roadmap Toward IPv6 Adoption within the U.S. Government , which you can find at CIO.gov (zipped PDF).
The agencies had to demonstrate passing traffic, which, of course, shows that they'd procured IPv6-capable hardware. Furthermore, with all of the agencies I've dealt with, IPv6 was specified in FAR.
IPv6 was a PITA on 2000 and XP. It is the default protocol on Vista, 2008, and 7. In fact, one of the original bugs in Exchange 2007 was that you couldn't install it *without* IPv6 being enabled on your public interface.
But, I disagree with your contention that bad experiences are why people shy away from it. I think for more people, it's the nastiness of the stateless addresses. "But I can remember 192.168.0.1 in my head!" Yeah, and you can remember the four numbers in your/64 prefix, too. You're just not trying hard enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Verizon. Droid. Sour grapes for Verizon telling them to GTFO when Apple pitched the iPhone to them first.
If Apple succeeds in bloodying HTC's nose, *then* they'll start going after the bigger boys like Google.
That's the point. Get a judgement against HTC, hit Motorola, then Google, using the judgement as leverage.
I also halfway wonder if some of this is at the behest of AT&T.
Maybe Apple should pay Nokia's patent royalties first before they go bullying others?
Is that still in litigation?
Too bad the mobile phone industry is a small one, everyone of the existing players cross-license between each one and ass behaving Apple is in serious trouble if the other companies stop licensing their technology.
This isn't aimed at HTC; it's aimed at Google. Don't kid yourself. To whom, is Google paying license fees?
I actually misread the headline as "PC-DOS," which would, sorta be from Microsoft.....maybe IBM was returning to the numbered releases. :-)
WTKR had it last night at 11, but were kinda sketchy on details. Big emphasis on NO CITIZEN OR EMPLOYEE DATA WAS AFFECTED.
I live in Norfolk; let's just say that the best and brightest aren't working in IT for local governments. Defense companies pay a lot better.
When I worked for another local city, they were still running an ancient 16-bit version of Netware (would have been like 2002).
I understand yours....sarcasm was mine for the green alchemy jobs push so talked about in Washington these days. Corn Ethanol is a non-starter. Wind energy can't provide enough; yes, it can supplement, but not be a primary source. The prescribed solution for lighting, CFLs, are rapidly being overtaken by white LEDs developed by private sources. When I was in Sam's Club last week, there were all sorts of LED arrays on sale for just a few bucks more than the comparable CFLs.
Nuclear energy works. 2nd-generation hybrids (direct electric drive, with supplemental generator backup, like the Chevy Volt) will most likely work. Little of the other stuff does work, yet it's being touted as a revolutionary job-creator. Good luck with that.
As opposed to "green" technologies that are difficult, and don't work....? This is one of the few good things Obama's gotten behind. At the same time, the regulatory red tape instituted over the last 50 years guarantee that none of this work will be completed by the time re-election rolls around.
You can spend more money on an even faster system for myth. But its just money down the drain, unless you're doing something totally exotic with high def, or trying to do more than five things at once like Yeechang, or attempting to do dual simultaneous displays, or trying to run a backend on the frontend machine, etc.
Pretty much true. I have a frontend-only host that does fine with MythTV high-def (1080i OTA). Where it falls hard is playing flash. YouTube HD stuff is passable, but Hulu is an exercise in futility.
Was trying to RTFA, but it appears to be slashdotted. First page doesn't tell much. :-(
Was considering moving to a Conroe-based CPU replacement, hoping that would fix the problems. Might be worth the ~$50 they're running now. Probably would run cooler, at least.
Let me guess....you do not have, and have never had a girlfriend.
Anyway, this talk at Shmoocon opened my eyes quite a bit. Users jailbreak their iPhones for whatever reason, then leave them flagging insecure on the network. While AT&T have taken steps to mitigate some of the vulnerabilities introduced by n00bs pwning their iphonez, it's still not 100%.
Think your cable company would still let you buy their on-demand shiat if you'd rooted your cable box? How about Windows Update and Microsoft?
