The very fact that you're blowing black shit out of your nose and lungs should be enough to prompt a change in workplace regulations. It shouldn't matter if the black shit is a carcinogen.
Well...I think that was my point. It should be enough, but obviously (see history) is not.
Let's say I have a friend in anaphylactic shock and I have an expired epipen. Will I do more good or harm if I use it? I don't know!
The warning is there specifically to put you in that phase of questioning: Do I know? If the answer is no, then you have some research to do before you can safely take action.
I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect the sign to have all the research on it. (I think it's nice that one can at least know one is taking a risk and maybe has some research to do vs. remaining totally ignorant and then wondering why you have cancer when you're 50.)
It would be nice if these warnings were qualified better so we could make actual, informed decisions.
In case that wasn't 100% rhetorical a more-informed decision should be had this way vs from the warnings:
MSDS's (Material Safety Data Sheets) are one source of info. Think of it like the ingredients list for non-food compounds/chemicals. Here's one good place to start your search for one if you can't find the MSDS for your product directly from the manufacturer's website. They're often only one page, usually easy to read, and usually have some good information on them.
Pharmaceuticals are probably even easier to find out about these days. Here's a good place to start looking that kind of info up. (One of many.)
I costs marginally more to operate a higher-speed network, but you should be able to make more money from it than a lower-speed (older) network. You can support more applications, more users.
Come on....fiber is cheap, Optical Carriers are OLD TECH and capable of carrying up to 10Gb/s and more. DWDM has allowed a single fiber to carry at least 128 of these 10Gb/s connections since around 2000. That's 1280Gb/s or more on a single fiber!!
With a terminated OC-192 (10Gb) to distribute to 500 customers, you'd be able to provide every one of them 20Mb/s of dedicated syncronous bandwitdh for $70/month (per FIOS cost) and make $420,000 per year from it. It's only $5000/year from an OC-3 at a little under 20Mb/s for only 7 users. For the record, Comcast claimed to have 13.2 million subscribers on their high-speed internet service at the end of 2007. Using that $70/month number again, that translates to roughly US$1 billion/year in revenue for Comcast.*
Admittedly those are simple numbers**, but they should still give a fair idea of what dollars the ISP's are working with. Unless they suddenly run out of customers (seems unlikely) or just don't have any business savvy at all (maybe) they will make money on network upgrades.
The real question nobody seems in a hurry to answer is why aren't they doing the upgrades if making (more) money is their goal? Instead we get a lot of noise about bandwidth caps and metered usage. I fail to see how they plan to make money from either of those strategies.
-Matt
* And this is just for hooking up their paid-for (by the TV service they provide) network to the Internet.
** There are other costs. You'd never dedicate all that bandwidth to only 500 users as a consumer rate. Those 500 users probably wouldn't all be baseline consumers - a percentage would be higher-value business customers that pay significantly more per month (50%-100% markup) for nothing more than assurance of uptime that you'll already be providing. Only a subset of those 500 users is going to be demanding their full 20Mb/s from the internet simultaneously, so you can support that number of users on a much-smaller-than-OC-192 connection. Et cetera.
Assuming $50/month and a 250GB cap, that's a minumum usage rate of $0.20/GB if you use all 250GB every month. The $/GB goes up higher the less you use the network.
Think of it as metered usage with a $50 cap on the bill and a data limit that you didn't agree to.
To me that's worth some additional Comcast bashing.
I suspect this boils down to the cable co's chaffing at paying the monopoly telco's for their network access and they're trying to find ways to pass more of those costs down to you, the customer. (Without you, the customer, taking your business elsewhere as a result.)
When you consider how much dark fiber (particularly, see Butters' Law) is in the ground as well as Comcast's claims (p. 24, citation 83) that last-mile bandwidth cost is not the issue, the whole bandwidth situation for consumers here in the US is absurd.
Dude, that is the weakest (and some of the oldest) telco FUD in the broadband universe. It ought to be on Snopes if it's not already.
If your cable company connection slows down like you say, it's over usage or inadequate bandwidth being provided just like any other network. aka bad network management practice on behalf of the network operator.
It works the same way with DSL and your neighborhood (aka everyone within ~16,000ft/~3mi radius) DSLAM. No different at all. If the administering company doesn't maintain adequate upstream bandwidth for all concurrent users, you go slow when everyone gets online.
