Keep in mind that a "free" market is one in which you have a number of choices for a given item that are equivalent replacements. Automobiles are a free market as their are many manufacturers and models that I can choose from that will fill my transportation needs. In this care, there's no "free" market.
That's why it's called a "regulated monopoly." The gov't recognizes that it's a monopoly, but that it's a more efficient use of resources, so they set up special rules by which these telco monopolies must operate. Stuff like, minimum service reliability. As critical infrastructure, telcos are required by law to provide near-perfect service uptime. Think six sigma or better. When was the last time you picked up a POTS line and didn't get a dial tone? Contrast the cable companies; how often is your cable out? Telcos are also regulated to provide a minimum service at a specified cost. In Texas, I know that the local residential service is $26 bucks/mo, for no-frills all-you-can-eat local calling. That's six dollars a month less than the cost of maintaining the line, so Verizon loses money on the absolute base service (add one calling plan, and it's back in the black, tho...)
What this is talking about isn't verizon's customers, but rather network traffic that has to go over Verizon's network. So, in essence it could cause an aggregate slow down of other network providers. Customers of those other networks might be pissed but there's nothing they can do about it save for switching to Verizon which is causing the problem in the first place.
In the case of the content providers, Verizon's already made deals with them to distribute content. For the data carriers, the case where Verizon cripples access to their customers is a net loss for everybody. Verizon's customers are paying for the whole internet, not just the Verizon internet. They'd be leaving in droves if VZ ever pulled a stunt like that, and I'm certain the company knows it.
Re:Verizon's recent purchase makes this subject mo
on
Is Verizon a Network Hog?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Exactly. On top of that, the FiOS product is far more advanced that the users here seem to realize. It uses a Corning high-performance DWDM fiber that, to the home, supports 10Gbit. It gets muxed back at the central office into a DWDM optical switch, where the individual services are separated out, voice, video, and data. So all the way around, Verizon's providing a truly superior product. On point of the article, it's Verizon's network, and IMO, it's their call as to what they do. They're within the law, as far as the 1996 Telecom act states.
GitS:SAC takes place a decade before the Puppet Master story arc from the original manga and movie. It's not an alternate timeline, just a prequel to the original storyline.
Personally, I prefer Obj-C to.NET, mostly due to the (IMO) superior organization and layout of the object model. It's simpler than.NET's API, which tends toward "everything and the kitchen sink." Not that Cocoa doesn't have it's problems. It's probably more difficult to write big projects using it, but for quick development, I find it faster to just throw something together in Xcode. Besides, it doesn't hurt that Xcode and it's related dev tools are free on OSX, whereas it's a $600 investement on Windows for the equivalent software.
A good example of the complexity is the file access models for both APIs..NET has something like three different objects to deal with different types of file access. Cocoa implements these in a single object with multiple methods for the data access style (streaming, read the whole thing once, etc.) Now, it's probably just personal preference on my part, but why invent multiple objects when you could just roll them up as separate methods for what is essentially the same data structure? There's probably a reason, and I'd be interested in learning why this is so, but it just seems to me that Cocoa did it right in the first place.
Part of the allure of these types of fusion reactors is that due to the fusion products being charged particles, we can directly convert their kinetic energy into electrical energy with astounding levels of efficiency (+80%!). This significantly reduces the amount of waste heat since most of the energy produced is going into the desired output, giving a reactor like this a waste heat output some 1/6th that off a steam-turbine powerplant for a given level of output.
Uh, that code would only apply were the Onion trying to pass itself off as a representative of the POTUS. They're not. They've a long and hallowed tradition of parody and satire, both of which are protected speech. I submit that if the Onion really wanted to fight this, they'd be able to make a good case.
Seriously, nobody reading the Onion is going to believe that they're really the mouthpiece of the President. It's obviously a satirical news site.
The seal is the property of the people of the United States of America. It's not copyrightable, it's not trademarked, and satire is protected speech under the constitution. I don't see how in the world there's even the suggestion that there's legality behind silencing the Onion. Okay, not really silencing.
The Onion should be able to get around this by the smallest of photoshops to make the seal different. And if it's done in a parodic manner (like everything over there), then there's just nothing that can be done.
As someone else posted already, your tax dollars at work! (not that it matters, this'll be a drop in the bucket compared to everything else)
The lighting's uneven on the Powerbook, and it's a bit dim, even in darker rooms. The Thinkpad does a much better job of both illuminating the keyboard and throwing the light. Better still, it's cheaper and simpler to do than the Apple's optical pipe system!
