I think your comments are insightful. Bandwidth is not free. If this is a bandwidth issue, then charging a high bandwidth person more seems to be a good thing, becuase lower bandwidth folks might pay less. If it is netral the question is if lower bandwidth folks will subsidize higher bandwidth folks. I know there is more to it than that, but the line is not all that clear to me.
And those computers would not have access to the corporate network, if security is set up right. The wireless network I mentioned is not part of the corporate network - totally seperate. The corporate network can be set up so that client computers with permission to access the wired network have bridging turned off, which means the docked computer can only access the network through the docked station, and will not be able to access other wireless networks within range while docked.
This problem really already exists in many corporate network environments, and is described as follows:
1. User laptop is docked and connected to the wired LAN
2. The laptop has a wireless card and sees an available access (maybe at the local coffee shop next door).
3. The user authenticates via Web interface or some other means to the Internet service at the coffee shop, but the coffee shop is not using WEP or WPA, leaving him wide open.
4. Some third party uses that client Wi-Fi connection to hack through the user's laptop into the corporate network.
5. Or the employee uses the connection to move data out of the network (which could also be done using a USB stick)
I believe that on corporate clients authorized to access the network, the network bridge can be disabled to prevent multiple connections.
This problem may also be managed through rogue access point detection and containment systems.
Could be wrong on all this, but if a network expert can chime in then that would be great.
At my company we are getting some DSL wireless connections that are not connected to the internal network. That way, one could use their personal laptop for personal stuff. Not 100% safe, but a decent alternative.
Heck, why don't the theaters try cleaning the floors and seats. I hate going to the theater (except for one unusual one: Senator Theater, which is clean) , with their overpriced popcorn, crappy candy selection, smelly customers, dirty environment, long lines, obnoxiouis parking. Oh I could bitch forever. They just cannot beat Netflix, and my couch. I wait for the DVD's.
Show rocked. I am lucky to be old enough to have seen many cool bands in the day. DK, Bad Brains, Black Flag - seen all these and more in the early 80's.
10 years ago I went to see the band Helmet, and it appeared that they were getting on stage to play as the lights went dim. Instead they played that 12 minute Michale Jackson video (the one with teh black panther in it). The audience was very irritated, becuase not many Helmet fans probably like MJ. However, when the band got up there, and the video ended the audience went nuts. It was very effective.
Jobs knows how to show a product to enhance the consumer's understanding. Example, I went to Sandisk's site yesterday to check out their upcoming mp3 players. The site does a horrible job letting the consumer know things like size (Apple shows the tiny Nano in someone's hand), I have to read a all the text (not that I mind reading, but the impact is not the same). Jobs, and his helpers, know how to deliver a pithy, and flashy message.
If MSFT buys AOL, then MSN search will be the default. The search engine is the ad revenue generator that MSFT wants to expand. AOL has 110 million U.S. visitors a month to its Web and online properties, and AOL accounts for about 10% of the online advertising market.
Google provides search technology to AOL and gives AOL a cut of the advertising revenue generated by those searches. AOL earned $300 million from Google search ad revenue last year.
I posted this as a reply to another comment, but this battle is about internet search ad revenue. AOL does not want Googkle stock, becuase if it craters, then they lose money on the deal. Cash is king, and MSFT has $40 billion versus Google's $8 billion.
That is part of Google's strategy. If MSFT buys AOL, then MSN search will be the default. The search engine is the ad revenue generator that MSFT wants to expand. AOL has 110 million U.S. visitors a month to its Web and online properties, and AOL accounts for about 10% of the online advertising market.
Google provides search technology to AOL and gives AOL a cut of the advertising revenue generated by those searches. AOL earned $300 million from Google search ad revenue last year.
I bought Opeth "Ghost Reveries" from iTunes last night for $9.99. A blank Cd-R might be 20 cents. So I paid 9.99 +.20 + 5% tax = $10.69. Same CD on Amazon is 13.99. $10.69
A well-managed public service will always be more cost-effective than the same service provided by a well-managed private operation, because there's no profits being taken out before the bottom line. That's basic math.
Theoretically for-profit private firms may provide similar services just as cheaply as the governmnet. How might that happen? Competition, they pay lower wages and benefits, or may use more machines than people. Profit may also provide an incentive to do things more effeciently, and cut excess costs that eat into profits.
My compant is for-profit, and my division manages retirement plans (401k's). The costs to do so is less than 1% of assets, which is the same cost effective number that the Social Security administration touts. We also provide far more services than Social Security as well (e.g. online access, custom client communications, etc...).