If you're suggesting that cable companies run craptastic networks (even more craptastic than the monopoly telco's I mean) that's one thing....but it's not related to the technology.
For what it's worth, I climbed on the cable internet bandwagon back in 1997 and have had cable internet service in multiple cities - usually in multiple areas of the city - and I've (knock on wood) never seen a slowdown ever. Not saying nobody has experienced this, just making the point that it's far from everyone who experiences the slowdowns you have. Sorry for your luck.
The protest is more about "PDFs and SVGs have huge overhead.
"The protest" seems to be missing the point that a Microsoft/Microsoft-Adobe/etc DRM system just to support embedded web fonts - an obviously marginal feature in the grand scheme - is "huge overhead" in more ways than just words.
here's still the obvious moral issue of DRM, but the proponents of the idea are much more serious than that.
Did you mean to say: "the proponents of the idea aren't serious enough to consider that."
I mean the argument is that "images are too hard" or "not good enough", etc. That may be serious, but only to a "designer". In fact the alternatives are working out just fine in daily use.
If they (the "designers") were really serious, they'd be making noise about banning Flash from similar uses. Isn't the web shiny enough already? ("Yes" in case you even hesitated.)
Fonts are intellectual property and therefore, the argument goes, cannot be published on the web.
That sounds completely absurd - no IP gets published on the web? Makes me suspect of the author and article.
Anyway, it seems the point of the article is that to get this fancy fontness (great, even more "sizzle" on the Web) you're presently going to have to get down with some MSFT DRM. Unless you've slept through the last two or three decades, you should know better than to even consider the Microsoft option.
Wait/lobby for another solution if this is a real problem.
Aren't open source fonts the correct answer to this problem anyway? Nothing against the font makers, but it seems their product (or maybe just business model) just isn't very compatible with the Internet.*
-Matt
* Or maybe this is only a "problem" for designers and should be suitably ignored as it has been thus far. Already too many resources being poured into design with not enough focusing on quality of content. Enough sizzle already!
I use these units mounted behind my desk, parallel and about 12" above my desktop. Mounted a few inches below the desktop would be a little harder to access, but would be nearly invisible. Make sure you screw into nothing but studs for support.
Of course wall warts still chew up multiple outlets, but it hurts less when you have that many.
A disgruntled employee and stock price? Tell me again how stock price is correlated with performance? Ditto for disgruntled employee?
I'm not arguing that Google hasn't turned evil/lost its mojo/whatever - I'm willing to consider it. But are you serious these are the "arguments agaist"???
And for the last time: Benefits are a luxury. Your pay is your pay. Duh...don't let em sell you the sizzle!
Heh...on that note I'm not mad I RTFA'd, but I will say they poured more thought into the headline than the article. Sizzle in deed.
I can see having multiple paths to your destination host (the server) will probably eliminate most MITM attacks under this system. However, our presumption of honesty is with the ISP's of course. If they decide to go "man in the middle" again (reaching a little for argument's sake) at the request of the government (or otherwise) are all bets still off? In other words, if all paths are considered to be compromised/under attack before the first use of the Notary system, can it still be considered effective in some way?
Sorta sorry for hot-linking someone else's gaphic, but this GDP-density graphic does indicate the same trends the study found as indicated on the graphic on Page 1 of Speedmatters.org's report. Seems logical to me that it would given how the FCC is oriented these days. The same way "party line" phone systems disappeared last from "economically less advanced areas" so will slow internet access. It almost always takes government intervention for services like this to be rolled out to non-rich zones of the country.
AC: Ever worked a day in your life? I mean the hard kind of work that'll make you sweat during the day and blow black shit out of your nose and lungs at night? (or worse/similar) I doubt it.
Some people in the US work for a living doing hazardous work. Yeah even more hazardous than jockeying that desk of yours all day.
Of the things that can be hazardous for people to work with, some of them are hazardous to your lungs - like sand.
"Play sand" like the kind you probably spend your days with has been thoroughly washed and graded for safety.
People who work around industrial sand (anything from quarries to paint shops) and breath a lot of silicates (very fine sand) end up with cancer.
I'm sure it's funny to you and some other people -- why else would so many signs be needed to point these things out?
Sadly more people of your mind you do not expatriate to a place where they already do business "your way" such as...well, nearly any second or third world country. You can sprinkle lead paint on your corn flakes and have silica sand for desert if you like. Sure civilization has its warts, but if you don't like it, don't fake like there's no alternative and try to drag the rest of us back in time. Bye.
