Sorry about the cut off reply - my point was going to be, should Google pull out of the U.S. if the US passes laws that undermine its citizens rights and freedoms? I'm not saying this is my positing, but some feel that the U.S. is become oppressive. If this were true, do you feel it is Google's obligation to pull out?
It is of course a question of scale. But I think it's remains squarely in Google's purview (and it's stake holders) to determin where it operates and why. It's not like there is a trade embargo in place to prevent them from operating there.
The United States feels that it is in its citizen's interests to protect the copyrights created by US citizens and marketed by a multi-billion dollar industry. Not only may the industry collapse, leaving thousands without jobs, but with the availability of cheap music artists lose their incentive to create.
The US isn't doing it for its citizens, it's doing it at the behest of the music industry.
An artists incentive to create is the love of their art. If you think an artist, a true artist is in it for the money, you've never tried to live off of art.
If the music industry as it exists today collapsed, there would still be music, there would still be musicians and there most certainly be concerts. All we stand to lose is the cookie cutter crap bands the music industry throws together for their own profit, and that's no loss at all. Good riddance.
Your problem with faxes was probably user error - you can't use fax machines with Vonage (or any other VoIP, for that matter) voice lines. Those routers use audio compression to send your voice over the internet, and audio compression is lossy.
Sure, you can. It's not the compression, it's the level of compression. If you're running your fax machine at 14.4kbps, and the codec you're using for VoIP is 6-8kbps, you can't expect to see great results. Use a higher bitrate codec such as G.711, or lower you fax's bitrate. Mind you, latency and jitter are also problems, and I'm oversimplifying the issues but saying you just can't do it is wrong. (I realise that Vonage won't let you muck with settings, but you inclded all other VoIP solutions.)
You need a second line to send faxes, and most of the Vonage routers have a second jack labelled FAX specifically for this. The fax line doesn't use audio compression, it receives the fax transmission as data instead of audio, and forwards it over the internet as data instead of compressed audio.
Routers send data, period. If your fax machine operates exactly as it did using POTS lines, you need to be able to "talk" to the remote fax machine in real time. Unless Vonage magically taps into both fax machines, and bypasses the whole modulation/demodulation process, then audio must be sampled, sent over the internet and at some point thrown back out on the public phone network as audio data. What likely is happening is that you pay Vonage for a fax line, and they provision the second line on your router to use G.711 and set QoS to ensure bandwidth for that line.
Just for kicks... Try dialing *99 first, use 9600bps on your fax and try your normal line. Disable call waiting as well, *70 - that's been true of modem and fax use and hasn't changed now. Not saying it will always work perfectly, it depends greatly on your connection to your provider, but saying you can't do it or that you absolutely need a second special line is entirely false. This works with sattelite services or TiVO where the systems need to dial out as well...
So the high performance crowd will be wanting a PC by the time the PS3 comes out.The group gamers will want a Wii, and the "hard-core" console gamers probably already have an XBox 360. Who then is Sony hoping to sell the PS3 to? (not counting people with too much money)
I wonder which of the 100,000,000 PS2 owners Sony hopes to sell the new console to? Only a quarter of them is more than Xbox's market share. Some forcasts suggest that Sony can lose 20% of it's market share. That's still more than Xbox AND Nintendo combined. I think that's who they hope to sell to.
I suspect these new processors will likely be as expensive as a PS3, JUST the processors. Who exactly is the group with too much money?
The PS2's EE is a pair of ~300MHz 64-bit MIPS cores tied together with another, slower core. Even just one of those cores would be more powerful than the SH4.
I think you might be mistaken - the core processor is a ~300Mhz, 128bit processor IIRC, but it can perform 2 64bit instructions per cycle. Then there are the two vector units.
And before the yahoos come out complaining, most universities in the US are state agencies, they have no legal right to impose speech codes on non-employees. As private citizens we have every legal right to express ourselves on campus, provided that we do so in accordance with the constitutional standards of the state and federal governments and the law duly passed by the state legislature.