It's not like Android is really that open a platform, and it wouldn't surprise me if other carriers start doing similar things to rooted Android devices.
The iPhone is a wonderful device that works fine for 90% of the users, just as it's supposed to. This feigned outrage at Apple is disgusting.
Golden parachutes aren't a Republican phenomena, and the Silicon Valley tech companies aren't exactly fertile ground for the GOP as far as fundraising goes.
Nor is rewarding mediocrity limited to the upper-echelons of society (see: Detroit).
What the author did get right is that the boards of directors make these decisions. In companies where a scant few hold lots of sway, they look out for themselves instead of the working minions. Think Carl Ichan ever got a raw deal on a company he came in and dismantled?
The fixes are simple, but neither political party has the political will to do it. The tax reforms in 1986 allowed most of this, and it benefits wealthy interests (read: donors) on both sides of the aisle. Think Bear Stearns was a high-time GOP operation? How about Fannie and Freddie?
1. Tax stock options as regular compensation, taxed at normal income tax rates. Tax it at the stock's full price on the day the option is exercised. If the option is never exercised, fine. The executive doesn't pay the tax.
2. Place a time limit on option execution.
3. Tax fringe benefits as compensation (hello, "Cadillac" health plans).
4. Encourage firms to hire executives on fixed-term contracts with fixed compensation. Stop making compensation based on stock price performance.
But it'll never happen. And, while I'm glad to see that they're taking notice, the stupid from dKos burns. It burns a lot.
The problem with the moon missions is that the big defense corporations running the US ... just can't justify such large profits with moon missions. The population (or its politicians) are much less willing to fund if there is no fear factor.
I call BS, to an extent. The thing about moon missions is that it's not a high-volume, medium-skill production, unlike, say The C-17. If space travel was well-refined, and high volume, the story might be different. Instead, Congress is pointing funding at programs that keep people in their districts employed, for better or for worse. And that's despite what the "evil" Department of Defense, and President ask for.
The Feds need to recall the loans immediately. They were specifically made for the sedan, but their mere presence allowed Tesla to continute working on the roadster.
Recall them now. Immediate payment. If Tesla goes bankrupt because of it, so be it. Preston Tucker, what?
Taking it...no, not to the absurd at all, explain to me why we have laws against child labour. How do they harm the family? Or, other way around, why people are so obsessed with dismissing sexuality of their teen children?
But the OP seems to indicate that, then, if some thug group steps in, that's wonderful. I disagree vehemently.
"Right" of parents to do things is not an absolute. You ned to find better argument than that.
Showing that you didn't read what I wrote; parents' rights aren't absolute. The state can step in when compelling government interest exists. What constitutes compelling government interest? Generally, in the US, the fundamental liberties identified in the Bill of Rights, and, especially, the Fourteenth Amendment. Ever actually read Roe v. Wade? It addresses this concept pretty thoroughly.
Religion with which you are likely most familiar with does actually much more rightous thing than not proposing tax cuts for the rich - it promotes, as one of its basic virtues, disregard of material wealth.
Again, just setting straight what the OP said....
Which is of course completelly ignored by most of its adherents. There's importatnt lesson here - what religion claims and what it actually does, promotes are two different things. That it accepts generous, relatively speaking, donations from the rich and doesn't condemn them does ring a bell...
I know lots of people who do tithe (mostly Catholic and LDS friends/family). Sure, there are people fall into the greedy-and-pious category. But to pigeonhole all believers is stupid.
And Catholics promote spread of HIV by disregarding scientific evidence that "abstinence sex ed" is not effective. Heck, you even have priests advising against proved effective measures. Yes, that's "only one thing", right now (Vatican seems to be reconsidering its position regarding condoms)
Have little doubt that they'll change that policy. Still, "abstinence only" isn't something that's purely a Catholic Church effort. And understanding something doesn't necessarily require condoning it. ...but acceptance of science generally evolves over time to avoid having religion in a position of ridicule and contempt.
Which, is why distinctions need to be drawn between religions that a) do value human enlightenment, and b) accept religious texts as divinely-inspired, and somewhat allegorical, and fundamentalism. There is a big difference.
