Re:The problem is with *who* the cams are on...
on
Judges Junk Jailcam
·
· Score: 1
I just Meta-Moderated that -1 Flamebait you got as Unfair because it was indeed unfair moderation. But I suspect that my M2s are ignored since two messages I tracked didn't get ever a score update from my M2 action.
If you don't get a notice from/. that your negative moderation was undone, please let me know.
While the stories are funny and the point is well made, I am confused about this:
Microsoft products have been banned in some of the biggest markets, including India because of eight wrongly colored pixels . . .
When coloring in 800,000 pixels on a map of India, Microsoft colored eight of them a different shade of green to represent the disputed Kashmiri territory. The difference in greens meant Kashmir was shown as non-Indian, and the product was promptly banned in India. Microsoft was left to recall all 200,000 copies of the offending Windows 95 operating system software to try and heal the diplomatic wounds. "It cost millions," Edwards said.
Er, if the region is disputed by both India and Pakistant, how is coloring them differently than undisputed India and Pakistan a wrong thing to do? One of those countries is going to be upset no matter which color is chosen, so the fair thing is to irritate them both by making the disputed region an entirely different color than both disputing countries.
Seems MS was at least nodding to India by making the disputed region a different shade of the same color used for India. So I'd think India would be pleased. Presumably Pakistan was a different color entirely, so I'd expect Pakistant to be complaining here instead of India.
Is it that Pakistan buys fewer copies of MS products so they don't matter?
AFAIK the area is still disputed. How is it "right" to have software take sides in any political dispute?
Then again, this is an indiatimes.com article. I see some potential for bias on this issue:)
1) He hasn't resigned yet (he said he will in November) though he should do so immediatelt.
2) It's not the gay part that's a problem. It's the sexual harassment (and even alleged forcible rape.) In the US is is not legally possible to have a consentual sexual relationship with a subordinate. The NJ governor had a sexual relationship with his aide and that, by definition, is illegal sexual harassment.
If [corporate assholery] is enough reason to convince you not to watch the Olympics, you clearly had little desire to watch in the first place.
That's a non-sequitir. Corporate assholery is enough reason to turn almost anyone off of anything.
I used to enjoy watching the olympics. I think Atlanta is when I first noticed how commercialized the events had become. Athens is over the top with this rampant assholery. I don't watch anymore.
My wife does, but I occasionally hear her exclaim about some marketing nonsense getting in the way of hearing/seeing some competition. She'll soon be as jaded about the games as I.
Only if what the "Olympics" has become (a big marketing festival of spectacles with expensive fireworks displays and opening shows replete with robotic gods and godesses) is really the Olympics.
My point is I don't think the current "Olympics" is really the Olympics. I'd be happier with a much cheaper implementation. You know. Like in the old days.
Without sponsors, the Olympic games simply wouldn't have enough funding to go on.
Are you serious?
If this isn't a troll, then you've lost touch a bit. The Olympics are supposed to be about international athletic competetion. Not million-dollar stage shows with fireworks and robotic Greek gods flying around. None of that adds to the real spectacle, IMHO, and none of the games requires expensive equipment or locales.
The article said Coke spent $60M, VISA another $30M, something like $120M from just the major sponsors.
You could have a perfectly excellent Olympics for a tenth or less of that. An acceptable Olympics (to most) for under a million.
The athletes want to compete, not be whores for some commercial concern (at least until after they win.)
Did they do the same to members of that audience? If not, this is worse.
From TFA:
We have to protect official sponsors who have paid millions to make the Olympics happen.
Silly me. I thought it was the that made the Olympics happen.
But that's only true if you think the competition is more important than the fancy pre-shows and fireworks. I guess now it's reversed -- the competitions are ancillary, the sponsors and ads are the main event now.
Which is why I don't watch it. My wife does. But she's not as jaded as I am (yet.)
"These tactics cut to the heart of the commercial viability of the Games, and represents one of their single biggest threats.
Without guaranteeing exclusivity, it is harder to play competitive sponsors off against each other."
While worrying about "brand impurity" cutting to the "heart" of "commercial viability," they seem to have forgotten about the soul of the games.
Which is understandable, since to the promoters and "marketing protection squads," the games ceased long ago to be anything other than a way to make lots of profits.
When it becomes so bad that the majority of participants and spectators don't want to play a role in these little marketing games, it'll be too late. And that day is getting closer.
Why don't I see many falling bridges then (Tacoma Narrows and such remarkable but isolated examples aside?) (that's 0 personally.)
I see lots of bad semiconductor designs (both processes and individual devices.) It's hard to make a chip, but in the process from specification or idea to crystallized sand wafers, a lot of smart people with common sense (i.e., they know when close enough is good enough) work on it. Each specializes on rather small parts of the design (more or fewer depending on design size and designer talent breadth, as I assume it is with bridges and roads.) So it gets done, but it fails a lot. And we re-make them (at huge cost -- lower than bridges, of course, but in the millions each.)