Not saying I don't agree with you, but... The first amendment protects private citizens from having laws passed by Congress that would impede free speech. And that's a huge distinction. The restrictions you mention are not passed by congress, nor are they laws. They are rules specific to the university, passed by whatever body governs it. Any student is free to attend a university that respects the student's freedom of expression.
It's only when one is excessively lazy and doesn't want to spend more than a buck and 2 minutes cooking a meal that he'll open a box of Kraft dinner.
I wouldn't generalize so much. KD is for those who can't afford to spend more than a buck on a meal. And those who only own one pot to cook in... Starving students for instance.
Ha, wrong! Steal it, and you get a minor charge like maybe shoplifting, or theft under $x. Copy it, and you get 10 years. The obvious solution is to stop copying software, and just steal it off of the store shelves.
It was indisputably not only the best microprocessor Intel had produced to date, but the best microprocessor on the market....The world will never again see the day when one manufacturer so dominated the microprocessor market that a single product had a 100.0% market share.
Indisputably if you ignore the Motorola 6800 and the MOS 6502 and the Z80. Even if you did ignore them, you still wouldn't end up with 100% microprocessor market share for the 8080.
Microsoft was convicted of including a BROWSER in their operating system.
You have no idea what the case was about, do you? They were convicted of abusing their monopoly, and there were far more complaints than just the integrated (not just simply included) browser.
No doubt Microsoft did some coercion (though it wasn't illegal), but that's not why Microsoft won. Microsoft won because they were COMPATIBLE. Pure and simple. Windows 3.1 killed all the competition at the time because it was the most compatible with DOS. Windows 95 killed everything because it was STILL the most compatible with DOS and Windows 3.1.
Look at OS/2. IBM, with every computer they sold, included OS/2 as the default operating system and also Windows 3.1. People had to go out of their way to delete OS/2 and use Windows 3.1 instead. And they did it! They deleted something that was clearly superior in every way. You know why? Because OS/2 was INCOMPATIBLE with a hell of a lot of software and drivers.
Do some research into OS/2 to find out why Windows 3.1 was also bundled. So you mean to tell me that applications and drivers written for another operating system don't run well under OS/2! How enlightening. The reasons for this will become clear when you dig a little more into the origins of OS/2.
Microsoft won because they were smart enough to give people an upgrade path, and secondarily they treat the development community very well.
"When you are dealing with rootkits and some advanced spyware programs, the only solution is to rebuild from scratch. In some cases, there really is no way to recover without nuking the systems from orbit,"
That's true in general for dealing with any rootkit on any OS, not some failing on Microsoft's part.
IMHO, if you don't like the quality of WalMart goods, don't buy any of their "house brand" stuff, or any of the generic stuff. Only buy when they sell the *identical* product you were wanting anyway from another store.
You don't have to be their customer to suffer their poor quality items.
Suppose you're in the market for diapers. Brand X is carried all over. Wal-Mart insits, as it does with all of it's suppliers, that Company X sells them the diapers for 10% less than the previous year. Company X reduces the quality of the diaper to meet the demand. Other companies sell this new Brand X too. The *identical* product is now identically crappy across the board.
You don't need to shop at WalMart - they've ensured the product is crap everywhere else.
And they can only squeeze so hard, for so long, on manufacturers with successful products.
Last time I got a good pair of Levi's jeans was well over a decade ago. What they have now are crappy products. And they have no means of getting back what they've lost.
There is probably 80GB worth of PDFs alone out there. How about music in all formats? Game demoes? Linux Distributions? (Non-Pr0n) video? Flash? Photos? Just duplicates of tacky animated gifs would take up quite a bit of space.
Is signing a cell phone contract for 2 years to get a free phone anti-competitive? Is signing a satellite TV contract for 2 years to get $1500 in free hardware anti-competitive? You made the decision.