Lastly, I can think of many governmnet services that may be cheap, but you get what you pay for. Sometimes it is nice to have a choice in provider.
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia mySpace Trumps youTube too.
I hope they use it to switch away from MS products, and not give it right back to MSFT by upgrading to Vista.
Here is a good article.
...what a cheap trick by Sony!
Patent Law Views from EconLog
And those computers would not have access to the corporate network, if security is set up right. The wireless network I mentioned is not part of the corporate network - totally seperate. The corporate network can be set up so that client computers with permission to access the wired network have bridging turned off, which means the docked computer can only access the network through the docked station, and will not be able to access other wireless networks within range while docked.
1. User laptop is docked and connected to the wired LAN
2. The laptop has a wireless card and sees an available access (maybe at the local coffee shop next door).
3. The user authenticates via Web interface or some other means to the Internet service at the coffee shop, but the coffee shop is not using WEP or WPA, leaving him wide open.
4. Some third party uses that client Wi-Fi connection to hack through the user's laptop into the corporate network.
5. Or the employee uses the connection to move data out of the network (which could also be done using a USB stick)
I believe that on corporate clients authorized to access the network, the network bridge can be disabled to prevent multiple connections.
This problem may also be managed through rogue access point detection and containment systems.
Could be wrong on all this, but if a network expert can chime in then that would be great.
How is this any different from someone living next door to the business with an internet connection outside the firewall and network?
Can't multiple network connections be blocked?
At my company we are getting some DSL wireless connections that are not connected to the internal network. That way, one could use their personal laptop for personal stuff. Not 100% safe, but a decent alternative.
Heck, why don't the theaters try cleaning the floors and seats. I hate going to the theater (except for one unusual one: Senator Theater, which is clean) , with their overpriced popcorn, crappy candy selection, smelly customers, dirty environment, long lines, obnoxiouis parking. Oh I could bitch forever. They just cannot beat Netflix, and my couch. I wait for the DVD's.
Show rocked. I am lucky to be old enough to have seen many cool bands in the day. DK, Bad Brains, Black Flag - seen all these and more in the early 80's.
Jobs knows how to show a product to enhance the consumer's understanding. Example, I went to Sandisk's site yesterday to check out their upcoming mp3 players. The site does a horrible job letting the consumer know things like size (Apple shows the tiny Nano in someone's hand), I have to read a all the text (not that I mind reading, but the impact is not the same). Jobs, and his helpers, know how to deliver a pithy, and flashy message.
Maybe the patient should decide what treatments they want to pursue (experimental or otherwise), rather than the government.
Heck, it is even a good option for airlines that provide movies, since those are usually bad comedies or chick-flicks.
My numbers cam from Barron's. Regardless of the exact numbers, I think my point still stands.
Google provides search technology to AOL and gives AOL a cut of the advertising revenue generated by those searches. AOL earned $300 million from Google search ad revenue last year.
I posted this as a reply to another comment, but this battle is about internet search ad revenue. AOL does not want Googkle stock, becuase if it craters, then they lose money on the deal. Cash is king, and MSFT has $40 billion versus Google's $8 billion.
Google provides search technology to AOL and gives AOL a cut of the advertising revenue generated by those searches. AOL earned $300 million from Google search ad revenue last year.
Buying from iTunes saves me time.
Stand corrected that cheap froogle price is not even the CD. Cheapest on Froogle is $12.00. iTunes is even cheaper than my example.
I bought Opeth "Ghost Reveries" from iTunes last night for $9.99. A blank Cd-R might be 20 cents. So I paid 9.99 + .20 + 5% tax = $10.69. Same CD on Amazon is 13.99. $10.69
Theoretically for-profit private firms may provide similar services just as cheaply as the governmnet. How might that happen? Competition, they pay lower wages and benefits, or may use more machines than people. Profit may also provide an incentive to do things more effeciently, and cut excess costs that eat into profits.
My compant is for-profit, and my division manages retirement plans (401k's). The costs to do so is less than 1% of assets, which is the same cost effective number that the Social Security administration touts. We also provide far more services than Social Security as well (e.g. online access, custom client communications, etc...).
Lastly, I can think of many governmnet services that may be cheap, but you get what you pay for. Sometimes it is nice to have a choice in provider.
Redundant? It's the only In Soviet Russia post so far. It is the perfect In Soviet Russia post. Perfect damnit!
Can someone convince my IT folks to install something besides the Blue 'E'?
6/14/2005
Humans still puny!
6/13/2005
Puny puny humans!
6/12/2005
Puny humans!