Not necessarily true. Providers paying for peering links (mostly BGP routes) often have per-megabit-or-gigabit deals, and you hear about them being renegotiated often. Bad blanket statement.
And that's not really the point, is it? The provider advertises 'unlimited use.' Hit dictionary.com and look up the term 'unlimited.' Doesn't jive with '1GB/day limit' does it? It's false advertising. If you don't want me using a connection/service/sushi bar without limit, DO NOT ADVERTISE IT AS SUCH. You send me a letter chastising me for using an unlimited account too much, you'll get a call from me asking you, exactly, what the limits are on an unlimited account.
The providers can suck me. You want customers, but you don't want them using the service. Fuck off. You give me a pipe that goes between 500K-1.5Mb, I'll fill that bad boy up. What I will not do is use a high-capacity service the way you want me to: surfing CNN and checking Hotmail. Not for $50/mo. If it comes down to that, I'll go back to dial-up.
No, it can't. Instead of DSL chugging along at (in utopia) 1.5Mb/s, you'd get native 10/100Mb Ethernet services, plus your HDTV, landline phone, partridge, pear tree, etc., etc.
DSL was developed because we have copper in the last mile. If it was all fiber, we wouldn't need it. Your point is irrelevant at best.
The guys working ReactOS might want to be careful. Spirent Communications has a product called REACT, very popular in the systems/OSS world for testing large communications system. And it's a software product. Were this to ever be popular, they might have some problems with it, figuring the way big companies love to sue nowadays.
Do a little homework before picking those cool names, folks. Save you a lot of pain down the road.
Okay. So this guy buys a few PCI fibre NICs. Sets them up. Great.
Now what the hell does he plug them into?
The only problem with your easy solution is that, in fact, it's broken. Unless you want to hook up a few machine point-to-point over the fibre links, you have nothing. You'll need at least a switch with a fibre port, and most likely a router or two (for healthy network design) to send traffic across this backbone.
My recommendation? Not knowing what he wants to do with this link, I'd throw a GigE switch on that sucker, distribute 100BaseT out to the clients, and watch it hum.
You've got nothing but potential on that wire, since you can literally hook up anything you want. Define the applications, scope out what the network needs, figure out the architecture, then plug in the b0xen. Beware the cheap/easy road, as it may not do anything worthwhile.
SBC didn't have a choice in giving AT&T/MCI/Bob's DSL access to their phone lines. If I 'member correctly, it was the toll for providing LD service to their captive local-phone audience (Telcomm Act of '96 - corrections, anybody?). They'd love it if folks had no choice but SBC products when picking telephony services, but that's not an option, according to Congress.
In the meantime, they would love to grab DSL users and generate more revenue. They're losing their ass on phone services, and as DSL becomes more commoditized on the backend, they stand to make a fortune (Pronto is becomming a large success), provided they don't screw it up. However, they've got competition in the form of DLEC/CLEC providers like Covad offering DSL and phone services over their wire. So, they've got to be competitive. Which lowers our costs.
To answer your question: all of the above. And they can't have it both ways 'cause the FCC and Congress told them so. Otherwise, they would.
No, he's not claiming anything of the sort. What he's claiming is that, in a captialist society, with competition both for the companies and the employees, you've got a few choices:
-Accept your current working conditions -Work out new ones with your employer -Leave and find new sources of work
Our industry is in a slump, and a bad one. We just came off one of the biggest booms of the modern economy, and we're hurtin'. It'll turn around, it always does. But while it's bad, it's going to suck. And people are very eager to find new work. You don't like your current job? Go find a new one. Oh, wait, none out there? Tough shit. This is what the market will bear, if you think you can do better, go do it. With the employment market so tight, you probably can't, unless you're Just That Good. It's reality, nothing more.
But get this: we did the SAME THING to our employers not two years ago. Don't want to pay me $100K/yr., pay my cell phone, and let me wear ripped jeans to work? Tough shit: go find another techie. Oh, they're really hard to find? That's too bad. The shoe's on the other foot, and we don't like it. It'll all even out, but until then, you put up/shut up, or bide your time. Stop whining about corporate greed/getting it from your boss. It's a symbiotic relationship.