You've left out a party. It would be like Nokia telling, say, Sprint that they can either only sell Nokia phones to their customer, or not be able to sell Nokia phones at all (if Nokia had a virtual monopoly on cellphones.) Microsoft is telling $a_company what they can sell to their customer. Is it fair? Read up on the antitrust case against them to see the list of plaintifs that thought it wasn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure hope it's waterproof too, or we'll have to save crime fighting for fair weather
Your not shown publicly email address shows up nicely in that shot, too!
They all read Zonk's seldom researched, biased Sony bashing articles?
Green splatter all over your shirt is resasonable enough for the non-vulcans in the crowd.
Sorry about the cut off reply - my point was going to be, should Google pull out of the U.S. if the US passes laws that undermine its citizens rights and freedoms? I'm not saying this is my positing, but some feel that the U.S. is become oppressive. If this were true, do you feel it is Google's obligation to pull out?
It is of course a question of scale. But I think it's remains squarely in Google's purview (and it's stake holders) to determin where it operates and why. It's not like there is a trade embargo in place to prevent them from operating there.
Should Google pull out of the U.S.
The United States feels that it is in its citizen's interests to protect the copyrights created by US citizens and marketed by a multi-billion dollar industry. Not only may the industry collapse, leaving thousands without jobs, but with the availability of cheap music artists lose their incentive to create.
The US isn't doing it for its citizens, it's doing it at the behest of the music industry.
An artists incentive to create is the love of their art. If you think an artist, a true artist is in it for the money, you've never tried to live off of art.
If the music industry as it exists today collapsed, there would still be music, there would still be musicians and there most certainly be concerts. All we stand to lose is the cookie cutter crap bands the music industry throws together for their own profit, and that's no loss at all. Good riddance.
The picture I looked at had a B, not a b.
No, you're mistaken. Thsi is a typo. D-Fly typed Mbps out of ignorance and that is not a typographical error.
I don't know who I'm more embarrassed for. D-Fly for admitting he has no clue or Zonk for not even noticing.
Sure, you can. It's not the compression, it's the level of compression. If you're running your fax machine at 14.4kbps, and the codec you're using for VoIP is 6-8kbps, you can't expect to see great results. Use a higher bitrate codec such as G.711, or lower you fax's bitrate. Mind you, latency and jitter are also problems, and I'm oversimplifying the issues but saying you just can't do it is wrong. (I realise that Vonage won't let you muck with settings, but you inclded all other VoIP solutions.)
You need a second line to send faxes, and most of the Vonage routers have a second jack labelled FAX specifically for this. The fax line doesn't use audio compression, it receives the fax transmission as data instead of audio, and forwards it over the internet as data instead of compressed audio.Routers send data, period. If your fax machine operates exactly as it did using POTS lines, you need to be able to "talk" to the remote fax machine in real time. Unless Vonage magically taps into both fax machines, and bypasses the whole modulation/demodulation process, then audio must be sampled, sent over the internet and at some point thrown back out on the public phone network as audio data. What likely is happening is that you pay Vonage for a fax line, and they provision the second line on your router to use G.711 and set QoS to ensure bandwidth for that line.
Just for kicks... Try dialing *99 first, use 9600bps on your fax and try your normal line. Disable call waiting as well, *70 - that's been true of modem and fax use and hasn't changed now. Not saying it will always work perfectly, it depends greatly on your connection to your provider, but saying you can't do it or that you absolutely need a second special line is entirely false. This works with sattelite services or TiVO where the systems need to dial out as well...
I wonder which of the 100,000,000 PS2 owners Sony hopes to sell the new console to? Only a quarter of them is more than Xbox's market share. Some forcasts suggest that Sony can lose 20% of it's market share. That's still more than Xbox AND Nintendo combined. I think that's who they hope to sell to.
I suspect these new processors will likely be as expensive as a PS3, JUST the processors. Who exactly is the group with too much money?
I think you might be mistaken - the core processor is a ~300Mhz, 128bit processor IIRC, but it can perform 2 64bit instructions per cycle. Then there are the two vector units.