Bridges rarely fall. Is it because civil engineers are that good, or the building standards are perfectly tuned in the balance of cost/safety? Or material science is so advanced that it's "cheap" to build an unbreakable bridge?
Or it is because of a lack of competition?
That is, since usually only governments can afford bridges, and since the spending of government is controlled by politicians, and since more than zero percent of politicians corruptly and unfairly award contracts to their friends/benefactors (they even occasionally get caught,) then succeeding at CivE allows for a larger margin in price (cost of implementation) than semiconductors because you can charge more when your comany knows it will get the job? I'm not saying that's the case -- I'm asking.
I think you can see this isn't a troll or attempt to bait flames -- I'm really curious.
You're exactly right. As an engineering student I noticed the same thing (lack of common sense in many other engineering students.)
But, in the 7ish years since I graduated and started wotking, I have noticed that the percentage of practicing engineers lacking common sense is much lower. Not zero (or even close) but much, much lower than engineering students.
I'd even go so far as to say that even those very-highly-intelligent engineering students that happen to lack common sense do not do well in the industry.
With apologies to the perl quote that inspired it, I think the primary virtues of engineers are (in this order:) laziness, hubris, sensibility (common sense,) enthusiasm, and communication skills.
The big deal is not that it's USB power, to the discredit of the story title author, rather that this device can work without a computer (no drivers) and thus can be used with the many other sorts of wireless devices out there. Without a computer.
It could come from an Audrey or any of the other many non-PC/Mac devices with USB (which means it ultimately comes from some device's power supply, of course.) Or it could come from the (included) DC power supply.
Again, despite the article title (which seems to have thrown everyone off,) USB-power isn't the primary feature of this device. Apple's airpad has it. But what Apple's airpad and the other devices mentioned don't have is the driverless, computerless option.
Stick with whateve you want. But if you want to hook up a few Xboxes to one ethernet port, you need something like this. Which is why it's interesting.
If you're always on a powerbook and not interested in networking other devices ever, this isn't for you. That doesn't mean it has no applications, or that some other device can do everything this can (nothing on the market can, AFAIK.)
But you can be more creative: since data is transmitted by a modulated signal, you can use a DC potential between the two pairs to transmit power
No you can't. Read your own link:
Since Ethernet pairs are transformer coupled at each end, it is possible to apply DC power to the center tap of the isolation transformer without upsetting the data transfer. In this mode of operation the pair on pins 3 and 6 and the pair on pins 1 and 2 can be of either polarity.
You'd need an ethernet jack that puts power on the spare lines, which a device like this can't possibly provide.
Power over ethernet requires changes to the ethernet ports on everything -- you can just modify a client and make it draw power from the hub/switch/jack.
FYI that +1 is not the result of moderation. It's the default in your user preferences. Look for "Karma Bonus (modifier assigned to posts where the user has good karma)" and note that it's set to "+1".
If you didn't know that, maybe the "(Edit)" link next to the "Karma-Bonus Modifier +1 (Edit)" you quoted could have been a hint. Or do you normally get the option to immediately change a moderation? (Boy I wish I did.)
Change it to 0 and re-check his post. Like magic, it's back to 1. Change it to -5 and mod him down if you like! Look! Unlimited mod points for you (except that no one else sees the results of your shennanigans.)
Oh, and I'll take that bet -- no +1 funny for you!
I think it's closer to the Airpad since that uses USB power, except that this new device doesn't require a computer so it plugs directly into the ethernet port and allows any number of devices to connect to it -- none of which need be PC or Mac computers, and so no drivers are required.
You reminded me of Wonkavision. (Not the band, themovie.)
I see that there are now more than 800k registered users on Slashdot, which means that I'm that much closer to being able to sell my "low" userid on ebay.
Slashdot ate half my post, 503 errors suck, here's the full post
Your post confuses me. I read your (broken) link (HTML isn't hard -- try it!) and it seems that "any number" is, well, one. And, unless you mean drivers (which the Airpad requires, but the new D-Link device does not,) I don't understand what software has to do with it.
Most importantly, the product you linked to requires a computer to be connected to the ethernet port, upon which drivers muct be installed, and into which the Airpad connects to allow other computers to share said connection.
In contrast, the new D-Link device plugs directly into the ethernet port and seems to allow any number of (and I do mean more than one!) devices to connect to it -- none of which need be PC or Mac computers, and so no drivers are required. Examples of such devices include Audrey, ReplayTV, TiVO, Xbox with network connector, or playstation2 with network connector just to name (and link) a few.
Maybe it's just me, but given the wording of your post, I expected more than one. I suppose "one" is "any number," but I think that's phrase is usually reserved for cases where there are several. I also expected an equivalent device (hint: USB-power isn't the main feature) which the device you mentioned is not.
And, since the Airpad costs $92 and requires a computer (PC or Mac only,) and the D-link device is $99 with no computer required I can think of (and link to) any number of possible devices for which this new product may have applications where the Airpad can't work.