Personally, I've been laid off twice this calender year, by two separate companies. Do I begrudge the executives? In the end, no: they're making business decisions, and while some of them are really stupid, in the end, their responsibilites are to their shareholders, and the greater good. I notice folks here screaming away about the burgious executives of the world trampling the masses. News flash, people: IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY. Now, we simply have more visibility and awareness of the robber-barons, that we actually have a chance to get pissed off about it.
Take it from this perspective: do some research about starting a small business, or work for a small business (50 people). I have, on both accounts. Some of my best knowledge and insight into a business was from watching my bosses (the president and another officer) sweat payroll. And when you look at the sheer amount of effort in management and planning, administritivia, guiding the vision, hiring/firing, sweating the money, the details, the long hours, *plus* actually producing for the company...
I'll tell you what: if I'm ever lucky/good enough to put that business together, you're goddamned right I'm gonna be one of the highest, if not *the* highest, paid SOB in the group. And I'll do my best to treat my employees like gold. But this is not a charity-fucking-ball. Corporation exist to make money, and for no other reason. The balance will swing the other way. In the meantime, sharpen your skills, build that resume, and wait.
What? You just let the fox not only guard the henhouse, but give guided tours to his buddies.
This is exactly the point: copyrights should have (and, IMO, were intended to have) a limited lifespan, period. Sure, Congress is giving a 'limited time' extension to these copyrights, but they do it every time Disney whines and pays them. SCOTUS would never go so far as to accuse Congress of unethical behavior without a smoking gun and several spent shells, but they might be reading between the lines (condemnation of bad policy?).
Your comment about not being able to use material when no one is around to control the copyright? If it's not enforced, and no one claims ownership, it dissolves. IANAL, so check your facts, but I'm pretty sure it's not like a bank vault where the key is tossed in the gutter and forgotten. The works would be absorbed into the public domain. If anyone noticed/cared enough that could claim ownership, they'd pop up.
You get X years on your copyright, period. After that, get a new idea. No extensions, no in perpetuam BS, nada. What you've proposed is no different than what Congress appears to be enacting. The idea of giving an organization like Disney the chance to extend copyright indefinitely...who's side are you on?
I've managed software products before (a suite of protocol analysis software). I had to deal with all sorts of issues and customers pulling all manners of bullshit. If you can come up with it, they've taken it a step further. Piracy was the major thrust (at $5K/copy, I don't blame them).
And you know what? Never once, not for a second, not a moment, did advanced copy protection techniques (past a key which we kept record of, in case the customer lost it) came to my mind. And on many occasions (more than I like to admit to myself), I'd say 'fuck it,' throw the customer a bone, and extend corporate goodwill.
And the overriding, driving force behind all of my decisons? KEEP THE CUSTOMERS COMING BACK.
First MS, now the record labels. I'm as much a capatalist as the next guy, but this is enough. If you screw me as a consumer, I simply will not buy your product. End of story.
I understand exactly how BMG/EMI/BMI/EMG feels. But they've crossed the line with regards to their consumers. They'll get what they deserve.
It might help me understand how big of an arrogant cock you are.
I was curious myself. And yes, knowing what language it is might help him understand, or find someone who does. If I'm speaking Afrikaner, and you don't know that, you're screwed, aren't you? Yet if you know I'm speaking Afrikaner, well, you've got a shot (however remote).
The poster asked a simple question. Being an ass about it is, of course, purely optional, but rather unnecessary.
In short, this is not surprising at all, but it's a bad attitude for any industry to adopt.
The bottom line is that, yes, companies don't have to be ultra-competitive to grab 80% of the tech employees floating around out there, and they can get away with quite a bit right now. But all this does is create a sense of animosity and further arm the generation of mercenaries with zero corporate loyalty, who take a job/check, and bide their time (/me partially raises hand). This market will rebound (it's showing the beginning signs) like every other, and the shoe will be on the other foot. Then, when the best talent bails because of a company's draconian attiude, maybe they'll learn.
I'm not against a business-casual dress code (I find good khakis to be much more comfortable than jeans), but if you want me in here 60-80 hrs./week, late at night, you better be ready for untucked t-shirts and jeans. I've known coders so exhausted/devoted that they fell asleep at the wheel and nearly wrecked their cars (I think most of us do); you'd better believe their managers didn't say shit about their attire.
And IMO, the dot-com culture as it existed is gone forever. Such atmospheres still exist in marketing or advertisizing firms...ohwait, that's basically what the dot-coms were...