That's right, Mr. Recording Industry Executive, keep right on squeezing. You'll only hasten the inevitable, which is to mean that the network will eventually phase out every last dollar you previously had moving in your direction.
As for Titanium, it is costly due to not being widely available, the same reason gold and platinum is costly. Titanium is also not the easiest of materials to work with. It is unbeleively strong that is it's biggest pro factor.
Where to start? There's so much wrong here. One, titanium isn't expensive because it's rare; it's the ninth most common element in the earth's crust. You kind of got it right with the materials handling comment. Ti isn't easy to work with, and that's why it's expensive. It's strong, but only in particular ways. In fact, depending on what you're trying to do, cast iron can be a better material. It's very strong for it's weight, and when heated, maintains that strength almost all the way to it's melting point, making it a superior metal in high-temperature environments.
Last millenium UUnet tried to push two DS-3's worth of traffic to Sprint through GTE's internet datacenter gateway (a poor little cisco 7513 w/ just a single RSP-2 with 64MB of DRAM), until we stopped redistributing their routes for them.
And BTW, GTE Internetworking _is_ Genuity, but originally went under the initials of it's founders: Bolt, Beranek, and Newman.
I must point out that time is relative and (from our perspective) time appears to slow around a black hole. Would that not drastically reduce the usable amount of power for those away from the blackhole?
You're absolutely correct. The time distortion does reduce the available power. The sheer magnitude of the forces, however, makes up fantastically for the temporal effect. In fact, tidal forces at decent proximity to the event horizon will make protons and neutrons flow like water (the quarks and gluons in some cases as well...)
in whatever form she's going to take this time. (probably Verizon, or, given their track record WRT outages and service, SBC, Ha! Ha!)
In any event, it's not terribly surprising. Telco infrastructure is one of those things that small companies just don't have the footprint or bags of cash with which to compete. Sure, there will continue to be fringe companies out there, like Vonage and Skype, but once the big vendors get their VoIP rolling, it's the end for the bit players, as customers will invariably pick the "one bill" option from their wire (or cable, or fiber) provider.
I'm not saying there's no room for the smaller service players, but their market is going to contract as the feds get involved.
On the other hand, it's nice to see some movement from the gov't in the sense that they're now considering packet-switched services to be just as critical to regulate (in a competitive sense) as POTS. It really will give the telcos the room to move compared to the nearly free reign that cable's had for nearly a decade in the broadband arena.
/works for giant telco, so take the above with that slant.
ha! lessee, we gave the keys to our minds and souls to corporate America, and now we're surprised that a collection of "individuals" possessing all the qualities of a paranoid schizophreniac with a single-minded focus on profit had the wherewithall to screw us over.
I bet you don't pay taxes, and if you do, you're not very observant. The back of every US Income Tax form booklet has a breakdown of the budget from the previous year. As I look at last year's budget, it lists Military and Veteran's Affairs at a grand total of 20%. Hardly "most." In fact, Social Security/Welfare takes the lion's share at 38%.
Nice of you to pidgenhole all of the country. We're just the "easily scared, fundie dipshits" who invented damn near every single significant convenience of which you make regular use.
Yah, 'cause the House of Saud had nothing to do with the fact that Saudi Arabia is a 3rd-world country. You know, they just own all the oil, 'cause it's their kingdom. Who's going to fight them?
Tell you what, why don't you go over there and start a revolution against the Saudi Royal Family, and let all those poor people have access to what should be theirs. That way, they could screw the rest of the world if they saw fit. At least it'd be their choice, and not the choice of the tiny oligarchy (oiligarchy? heh) that runs things.
You must be young, or crazy. I haven't _ever_ had a commute that was less than 5 miles, and although I wouldn't mind doing that on a bicycle, it's not exactly safe, given that I have to cross one interstate freeway and a four-lane state highway on the way to the office. Add to that the triple-digit temperatures and 60% humidity in the 3-5 months of Texas summer, and you've a recipe for a trip to the hospital. Not everyone has the situation you find yourself in.
As for "lifestyle change," lots of people purchase SUVs as a compromise vehicle, so as to cart the whole family plus luggage for trips to the lake, or camping, or to see the world around them. Unfortunately, they're a terrible choice for a one-person commuter vehicle, but not everyone can afford multiple vehicles. Most families have the "cart people and stuff around" vehicle and the "cart one or two people around cheap" vehicle. Since Dad commutes ten miles or so to work, that leaves Mom and the kids with the lumbering SUV. So tell me, should they throw away the investment in a vehicle that serves their needs extremely well to switch out for a function-compromised vehicle that will take seven years' worth of gas savings to cover the upfront cost of purchase? My GF has a Mustang GT convertable, and even if she managed to find a vehicle that would realistically double her MPG, the total cost to her would actually increase, as whatever savings she had in fuel would be eaten up by the payments on a new car, that would be nowhere near as enjoyable as the 'stang (and potentially more dangerous, as her current car as a 5.5sec 0-60, where most 40mpg vehicles are lucky to get there in twice that).