Thank you. And I would go further in stating that Microsoft is a much bigger abuser/benefactor of this phenomena than any of the hardware companies.
I don't know a soul who would have used MS-DOS or Windows 3.1 if they couldn't have gotten it "from a buddy at work". More or less that held tru through 95 as well. The point is, take out piracy and you take out those years. What kind of Microsoft would they have ended up if they had to rely on customers to buy their products?
Seems they still have that problem with Vista...but is anyone even bothering to pirate that one?
I'm still a fan of some of their recent work, but to my knowledge there is exactly as much relation between Atari today and the Atari that is the subject of this book, as there is between Me and Zombie Me. Clothes might look familiar, just don't get too close.
Indeed. I still don't think I get the point behind this article posting.
Did the submitter/editors all not get it? Or worse are they all in on it?
Either option makes me a little sad since even the scheisty 3D Realms people were straight about this being a DN3D release on their own announcement page.
Boo on/. for this one. -10 for not being funny or informative.
I installed 8.04 the other day on a Dell Dimension 1100 (not mine!) about a week ago and I've been watching Flash vids with default FF and Flash utils on both Youtube and Google Vids (longer bigger cuts) with no problem.
Wonder why such inconsistent results between all us users?
Slashdot Mirror
The very fact that you're blowing black shit out of your nose and lungs should be enough to prompt a change in workplace regulations. It shouldn't matter if the black shit is a carcinogen.
Well...I think that was my point. It should be enough, but obviously (see history) is not.
Let's say I have a friend in anaphylactic shock and I have an expired epipen. Will I do more good or harm if I use it? I don't know!
The warning is there specifically to put you in that phase of questioning: Do I know? If the answer is no, then you have some research to do before you can safely take action.
I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect the sign to have all the research on it. (I think it's nice that one can at least know one is taking a risk and maybe has some research to do vs. remaining totally ignorant and then wondering why you have cancer when you're 50.)
It would be nice if these warnings were qualified better so we could make actual, informed decisions.
In case that wasn't 100% rhetorical a more-informed decision should be had this way vs from the warnings:
MSDS's (Material Safety Data Sheets) are one source of info. Think of it like the ingredients list for non-food compounds/chemicals. Here's one good place to start your search for one if you can't find the MSDS for your product directly from the manufacturer's website. They're often only one page, usually easy to read, and usually have some good information on them.
Pharmaceuticals are probably even easier to find out about these days. Here's a good place to start looking that kind of info up. (One of many.)
Good luck!
-Matt
I costs marginally more to operate a higher-speed network, but you should be able to make more money from it than a lower-speed (older) network. You can support more applications, more users.
Come on....fiber is cheap, Optical Carriers are OLD TECH and capable of carrying up to 10Gb/s and more. DWDM has allowed a single fiber to carry at least 128 of these 10Gb/s connections since around 2000. That's 1280Gb/s or more on a single fiber!!
With a terminated OC-192 (10Gb) to distribute to 500 customers, you'd be able to provide every one of them 20Mb/s of dedicated syncronous bandwitdh for $70/month (per FIOS cost) and make $420,000 per year from it. It's only $5000/year from an OC-3 at a little under 20Mb/s for only 7 users. For the record, Comcast claimed to have 13.2 million subscribers on their high-speed internet service at the end of 2007. Using that $70/month number again, that translates to roughly US$1 billion/year in revenue for Comcast.*
Admittedly those are simple numbers**, but they should still give a fair idea of what dollars the ISP's are working with. Unless they suddenly run out of customers (seems unlikely) or just don't have any business savvy at all (maybe) they will make money on network upgrades.
The real question nobody seems in a hurry to answer is why aren't they doing the upgrades if making (more) money is their goal? Instead we get a lot of noise about bandwidth caps and metered usage. I fail to see how they plan to make money from either of those strategies.
-Matt
* And this is just for hooking up their paid-for (by the TV service they provide) network to the Internet.
** There are other costs. You'd never dedicate all that bandwidth to only 500 users as a consumer rate. Those 500 users probably wouldn't all be baseline consumers - a percentage would be higher-value business customers that pay significantly more per month (50%-100% markup) for nothing more than assurance of uptime that you'll already be providing. Only a subset of those 500 users is going to be demanding their full 20Mb/s from the internet simultaneously, so you can support that number of users on a much-smaller-than-OC-192 connection. Et cetera.