Of course it is. The Masses (who are the ones who really generate cash, not us geeks) go off the principle of 'more is better.' Intel screams as loud as they can that clock speed is the important factor, and they have the most brand equity.
AMD makes more efficient chips that operate at lower clock speeds (like, say, Honda engines getting more HP out of smaller plants). The Masses don't read benchmarks. What is AMD s'posed to do, roll over and let Intel dictate what indicates a good chip? Hellno.
AMD will never 'admit' anything about their numbering scheme because a) all numbering schemes are marketing schemes, plain and simple and b) you're the only one who didn't get the memo.
What, precisely, does the OSS community have to gain if they 'stop acting like children?' Play by the rules and, say, be ignored at a Deparment of Commerce meeting?
This is standard civil disobdience, and probably necessary in light of the obstacles set up by the status quo. I'm hardly a Marxist, but kudos to a guy hanging them out in favor of a cause he values. Jail/fines are jail/fines, regardless of the prison.
The point is to get people to pay attention, and possibly win a court chaloenge or two. Granted, the community could use some maturity and some social leadership, but sometimes, you have to do something as absurd as not giving up your seat on the bus to make your point.
You approve?
They're going straight to the FCC to bypass the standard legislative process, which might actually get people to think about what it is, exactly, that the MPAA really wants.
They're pulling an end-run to get it into practice, so the law is easier to pass. That's not applaudable: that defeats the entire point.
Re:we all know what a disaster Freon was... try ag
on
Microsoft Freon
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
That anecdote was most likely bullshit. Inhaling Freon is a tremendously bad idea: Freon is heavier than air, and will displace all of the oxygen in your lungs. You'll suffocate pretty fast. Unless the du Pont guy basically hot-boxed the Freon, and was extremely careful, the incident was probably fabricated.
There was an Emergency 911 where some dumbass HVAC tech filled his air mattress with Freon. His kid caught a lungfull, nearly died.
And at any rate, it makes a stupid codename. The marketing drones fell asleep at the wheel.
Speculation, purely, but they'd probably want to do something like the FLASH system used for time-sensitive/critical military traffic.
Problem is, the mechanism is already in IP, and would be hacked in no more than a week, if the government actually wanted it implemented. Pr0n has never been quicker, than when it's government pr0n.
You might try the folks who whipped up the T-BERD to begin with: TTC, now Acterna. Some really good applications notes available for testing telco stuffs.
Obviously, you've never undocked your laptop from your desk, and walked to a conference room in another part of the building, having to connect to a walljack and renew leases (or if Windows is having its typical day, reboot). This makes that problem vanish, with proper implementation.
Or, how about moving from one building on campus to another with your laptop packed up in sleep-mode, breaking it out in your next class ready to go with no hassle?
It's not necessarily for your literal WWW-on-the-go, but for the hassle of getting there and moving from net to net. Those of us who do have it (I've got my wireless NIC at work) would *love* to see that.
The possible counter to this is the fact that the government baits people with things other than money. Ample vacation, work flexibility (in some cases), massive benefits and the 'national pride' thing are a few of their trump cards. In a recessed economy, the 'iron-clad job security' angle works very well.
True, the private sector flashes green and touts strict supply/demand to get their employees, but the recent waves of down/right-sizing, plummeting employee loyality, and the recent exposing of rampant exec-level greed...shit, this has always existed, but now we can see it more clearly. Is the private sector all that great?
And don't believe the hype: no one, and I do mean *no one*, has toys like the US military. Geek heaven, once you get the right security clearance. Try that one on for bait.
This should be good. 'course, what I'm wondering is, how people would rather have that 144kb/s wireless to their house (through FWLL or something), rather than to their phones. AT&T Wireless killed a project to do just that.
And, not to parrot the rest of the crowds, but Verizon and Verizon Wireless are two separate companies with two separate tech. support crowds, customer service, P&L, etc. So before you start the 'Verizon is the devil' speech, VW's service kicks ass.
1. Sony owns (0wnz?) the console market. Their consoles are still the most popular (yes, check the latest sales figures), their game licensing is fantastic, their loyal fans insane. Complain all you want about the programming difficulties, the 'Sony proprietary' issues, whatever. The PS1/PS2 one-two punch was a fantastic marketing and technological move.