I feel your pain WRT SUVs, but the tone of your rant sounds more like you're frustrated with the constant terror in which you find yourself, having to ride your 50lb bicycle alongside an 8000lb truck.
Additionally, if you're trying to persuade people, it helps not to yell at them, along with proper use off grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
Dude, I gotta call bullshit on your numbers. The 970FX most definitely does not dissipate 28watt at peak. Maybe at 50% idle, with the clock throttled back to 66%. The PM also has half the main-memory latency of the G5, and roughly double the integer performance.
Furthermore, Apple isn't interested in sticking Intel's current lineup in their products, they're interested in the next-gen hardware, the ones that provide roughly triple the computing performance at lower power. Did you see some of the pics from last week's IDF? 9 watts for the lower-power laptop parts, with performance to match almost anything the 970 ever did save very well-scheduled and hand-tuned FP and AltiVec algorithms, something that devs don't even have to screw with (mostly) on the x86 side, as Intel's compilers smoke the hell out of anything on the PPC side.
actually, I'm maintaining over 4000 distinct nodes. If you stay on top of your systems documentation-wise, it's not a big deal, and you've got all the necessary environmental metadata created in one whack.
Seriously, this problem is almost entirely a process issue, not technical.
cripes, people. This is a two-part problem. One, the process issue, deals with how you manage physical port assignment. Two, the technical issue, deals with how you enforce the process. This is most easily done with some form of port security. Map the MAC to the physical port and lock it down. Then disable all the unused ports, and you're set.
I bet you're using the 4.x.x.x DNS... avoid those like the plague. There's two old-school caching farms at 206.124.64.253 and 206.124.65.253 (from the GTE.net company) that are fast, fast, fast, and never down.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind that a "free" market is one in which you have a number of choices for a given item that are equivalent replacements. Automobiles are a free market as their are many manufacturers and models that I can choose from that will fill my transportation needs. In this care, there's no "free" market.
That's why it's called a "regulated monopoly." The gov't recognizes that it's a monopoly, but that it's a more efficient use of resources, so they set up special rules by which these telco monopolies must operate. Stuff like, minimum service reliability. As critical infrastructure, telcos are required by law to provide near-perfect service uptime. Think six sigma or better. When was the last time you picked up a POTS line and didn't get a dial tone? Contrast the cable companies; how often is your cable out? Telcos are also regulated to provide a minimum service at a specified cost. In Texas, I know that the local residential service is $26 bucks/mo, for no-frills all-you-can-eat local calling. That's six dollars a month less than the cost of maintaining the line, so Verizon loses money on the absolute base service (add one calling plan, and it's back in the black, tho...)
What this is talking about isn't verizon's customers, but rather network traffic that has to go over Verizon's network. So, in essence it could cause an aggregate slow down of other network providers. Customers of those other networks might be pissed but there's nothing they can do about it save for switching to Verizon which is causing the problem in the first place.
In the case of the content providers, Verizon's already made deals with them to distribute content. For the data carriers, the case where Verizon cripples access to their customers is a net loss for everybody. Verizon's customers are paying for the whole internet, not just the Verizon internet. They'd be leaving in droves if VZ ever pulled a stunt like that, and I'm certain the company knows it.
Exactly. On top of that, the FiOS product is far more advanced that the users here seem to realize. It uses a Corning high-performance DWDM fiber that, to the home, supports 10Gbit. It gets muxed back at the central office into a DWDM optical switch, where the individual services are separated out, voice, video, and data. So all the way around, Verizon's providing a truly superior product. On point of the article, it's Verizon's network, and IMO, it's their call as to what they do. They're within the law, as far as the 1996 Telecom act states.
GitS:SAC takes place a decade before the Puppet Master story arc from the original manga and movie. It's not an alternate timeline, just a prequel to the original storyline.
Personally, I prefer Obj-C to .NET, mostly due to the (IMO) superior organization and layout of the object model. It's simpler than .NET's API, which tends toward "everything and the kitchen sink." Not that Cocoa doesn't have it's problems. It's probably more difficult to write big projects using it, but for quick development, I find it faster to just throw something together in Xcode. Besides, it doesn't hurt that Xcode and it's related dev tools are free on OSX, whereas it's a $600 investement on Windows for the equivalent software.