I do hope and expect that more and more people will find other means to fill that existencial void (though, ironically, that requires IMHO being actually more convinced in the continuation of your being after you cease to exist, more than in the case of most "faithful")...and hey, we might even help with that.
Maybe. But with attitudes like the OP's, I don't have much...what's the word...hope.
As long as parents have the legal "right" to force their (property) offspring into organized religion, ethical people have the RIGHT to use force to oppose such religions.
So, taking it to the absurd, let's assume that a parent makes his/her kid eat lima beans. And then you've got a group who think that lima beans are a threat to the world.....using violence against lima bean growers by the no-lima people is justified? No, of course it's not. Parents have the legal power to force their custodial kids to do things. When they do something that truly endangers a child's safety, that's when the state gets involved. Not some unaffiliated pressure group, but a government tasked with protecting the child's fundamental rights.
The State and Capital depend on religion to keep people focused on social wedge issues so they don't question the fundamental power structures of our society. Poor Americans vote for tax cuts for the rich, ecological policies that will make the world unlivable for future generations, and imperialistic wars, all because the candidates supporting such insanity also pander to "faith" by attacking science and LGBTQ folk.
Um, so which religions teach tax cuts for the rich? I'm really curious about that -- citation needed, as it were. Refocusing it onto the Xenu nuts.....a lot of them would probably not fall into any of those disjointed categories you lay out.
And you haven't been paying much attention. The largest Christian sect in the world I don't think could really be described as attacking science, anymore. Catholics acknowledge evolution. The pope talks about the environment, etc. etc.
Unfortunately, the most victimized sectors of the working class are also the most exploited by religion. Each generation passes the meme on to the next. We can only end this vicious cycle of enforced irrationality by attacking the source.
Again, you're just not paying attention. Religious adherence drops every damn year. Traditional religions drop, too. But for many people, there's a fundamental need to have a supernatural answer for questions that can't be easily answered. I mean, as an atheist, I'd really like to believe that I'll live forever after I die, and be rewarded for being a good person. There's not. But it's a fundamental choice that can't be answered by the state, much less another group or individual.
Your ignorance burns brighter than the Xenu nuts', and hotter than the volcano where their souls live, yet it gets modded a five, interesting. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me, but it is disappointing. You have no understanding of why governments exist, and what powers individuals give up to the state in order to have other rights protected. Social contract theory, etc. Admittedly, the Scientologists severely abuse those protections in some countries for their own gain, but it doesn't mean the system is fundamentally flawed, and it doesn't mean that the power to harm them is then passed to an unaccountable group.
No Gods!
No Masters!
Unless those masters are fighting something you, personally don't like.....then it's all good.
The stupid, it burns, etc. etc.
Not only that, they're cleanly managed with apt and dpkg. Ports has grown so unwieldy that when I do use FreeBSD these days (admittedly, it's pretty rare), I don't build anything from ports, and use pkgsrc. On the rare occasion that pkgsrc doesn't have something I need, I'll just build it from source manually. But, but, but, but portsupgrade!!!1! It sucks compared to apt/dpkg and pkgsrc. 8, 10 years ago, maybe it was great. But notsomuch anymore.
I also use pkgsrc on Slackware, OpenBSD, and OS X.
You can have your program both licensed under BSD, and also offer the same code/library as closed-source for $xx at the same time, with different conditions and fewer restrictions.
Or just have them incorporate your BSD-licensed code into their larger work licensed under a more restrictive license. This is in contrast to say, LGPL, where the changes do have to be released back if any are made. If none are made, the code doesn't need to be released.
If it makes them feel any better, license it under a 4-clause BSD license, where they actually have to give you credit for it, but also provide it under a 3-clause license for everybody else. I've done exactly that, but in reverse, for customers. The publicly-released code is 4-clause, but the customer can do WTF-ever he/she wants with it, and doesn't have to credit me.