2. 80% (or more) of their user base does not give a ROYAL FLYING DAMN about playing overseas games, or mod chips, or even trying to crack open the case. Let them boot GTA3 or Madden, and watch Region 1 discs with a layer skip here or there, and they're in bliss. If that changes, just watch: they'll react.
3. Start trumpeting the XBox? Please. Go for it. We've seen countless times what MS does to people who attempt to modify their products or challenge their vision. It's never been pretty. And Halo sucked anyway.
Bottom line: Sony is, in their eyes, protecting their investment. They're entitled to do that. They may be scum while they do it, we may think the DCMA is shit (it is), etc., etc., but it's their sandbox, and *tons* of people want to play in it, myself included (GTA3 and GT3 rule). This won't even scratch their PS2 sales, or their corporate image or blahblahblah, because the vast majority of users (idiots? sleepers?) just...don't...care.
Remember: they don't make their money off of techies. They make it off of the unwashed masses. That's why their products are cheap, easy, and flashy. And many users will fall into the Sony-authorized trap. Think about that the next time you unleash a string of curses at the monitor.
Excellent. The Supreme Court took their Metamucil this morning, and made a good call. Yay for personal freedom and responsibility.
But the question still remains: is anything that two (or more) consenting adults come up with still a good idea? Just because schoolgirls-being-raped-by-71-tenticles-and-alien- headmasters doesn't explicitly hurt anyone, is it still a benefit to society to release it into the mainstream? As much as folks would like to ignore, there *is* a middle ground between Anything Goes and the Moral Majority. I'd like to call it Common Sense, but that's not right. And I'd be a hypocrit on this one: I love GTA3.
Not flamebait, just food for thought. Somewhere, you need to draw a line. The need for personal (and especially parental) responsibility exists, but many 'mature' adults can't handle complete creative and expressive freedoms.
Jesus, I'm getting old.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily true. Providers paying for peering links (mostly BGP routes) often have per-megabit-or-gigabit deals, and you hear about them being renegotiated often. Bad blanket statement.
And that's not really the point, is it? The provider advertises 'unlimited use.' Hit dictionary.com and look up the term 'unlimited.' Doesn't jive with '1GB/day limit' does it? It's false advertising. If you don't want me using a connection/service/sushi bar without limit, DO NOT ADVERTISE IT AS SUCH. You send me a letter chastising me for using an unlimited account too much, you'll get a call from me asking you, exactly, what the limits are on an unlimited account.
The providers can suck me. You want customers, but you don't want them using the service. Fuck off. You give me a pipe that goes between 500K-1.5Mb, I'll fill that bad boy up. What I will not do is use a high-capacity service the way you want me to: surfing CNN and checking Hotmail. Not for $50/mo. If it comes down to that, I'll go back to dial-up.
No, it can't. Instead of DSL chugging along at (in utopia) 1.5Mb/s, you'd get native 10/100Mb Ethernet services, plus your HDTV, landline phone, partridge, pear tree, etc., etc. DSL was developed because we have copper in the last mile. If it was all fiber, we wouldn't need it. Your point is irrelevant at best.
The guys working ReactOS might want to be careful. Spirent Communications has a product called REACT, very popular in the systems/OSS world for testing large communications system. And it's a software product. Were this to ever be popular, they might have some problems with it, figuring the way big companies love to sue nowadays.
Do a little homework before picking those cool names, folks. Save you a lot of pain down the road.
Okay. So this guy buys a few PCI fibre NICs. Sets them up. Great.
Now what the hell does he plug them into?
The only problem with your easy solution is that, in fact, it's broken. Unless you want to hook up a few machine point-to-point over the fibre links, you have nothing. You'll need at least a switch with a fibre port, and most likely a router or two (for healthy network design) to send traffic across this backbone.
My recommendation? Not knowing what he wants to do with this link, I'd throw a GigE switch on that sucker, distribute 100BaseT out to the clients, and watch it hum.
You've got nothing but potential on that wire, since you can literally hook up anything you want. Define the applications, scope out what the network needs, figure out the architecture, then plug in the b0xen. Beware the cheap/easy road, as it may not do anything worthwhile.
SBC didn't have a choice in giving AT&T/MCI/Bob's DSL access to their phone lines. If I 'member correctly, it was the toll for providing LD service to their captive local-phone audience (Telcomm Act of '96 - corrections, anybody?). They'd love it if folks had no choice but SBC products when picking telephony services, but that's not an option, according to Congress.