Not saying I don't agree with you, but... The first amendment protects private citizens from having laws passed by Congress that would impede free speech. And that's a huge distinction. The restrictions you mention are not passed by congress, nor are they laws. They are rules specific to the university, passed by whatever body governs it. Any student is free to attend a university that respects the student's freedom of expression.
It's only been May 7th for 52 minutes in the Samoa time zone. In 8 minutes, it will be May 8th in Japan. Not every slashdot post originates in the US.
I wouldn't generalize so much. KD is for those who can't afford to spend more than a buck on a meal. And those who only own one pot to cook in... Starving students for instance.
Netscape was never IE's only competition, only it's closest. Arena, Mosaic, Navipress, Cello and Lynx to name a few.
Ha, wrong! Steal it, and you get a minor charge like maybe shoplifting, or theft under $x. Copy it, and you get 10 years. The obvious solution is to stop copying software, and just steal it off of the store shelves.
Definitly not Braga. Defintly not Berman. But how quickly we forget Manny Coto. We'd be lucky to have him in charge.
It was indisputably not only the best microprocessor Intel had produced to date, but the best microprocessor on the market.... The world will never again see the day when one manufacturer so dominated the microprocessor market that a single product had a 100.0% market share.
Indisputably if you ignore the Motorola 6800 and the MOS 6502 and the Z80. Even if you did ignore them, you still wouldn't end up with 100% microprocessor market share for the 8080.
You have no idea what the case was about, do you? They were convicted of abusing their monopoly, and there were far more complaints than just the integrated (not just simply included) browser.
No doubt Microsoft did some coercion (though it wasn't illegal), but that's not why Microsoft won. Microsoft won because they were COMPATIBLE. Pure and simple. Windows 3.1 killed all the competition at the time because it was the most compatible with DOS. Windows 95 killed everything because it was STILL the most compatible with DOS and Windows 3.1.Whatever
Look at OS/2. IBM, with every computer they sold, included OS/2 as the default operating system and also Windows 3.1. People had to go out of their way to delete OS/2 and use Windows 3.1 instead. And they did it! They deleted something that was clearly superior in every way. You know why? Because OS/2 was INCOMPATIBLE with a hell of a lot of software and drivers.Do some research into OS/2 to find out why Windows 3.1 was also bundled. So you mean to tell me that applications and drivers written for another operating system don't run well under OS/2! How enlightening. The reasons for this will become clear when you dig a little more into the origins of OS/2.
Microsoft won because they were smart enough to give people an upgrade path, and secondarily they treat the development community very well.I'm sure that's exactly how it happened
Or. Not every customer of Sony's is a Sony Music customer.
That's true in general for dealing with any rootkit on any OS, not some failing on Microsoft's part.
You don't have to be their customer to suffer their poor quality items.
Suppose you're in the market for diapers. Brand X is carried all over. Wal-Mart insits, as it does with all of it's suppliers, that Company X sells them the diapers for 10% less than the previous year. Company X reduces the quality of the diaper to meet the demand. Other companies sell this new Brand X too. The *identical* product is now identically crappy across the board.
You don't need to shop at WalMart - they've ensured the product is crap everywhere else.
And they can only squeeze so hard, for so long, on manufacturers with successful products.Last time I got a good pair of Levi's jeans was well over a decade ago. What they have now are crappy products. And they have no means of getting back what they've lost.
There is probably 80GB worth of PDFs alone out there. How about music in all formats? Game demoes? Linux Distributions? (Non-Pr0n) video? Flash? Photos? Just duplicates of tacky animated gifs would take up quite a bit of space.
You've left out a party. It would be like Nokia telling, say, Sprint that they can either only sell Nokia phones to their customer, or not be able to sell Nokia phones at all (if Nokia had a virtual monopoly on cellphones.) Microsoft is telling $a_company what they can sell to their customer. Is it fair? Read up on the antitrust case against them to see the list of plaintifs that thought it wasn't.