.NET has something like three different objects to deal with different types of file access. Cocoa implements these in a single object with multiple methods for the data access style (streaming, read the whole thing once, etc.) Now, it's probably just personal preference on my part, but why invent multiple objects when you could just roll them up as separate methods for what is essentially the same data structure? There's probably a reason, and I'd be interested in learning why this is so, but it just seems to me that Cocoa did it right in the first place.
A good example of the complexity is the file access models for both APIs.
that's total system power, not just the proc. That's going to include the chipset, disk, peripherals, USB devices, and the GPU.
Part of the allure of these types of fusion reactors is that due to the fusion products being charged particles, we can directly convert their kinetic energy into electrical energy with astounding levels of efficiency (+80%!). This significantly reduces the amount of waste heat since most of the energy produced is going into the desired output, giving a reactor like this a waste heat output some 1/6th that off a steam-turbine powerplant for a given level of output.
Uh, that code would only apply were the Onion trying to pass itself off as a representative of the POTUS. They're not. They've a long and hallowed tradition of parody and satire, both of which are protected speech. I submit that if the Onion really wanted to fight this, they'd be able to make a good case.
Seriously, nobody reading the Onion is going to believe that they're really the mouthpiece of the President. It's obviously a satirical news site.
The seal is the property of the people of the United States of America. It's not copyrightable, it's not trademarked, and satire is protected speech under the constitution. I don't see how in the world there's even the suggestion that there's legality behind silencing the Onion. Okay, not really silencing.
The Onion should be able to get around this by the smallest of photoshops to make the seal different. And if it's done in a parodic manner (like everything over there), then there's just nothing that can be done.
As someone else posted already, your tax dollars at work! (not that it matters, this'll be a drop in the bucket compared to everything else)
The lighting's uneven on the Powerbook, and it's a bit dim, even in darker rooms. The Thinkpad does a much better job of both illuminating the keyboard and throwing the light. Better still, it's cheaper and simpler to do than the Apple's optical pipe system!
/still likes the Apple, it's just cooler looking
That's right, Mr. Recording Industry Executive, keep right on squeezing. You'll only hasten the inevitable, which is to mean that the network will eventually phase out every last dollar you previously had moving in your direction.
As for Titanium, it is costly due to not being widely available, the same reason gold and platinum is costly. Titanium is also not the easiest of materials to work with. It is unbeleively strong that is it's biggest pro factor.
Where to start? There's so much wrong here. One, titanium isn't expensive because it's rare; it's the ninth most common element in the earth's crust. You kind of got it right with the materials handling comment. Ti isn't easy to work with, and that's why it's expensive. It's strong, but only in particular ways. In fact, depending on what you're trying to do, cast iron can be a better material. It's very strong for it's weight, and when heated, maintains that strength almost all the way to it's melting point, making it a superior metal in high-temperature environments.
Last millenium UUnet tried to push two DS-3's worth of traffic to Sprint through GTE's internet datacenter gateway (a poor little cisco 7513 w/ just a single RSP-2 with 64MB of DRAM), until we stopped redistributing their routes for them.
And BTW, GTE Internetworking _is_ Genuity, but originally went under the initials of it's founders: Bolt, Beranek, and Newman.
I must point out that time is relative and (from our perspective) time appears to slow around a black hole. Would that not drastically reduce the usable amount of power for those away from the blackhole?
You're absolutely correct. The time distortion does reduce the available power. The sheer magnitude of the forces, however, makes up fantastically for the temporal effect. In fact, tidal forces at decent proximity to the event horizon will make protons and neutrons flow like water (the quarks and gluons in some cases as well...)
what, you mean I won't have to pay one of the myriad hidden taxes that Big Telco has managed to lobby into law? Wow! Awesome!
in whatever form she's going to take this time. (probably Verizon, or, given their track record WRT outages and service, SBC, Ha! Ha!)
/works for giant telco, so take the above with that slant.
In any event, it's not terribly surprising. Telco infrastructure is one of those things that small companies just don't have the footprint or bags of cash with which to compete. Sure, there will continue to be fringe companies out there, like Vonage and Skype, but once the big vendors get their VoIP rolling, it's the end for the bit players, as customers will invariably pick the "one bill" option from their wire (or cable, or fiber) provider.
I'm not saying there's no room for the smaller service players, but their market is going to contract as the feds get involved.
On the other hand, it's nice to see some movement from the gov't in the sense that they're now considering packet-switched services to be just as critical to regulate (in a competitive sense) as POTS. It really will give the telcos the room to move compared to the nearly free reign that cable's had for nearly a decade in the broadband arena.
ha! lessee, we gave the keys to our minds and souls to corporate America, and now we're surprised that a collection of "individuals" possessing all the qualities of a paranoid schizophreniac with a single-minded focus on profit had the wherewithall to screw us over.
will wonders never cease.