In the meantime, they would love to grab DSL users and generate more revenue. They're losing their ass on phone services, and as DSL becomes more commoditized on the backend, they stand to make a fortune (Pronto is becomming a large success), provided they don't screw it up. However, they've got competition in the form of DLEC/CLEC providers like Covad offering DSL and phone services over their wire. So, they've got to be competitive. Which lowers our costs.
To answer your question: all of the above. And they can't have it both ways 'cause the FCC and Congress told them so. Otherwise, they would.
No, he's not claiming anything of the sort. What he's claiming is that, in a captialist society, with competition both for the companies and the employees, you've got a few choices:
-Accept your current working conditions
-Work out new ones with your employer
-Leave and find new sources of work
Our industry is in a slump, and a bad one. We just came off one of the biggest booms of the modern economy, and we're hurtin'. It'll turn around, it always does. But while it's bad, it's going to suck. And people are very eager to find new work. You don't like your current job? Go find a new one. Oh, wait, none out there? Tough shit. This is what the market will bear, if you think you can do better, go do it. With the employment market so tight, you probably can't, unless you're Just That Good. It's reality, nothing more.
But get this: we did the SAME THING to our employers not two years ago. Don't want to pay me $100K/yr., pay my cell phone, and let me wear ripped jeans to work? Tough shit: go find another techie. Oh, they're really hard to find? That's too bad. The shoe's on the other foot, and we don't like it. It'll all even out, but until then, you put up/shut up, or bide your time. Stop whining about corporate greed/getting it from your boss. It's a symbiotic relationship.
Personally, I've been laid off twice this calender year, by two separate companies. Do I begrudge the executives? In the end, no: they're making business decisions, and while some of them are really stupid, in the end, their responsibilites are to their shareholders, and the greater good. I notice folks here screaming away about the burgious executives of the world trampling the masses. News flash, people: IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY. Now, we simply have more visibility and awareness of the robber-barons, that we actually have a chance to get pissed off about it.
Take it from this perspective: do some research about starting a small business, or work for a small business (50 people). I have, on both accounts. Some of my best knowledge and insight into a business was from watching my bosses (the president and another officer) sweat payroll. And when you look at the sheer amount of effort in management and planning, administritivia, guiding the vision, hiring/firing, sweating the money, the details, the long hours, *plus* actually producing for the company...
I'll tell you what: if I'm ever lucky/good enough to put that business together, you're goddamned right I'm gonna be one of the highest, if not *the* highest, paid SOB in the group. And I'll do my best to treat my employees like gold. But this is not a charity-fucking-ball. Corporation exist to make money, and for no other reason. The balance will swing the other way. In the meantime, sharpen your skills, build that resume, and wait.
What? You just let the fox not only guard the henhouse, but give guided tours to his buddies.
This is exactly the point: copyrights should have (and, IMO, were intended to have) a limited lifespan, period. Sure, Congress is giving a 'limited time' extension to these copyrights, but they do it every time Disney whines and pays them. SCOTUS would never go so far as to accuse Congress of unethical behavior without a smoking gun and several spent shells, but they might be reading between the lines (condemnation of bad policy?).
Your comment about not being able to use material when no one is around to control the copyright? If it's not enforced, and no one claims ownership, it dissolves. IANAL, so check your facts, but I'm pretty sure it's not like a bank vault where the key is tossed in the gutter and forgotten. The works would be absorbed into the public domain. If anyone noticed/cared enough that could claim ownership, they'd pop up.
You get X years on your copyright, period. After that, get a new idea. No extensions, no in perpetuam BS, nada. What you've proposed is no different than what Congress appears to be enacting. The idea of giving an organization like Disney the chance to extend copyright indefinitely...who's side are you on?
I've managed software products before (a suite of protocol analysis software). I had to deal with all sorts of issues and customers pulling all manners of bullshit. If you can come up with it, they've taken it a step further. Piracy was the major thrust (at $5K/copy, I don't blame them). And you know what? Never once, not for a second, not a moment, did advanced copy protection techniques (past a key which we kept record of, in case the customer lost it) came to my mind. And on many occasions (more than I like to admit to myself), I'd say 'fuck it,' throw the customer a bone, and extend corporate goodwill. And the overriding, driving force behind all of my decisons? KEEP THE CUSTOMERS COMING BACK. First MS, now the record labels. I'm as much a capatalist as the next guy, but this is enough. If you screw me as a consumer, I simply will not buy your product. End of story. I understand exactly how BMG/EMI/BMI/EMG feels. But they've crossed the line with regards to their consumers. They'll get what they deserve.