Assuming $50/month and a 250GB cap, that's a minumum usage rate of $0.20/GB if you use all 250GB every month. The $/GB goes up higher the less you use the network.
Think of it as metered usage with a $50 cap on the bill and a data limit that you didn't agree to.
To me that's worth some additional Comcast bashing.
I suspect this boils down to the cable co's chaffing at paying the monopoly telco's for their network access and they're trying to find ways to pass more of those costs down to you, the customer. (Without you, the customer, taking your business elsewhere as a result.)
When you consider how much dark fiber (particularly, see Butters' Law) is in the ground as well as Comcast's claims (p. 24, citation 83) that last-mile bandwidth cost is not the issue, the whole bandwidth situation for consumers here in the US is absurd.
-Matt
Dude, that is the weakest (and some of the oldest) telco FUD in the broadband universe. It ought to be on Snopes if it's not already.
If your cable company connection slows down like you say, it's over usage or inadequate bandwidth being provided just like any other network. aka bad network management practice on behalf of the network operator.
It works the same way with DSL and your neighborhood (aka everyone within ~16,000ft/~3mi radius) DSLAM. No different at all. If the administering company doesn't maintain adequate upstream bandwidth for all concurrent users, you go slow when everyone gets online.
If you're suggesting that cable companies run craptastic networks (even more craptastic than the monopoly telco's I mean) that's one thing....but it's not related to the technology.
For what it's worth, I climbed on the cable internet bandwagon back in 1997 and have had cable internet service in multiple cities - usually in multiple areas of the city - and I've (knock on wood) never seen a slowdown ever. Not saying nobody has experienced this, just making the point that it's far from everyone who experiences the slowdowns you have. Sorry for your luck.
-Matt
The source for your TV channels isn't a peering connection with the internet.
That's the difference.
I think Comcast is just being greedy though - nothing more complicated than that. Baby steps toward metered usage.
-Matt
The protest is more about "PDFs and SVGs have huge overhead.
"The protest" seems to be missing the point that a Microsoft/Microsoft-Adobe/etc DRM system just to support embedded web fonts - an obviously marginal feature in the grand scheme - is "huge overhead" in more ways than just words.
-Matt
here's still the obvious moral issue of DRM, but the proponents of the idea are much more serious than that.
Did you mean to say: "the proponents of the idea aren't serious enough to consider that."
I mean the argument is that "images are too hard" or "not good enough", etc. That may be serious, but only to a "designer". In fact the alternatives are working out just fine in daily use.
If they (the "designers") were really serious, they'd be making noise about banning Flash from similar uses. Isn't the web shiny enough already? ("Yes" in case you even hesitated.)
-Matt
From one of the ref'd articles:
Fonts are intellectual property and therefore, the argument goes, cannot be published on the web.
That sounds completely absurd - no IP gets published on the web? Makes me suspect of the author and article.
Anyway, it seems the point of the article is that to get this fancy fontness (great, even more "sizzle" on the Web) you're presently going to have to get down with some MSFT DRM. Unless you've slept through the last two or three decades, you should know better than to even consider the Microsoft option.
Wait/lobby for another solution if this is a real problem.
Aren't open source fonts the correct answer to this problem anyway? Nothing against the font makers, but it seems their product (or maybe just business model) just isn't very compatible with the Internet.*
-Matt
* Or maybe this is only a "problem" for designers and should be suitably ignored as it has been thus far. Already too many resources being poured into design with not enough focusing on quality of content. Enough sizzle already!
I use these units mounted behind my desk, parallel and about 12" above my desktop. Mounted a few inches below the desktop would be a little harder to access, but would be nearly invisible. Make sure you screw into nothing but studs for support.
Of course wall warts still chew up multiple outlets, but it hurts less when you have that many.
-Matt
A disgruntled employee and stock price? Tell me again how stock price is correlated with performance? Ditto for disgruntled employee?
I'm not arguing that Google hasn't turned evil/lost its mojo/whatever - I'm willing to consider it. But are you serious these are the "arguments agaist"???
And for the last time: Benefits are a luxury. Your pay is your pay. Duh...don't let em sell you the sizzle!