The useless remains of my 12" iBook agree with you. :-/
And, addressing the AC comments, well, when it's a piece of equipment that needs man-hours for installation and subsequent replacement, combined with operational disruptions due to bad hardware, you pay more. To put it in IT terms, you can probably build something with essentially the same specs as a good HP server for a lot less money. But, when you look at TCO and incorporate expected reliability, well, that price difference evaporates quickly.
Sure there is; the manufacturing process to make them sufficiently long-lifed (>~5 years), prices them outside the range of consumer gear. I used to be a broadcast engineer; $10,000 cartridge CD players from 1988 still work fine today. The $25 portable CD player you buy from Walmart likely won't last two years, much less twenty.
Came here to say this. :-) But both demonstrate the need for IPv6 -- controlling your appliances remotely. That TV dinner you have to cook on 50% power for four minutes, then on high for two? Do it from your phone without ever getting up from the couch!
Lasers+moving mirror == great reliability! Have a feeling these are going to make DLP or LCD lamp replacement look downright economical. Still prefer Plasma, personally, but the LED/LCD my SO's dad bought isn't horrible. Even at 240Hz, I did still notice some streaking, though (watching a football game).
Domain? No. Username? Yes.
This.
However, the username is important. Here in DC, if you're straight out of an internship and you still have an email along the lines of drinkingfiend01@gmail.com, that's a negative mark.
If you're in DC, there's probably a lot of people with @aol.com e-mail addresses around who are competent IT people looking for a new gig. I tend to view hotmail as a bigger negative than AOL, honestly. If you've got a non-weird AOL username, you've probably had it for years and years.
A former co-worker had an interesting gmail username; it was his first and last name spelled backwards (i.e. resulami@gmail.com). Not a black mark on that one, IMO.
The IPv6 designers made a terrible mistake by not including backward compatibility with IPv4.
How, praytell, would they have gone about doing that?
IPv6 is a lot like Intel's Itanium processor. It's unclear right now whether the the anointed successor will gain ground or whether some IPv4 extension hack will come along and make fools of the IPv6 crowd. (Wait, what's the opposite of "crowd"?) BTW, I'm using a x86_64 processor right now, like most people.
Sorry. Try again. The first Itaniums had IA-32 compatibility. Later ones do not. And AMD did some incredibly stupid things with x64, which are becoming rapidly apparent as time goes along. I'm guessing you haven't noticed. But the reason Microsoft has an emulated 32-bit XP VirtualPC instance running for compatibility is that amd64 can't do vmm86 when running in 64-bit mode. Consequently, sixteen-bit applications can't run at all, natively. Sure, they run fine if you run the processor in 32-bit mode, but then you still are stuck with PAE for >4GB memory, and there's no way to directly access 64-bit registers (which you can do on IA-64, Sparc64, and POWER). I'm not saying amd64 isn't without its merits, but, backwards compatibility sure ain't one of them.
"On June 30th 2008, OMB released a public statement indicating that all major USG agencies met the M-05-22 deadline, reporting successful demonstration of IPv6 capability resulting in "IPv6- enabled network backbones". Agencies were encouraged to move forward with IPv6 integration as part of their Enterprise Architecture planning and with IPv6-enabled backbone networks, agencies could begin the process of planning for phased integration of applications and users in a dual-stacked environment (IPv4 and IPv6 co-existing in the same network)." (emphasis added) From Planning Guide/Roadmap Toward IPv6 Adoption within the U.S. Government , which you can find at CIO.gov (zipped PDF).
The agencies had to demonstrate passing traffic, which, of course, shows that they'd procured IPv6-capable hardware. Furthermore, with all of the agencies I've dealt with, IPv6 was specified in FAR.
IPv6 was a PITA on 2000 and XP. It is the default protocol on Vista, 2008, and 7. In fact, one of the original bugs in Exchange 2007 was that you couldn't install it *without* IPv6 being enabled on your public interface.
But, I disagree with your contention that bad experiences are why people shy away from it. I think for more people, it's the nastiness of the stateless addresses. "But I can remember 192.168.0.1 in my head!" Yeah, and you can remember the four numbers in your /64 prefix, too. You're just not trying hard enough.
Actually, I prefer the mouseover on this one.