I bet you don't pay taxes, and if you do, you're not very observant. The back of every US Income Tax form booklet has a breakdown of the budget from the previous year. As I look at last year's budget, it lists Military and Veteran's Affairs at a grand total of 20%. Hardly "most." In fact, Social Security/Welfare takes the lion's share at 38%.
Nice of you to pidgenhole all of the country. We're just the "easily scared, fundie dipshits" who invented damn near every single significant convenience of which you make regular use.
Yah, 'cause the House of Saud had nothing to do with the fact that Saudi Arabia is a 3rd-world country. You know, they just own all the oil, 'cause it's their kingdom. Who's going to fight them?
Tell you what, why don't you go over there and start a revolution against the Saudi Royal Family, and let all those poor people have access to what should be theirs. That way, they could screw the rest of the world if they saw fit. At least it'd be their choice, and not the choice of the tiny oligarchy (oiligarchy? heh) that runs things.
You must be young, or crazy. I haven't _ever_ had a commute that was less than 5 miles, and although I wouldn't mind doing that on a bicycle, it's not exactly safe, given that I have to cross one interstate freeway and a four-lane state highway on the way to the office. Add to that the triple-digit temperatures and 60% humidity in the 3-5 months of Texas summer, and you've a recipe for a trip to the hospital. Not everyone has the situation you find yourself in.
As for "lifestyle change," lots of people purchase SUVs as a compromise vehicle, so as to cart the whole family plus luggage for trips to the lake, or camping, or to see the world around them. Unfortunately, they're a terrible choice for a one-person commuter vehicle, but not everyone can afford multiple vehicles. Most families have the "cart people and stuff around" vehicle and the "cart one or two people around cheap" vehicle. Since Dad commutes ten miles or so to work, that leaves Mom and the kids with the lumbering SUV. So tell me, should they throw away the investment in a vehicle that serves their needs extremely well to switch out for a function-compromised vehicle that will take seven years' worth of gas savings to cover the upfront cost of purchase? My GF has a Mustang GT convertable, and even if she managed to find a vehicle that would realistically double her MPG, the total cost to her would actually increase, as whatever savings she had in fuel would be eaten up by the payments on a new car, that would be nowhere near as enjoyable as the 'stang (and potentially more dangerous, as her current car as a 5.5sec 0-60, where most 40mpg vehicles are lucky to get there in twice that).
I feel your pain WRT SUVs, but the tone of your rant sounds more like you're frustrated with the constant terror in which you find yourself, having to ride your 50lb bicycle alongside an 8000lb truck.
Additionally, if you're trying to persuade people, it helps not to yell at them, along with proper use off grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
Dude, I gotta call bullshit on your numbers. The 970FX most definitely does not dissipate 28watt at peak. Maybe at 50% idle, with the clock throttled back to 66%. The PM also has half the main-memory latency of the G5, and roughly double the integer performance.
Furthermore, Apple isn't interested in sticking Intel's current lineup in their products, they're interested in the next-gen hardware, the ones that provide roughly triple the computing performance at lower power. Did you see some of the pics from last week's IDF? 9 watts for the lower-power laptop parts, with performance to match almost anything the 970 ever did save very well-scheduled and hand-tuned FP and AltiVec algorithms, something that devs don't even have to screw with (mostly) on the x86 side, as Intel's compilers smoke the hell out of anything on the PPC side.
but I"m feeling really pessimistic and evil today, so:
Their success with this operation is going to be all the more ironic/tragic when Discovery disintegrates upon reentry.
Someone send those guys a few Gemini modules...
actually, I'm maintaining over 4000 distinct nodes. If you stay on top of your systems documentation-wise, it's not a big deal, and you've got all the necessary environmental metadata created in one whack.
Seriously, this problem is almost entirely a process issue, not technical.
cripes, people. This is a two-part problem. One, the process issue, deals with how you manage physical port assignment. Two, the technical issue, deals with how you enforce the process. This is most easily done with some form of port security. Map the MAC to the physical port and lock it down. Then disable all the unused ports, and you're set.
gods, you'd think this was a difficult issue...
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
[wipes tears] It's so true!
hahahahahhaaaaa!
I bet you're using the 4.x.x.x DNS... avoid those like the plague. There's two old-school caching farms at 206.124.64.253 and 206.124.65.253 (from the GTE.net company) that are fast, fast, fast, and never down.