Heh...on that note I'm not mad I RTFA'd, but I will say they poured more thought into the headline than the article. Sizzle in deed.
-Matt
I can see having multiple paths to your destination host (the server) will probably eliminate most MITM attacks under this system. However, our presumption of honesty is with the ISP's of course. If they decide to go "man in the middle" again (reaching a little for argument's sake) at the request of the government (or otherwise) are all bets still off? In other words, if all paths are considered to be compromised/under attack before the first use of the Notary system, can it still be considered effective in some way?
Thanks!
-Matt
Sorta sorry again for replying to self, but after the fact found a great link on the history of party line telephone. Enjoy!
-Matt
Sorta sorry for hot-linking someone else's gaphic, but this GDP-density graphic does indicate the same trends the study found as indicated on the graphic on Page 1 of Speedmatters.org's report. Seems logical to me that it would given how the FCC is oriented these days. The same way "party line" phone systems disappeared last from "economically less advanced areas" so will slow internet access. It almost always takes government intervention for services like this to be rolled out to non-rich zones of the country.
Thoughts?
-Matt
The point (if I may do some assuming of my own) is that it's very debatable whether there is such a thing as (or even a need for) altruism.
Even the most altruistic acts we can think of were almost surly rooted in self-interest.
This is very different (in a good, wise way) than thinking there are such things as "good people" and "evil people".
-Matt
...are middle aged....who wants to celebrate that?
-Matt
AC: Ever worked a day in your life? I mean the hard kind of work that'll make you sweat during the day and blow black shit out of your nose and lungs at night? (or worse/similar) I doubt it.
Some people in the US work for a living doing hazardous work. Yeah even more hazardous than jockeying that desk of yours all day.
Of the things that can be hazardous for people to work with, some of them are hazardous to your lungs - like sand.
"Play sand" like the kind you probably spend your days with has been thoroughly washed and graded for safety.
People who work around industrial sand (anything from quarries to paint shops) and breath a lot of silicates (very fine sand) end up with cancer.
I'm sure it's funny to you and some other people -- why else would so many signs be needed to point these things out?
Sadly more people of your mind you do not expatriate to a place where they already do business "your way" such as...well, nearly any second or third world country. You can sprinkle lead paint on your corn flakes and have silica sand for desert if you like. Sure civilization has its warts, but if you don't like it, don't fake like there's no alternative and try to drag the rest of us back in time. Bye.
-Matt
It's pretty obvious that Microsoft has UI experts...
Gotta be the first time those words have been strung together.
Personally it's still not so obvious.
-Matt
Thank you. And I would go further in stating that Microsoft is a much bigger abuser/benefactor of this phenomena than any of the hardware companies.
I don't know a soul who would have used MS-DOS or Windows 3.1 if they couldn't have gotten it "from a buddy at work". More or less that held tru through 95 as well. The point is, take out piracy and you take out those years. What kind of Microsoft would they have ended up if they had to rely on customers to buy their products?
Seems they still have that problem with Vista...but is anyone even bothering to pirate that one?
-Matt
I'm still a fan of some of their recent work, but to my knowledge there is exactly as much relation between Atari today and the Atari that is the subject of this book, as there is between Me and Zombie Me. Clothes might look familiar, just don't get too close.
-Matt
Takes some planning, but that doesn't have to be true either. Not since (roughly) 1994.
-Matt
ZFS is at the top of so many folks' list that I figure I should throw this out just for reference:
ZFS is an available option in FreeNAS.
I'm guessing by extension that it's available in the general FreeBSD distribution too.
-Matt
Indeed. I still don't think I get the point behind this article posting.
Did the submitter/editors all not get it? Or worse are they all in on it?
Either option makes me a little sad since even the scheisty 3D Realms people were straight about this being a DN3D release on their own announcement page.
Boo on /. for this one. -10 for not being funny or informative.
-Matt
#10,407's got you by 1,132,922 membership points, #1,143,329.
#10,407 and #44,513 both want you off HIS lawn right now.
Sincerely,
Membership Police
...and I installed it recently, not long ago too...
sorry. :)
-Matt
I installed 8.04 the other day on a Dell Dimension 1100 (not mine!) about a week ago and I've been watching Flash vids with default FF and Flash utils on both Youtube and Google Vids (longer bigger cuts) with no problem.
Wonder why such inconsistent results between all us users?
-Matt