It might help me understand how big of an arrogant cock you are.
I was curious myself. And yes, knowing what language it is might help him understand, or find someone who does. If I'm speaking Afrikaner, and you don't know that, you're screwed, aren't you? Yet if you know I'm speaking Afrikaner, well, you've got a shot (however remote).
The poster asked a simple question. Being an ass about it is, of course, purely optional, but rather unnecessary.
In short, this is not surprising at all, but it's a bad attitude for any industry to adopt.
The bottom line is that, yes, companies don't have to be ultra-competitive to grab 80% of the tech employees floating around out there, and they can get away with quite a bit right now. But all this does is create a sense of animosity and further arm the generation of mercenaries with zero corporate loyalty, who take a job/check, and bide their time (/me partially raises hand). This market will rebound (it's showing the beginning signs) like every other, and the shoe will be on the other foot. Then, when the best talent bails because of a company's draconian attiude, maybe they'll learn.
I'm not against a business-casual dress code (I find good khakis to be much more comfortable than jeans), but if you want me in here 60-80 hrs./week, late at night, you better be ready for untucked t-shirts and jeans. I've known coders so exhausted/devoted that they fell asleep at the wheel and nearly wrecked their cars (I think most of us do); you'd better believe their managers didn't say shit about their attire.
And IMO, the dot-com culture as it existed is gone forever. Such atmospheres still exist in marketing or advertisizing firms...ohwait, that's basically what the dot-coms were...
Put yourself in their shoes..
Would it sit well with you as a kernel developer if, for instance, microsoft was using linux as their development platform for their next OS?
What? And do something that is complete, totally legitimate: legally acquiring a third-pary product and using it to develop another product?
Wake up. This is not only done everyday, but it's acceptable. The EULA would be tossed out of court.
Of course it is. The Masses (who are the ones who really generate cash, not us geeks) go off the principle of 'more is better.' Intel screams as loud as they can that clock speed is the important factor, and they have the most brand equity.
AMD makes more efficient chips that operate at lower clock speeds (like, say, Honda engines getting more HP out of smaller plants). The Masses don't read benchmarks. What is AMD s'posed to do, roll over and let Intel dictate what indicates a good chip? Hellno.
AMD will never 'admit' anything about their numbering scheme because a) all numbering schemes are marketing schemes, plain and simple and b) you're the only one who didn't get the memo.
Our Carmack, who art in Texas,
hallowed be thy textures.
Thy software come, thy games be done,
on my b0xen as it is at E3.
Give us this day, our daily FPS.
And forgive us our camping,
as we gun down those who camp against us.
Lead us not into a spawn site,
but just give me the damn BFG.
For the gaming market, the GeForce,
and the booth babes are yours, now and until payday.
What, precisely, does the OSS community have to gain if they 'stop acting like children?' Play by the rules and, say, be ignored at a Deparment of Commerce meeting?
This is standard civil disobdience, and probably necessary in light of the obstacles set up by the status quo. I'm hardly a Marxist, but kudos to a guy hanging them out in favor of a cause he values. Jail/fines are jail/fines, regardless of the prison.
The point is to get people to pay attention, and possibly win a court chaloenge or two. Granted, the community could use some maturity and some social leadership, but sometimes, you have to do something as absurd as not giving up your seat on the bus to make your point.
You approve? They're going straight to the FCC to bypass the standard legislative process, which might actually get people to think about what it is, exactly, that the MPAA really wants. They're pulling an end-run to get it into practice, so the law is easier to pass. That's not applaudable: that defeats the entire point.
That anecdote was most likely bullshit. Inhaling Freon is a tremendously bad idea: Freon is heavier than air, and will displace all of the oxygen in your lungs. You'll suffocate pretty fast. Unless the du Pont guy basically hot-boxed the Freon, and was extremely careful, the incident was probably fabricated.
There was an Emergency 911 where some dumbass HVAC tech filled his air mattress with Freon. His kid caught a lungfull, nearly died.
And at any rate, it makes a stupid codename. The marketing drones fell asleep at the wheel.
Yeah, I remember Chandra Levy. I also remember Gary Condit's campaign falling apart and him not getting re-elected in California as a result.
Bad analogy. Sometimes, the public has a better memory than folks (including myself) give them credit for.
Speculation, purely, but they'd probably want to do something like the FLASH system used for time-sensitive/critical military traffic.
Problem is, the mechanism is already in IP, and would be hacked in no more than a week, if the government actually wanted it implemented. Pr0n has never been quicker, than when it's government pr0n.
You might try the folks who whipped up the T-BERD to begin with: TTC, now Acterna. Some really good applications notes available for testing telco stuffs.
Obviously, you've never undocked your laptop from your desk, and walked to a conference room in another part of the building, having to connect to a walljack and renew leases (or if Windows is having its typical day, reboot). This makes that problem vanish, with proper implementation.
Or, how about moving from one building on campus to another with your laptop packed up in sleep-mode, breaking it out in your next class ready to go with no hassle?
It's not necessarily for your literal WWW-on-the-go, but for the hassle of getting there and moving from net to net. Those of us who do have it (I've got my wireless NIC at work) would *love* to see that.
The possible counter to this is the fact that the government baits people with things other than money. Ample vacation, work flexibility (in some cases), massive benefits and the 'national pride' thing are a few of their trump cards. In a recessed economy, the 'iron-clad job security' angle works very well.
True, the private sector flashes green and touts strict supply/demand to get their employees, but the recent waves of down/right-sizing, plummeting employee loyality, and the recent exposing of rampant exec-level greed...shit, this has always existed, but now we can see it more clearly. Is the private sector all that great?
And don't believe the hype: no one, and I do mean *no one*, has toys like the US military. Geek heaven, once you get the right security clearance. Try that one on for bait.
This should be good. 'course, what I'm wondering is, how people would rather have that 144kb/s wireless to their house (through FWLL or something), rather than to their phones. AT&T Wireless killed a project to do just that. And, not to parrot the rest of the crowds, but Verizon and Verizon Wireless are two separate companies with two separate tech. support crowds, customer service, P&L, etc. So before you start the 'Verizon is the devil' speech, VW's service kicks ass.
Seems to be a few points folks are missing:
1. Sony owns (0wnz?) the console market. Their consoles are still the most popular (yes, check the latest sales figures), their game licensing is fantastic, their loyal fans insane. Complain all you want about the programming difficulties, the 'Sony proprietary' issues, whatever. The PS1/PS2 one-two punch was a fantastic marketing and technological move.
2. 80% (or more) of their user base does not give a ROYAL FLYING DAMN about playing overseas games, or mod chips, or even trying to crack open the case. Let them boot GTA3 or Madden, and watch Region 1 discs with a layer skip here or there, and they're in bliss. If that changes, just watch: they'll react.
3. Start trumpeting the XBox? Please. Go for it. We've seen countless times what MS does to people who attempt to modify their products or challenge their vision. It's never been pretty. And Halo sucked anyway.
Bottom line: Sony is, in their eyes, protecting their investment. They're entitled to do that. They may be scum while they do it, we may think the DCMA is shit (it is), etc., etc., but it's their sandbox, and *tons* of people want to play in it, myself included (GTA3 and GT3 rule). This won't even scratch their PS2 sales, or their corporate image or blahblahblah, because the vast majority of users (idiots? sleepers?) just...don't...care.
Remember: they don't make their money off of techies. They make it off of the unwashed masses. That's why their products are cheap, easy, and flashy. And many users will fall into the Sony-authorized trap. Think about that the next time you unleash a string of curses at the monitor.
Excellent. The Supreme Court took their Metamucil this morning, and made a good call. Yay for personal freedom and responsibility. But the question still remains: is anything that two (or more) consenting adults come up with still a good idea? Just because schoolgirls-being-raped-by-71-tenticles-and-alien- headmasters doesn't explicitly hurt anyone, is it still a benefit to society to release it into the mainstream? As much as folks would like to ignore, there *is* a middle ground between Anything Goes and the Moral Majority. I'd like to call it Common Sense, but that's not right. And I'd be a hypocrit on this one: I love GTA3.
Not flamebait, just food for thought. Somewhere, you need to draw a line. The need for personal (and especially parental) responsibility exists, but many 'mature' adults can't handle complete creative and expressive freedoms.
Jesus, I'm getting old.