Your post confuses me. I read your (broken) link (HTML isn't hard -- try it!) and it seems that "any number" is, well, one.
Maybe it's just me, but given the wording of your post, I expected more than one. I suppose "one" is "any number," but I think that's phrase is usually reserved for cases where there are several.
Slashdot Mirror
I just Meta-Moderated that -1 Flamebait you got as Unfair because it was indeed unfair moderation. But I suspect that my M2s are ignored since two messages I tracked didn't get ever a score update from my M2 action.
/. that your negative moderation was undone, please let me know.
If you don't get a notice from
Thanks,
Randy
While the stories are funny and the point is well made, I am confused about this:
:)
Microsoft products have been banned in some of the biggest markets, including India because of eight wrongly colored pixels . . .
When coloring in 800,000 pixels on a map of India, Microsoft colored eight of them a different shade of green to represent the disputed Kashmiri territory. The difference in greens meant Kashmir was shown as non-Indian, and the product was promptly banned in India. Microsoft was left to recall all 200,000 copies of the offending Windows 95 operating system software to try and heal the diplomatic wounds. "It cost millions," Edwards said.
Er, if the region is disputed by both India and Pakistant, how is coloring them differently than undisputed India and Pakistan a wrong thing to do? One of those countries is going to be upset no matter which color is chosen, so the fair thing is to irritate them both by making the disputed region an entirely different color than both disputing countries.
Seems MS was at least nodding to India by making the disputed region a different shade of the same color used for India. So I'd think India would be pleased. Presumably Pakistan was a different color entirely, so I'd expect Pakistant to be complaining here instead of India.
Is it that Pakistan buys fewer copies of MS products so they don't matter?
AFAIK the area is still disputed. How is it "right" to have software take sides in any political dispute?
Then again, this is an indiatimes.com article. I see some potential for bias on this issue
1) He hasn't resigned yet (he said he will in November) though he should do so immediatelt.
2) It's not the gay part that's a problem. It's the sexual harassment (and even alleged forcible rape.) In the US is is not legally possible to have a consentual sexual relationship with a subordinate. The NJ governor had a sexual relationship with his aide and that, by definition, is illegal sexual harassment.
If [corporate assholery] is enough reason to convince you not to watch the Olympics, you clearly had little desire to watch in the first place.
That's a non-sequitir. Corporate assholery is enough reason to turn almost anyone off of anything.
I used to enjoy watching the olympics. I think Atlanta is when I first noticed how commercialized the events had become. Athens is over the top with this rampant assholery. I don't watch anymore.
My wife does, but I occasionally hear her exclaim about some marketing nonsense getting in the way of hearing/seeing some competition. She'll soon be as jaded about the games as I.
One meta-moderator hears your plea and cares.
But I'm not so sure M2 even works anymore. . . if you don't see at least one of those -1 Trolls removed soon, it doesn't.
Yet another reason I prefer it the old way. Just think of the possibilities for new, exciting, events.
Yes, it is. Isn't it?
But I suppose as long as people like you who are happy with the current state of affairs are in the majority, then to heck with anyone who disagrees.
You know -- the tyranny of the majority. Or in this case, the Tyranny of Marketing, is so nice. Dontcha think?
Only if what the "Olympics" has become (a big marketing festival of spectacles with expensive fireworks displays and opening shows replete with robotic gods and godesses) is really the Olympics.
My point is I don't think the current "Olympics" is really the Olympics. I'd be happier with a much cheaper implementation. You know. Like in the old days.
I neither watch nor participate, but my "problem" isn't solved.
I can no longer watch the Olympics like I used to.
I want the old, pre-sell-out Olyompics back, thanks.
Without sponsors, the Olympic games simply wouldn't have enough funding to go on.
Are you serious?
If this isn't a troll, then you've lost touch a bit. The Olympics are supposed to be about international athletic competetion. Not million-dollar stage shows with fireworks and robotic Greek gods flying around. None of that adds to the real spectacle, IMHO, and none of the games requires expensive equipment or locales.
The article said Coke spent $60M, VISA another $30M, something like $120M from just the major sponsors.
You could have a perfectly excellent Olympics for a tenth or less of that. An acceptable Olympics (to most) for under a million.
The athletes want to compete, not be whores for some commercial concern (at least until after they win.)
dropped word, of course I meant:
Silly me. I thought it was the athletes that made the Olympics happen.
Did they do the same to members of that audience? If not, this is worse.
From TFA: We have to protect official sponsors who have paid millions to make the Olympics happen.
Silly me. I thought it was the that made the Olympics happen.
But that's only true if you think the competition is more important than the fancy pre-shows and fireworks. I guess now it's reversed -- the competitions are ancillary, the sponsors and ads are the main event now.
Which is why I don't watch it. My wife does. But she's not as jaded as I am (yet.)
"These tactics cut to the heart of the commercial viability of the Games, and represents one of their single biggest threats. Without guaranteeing exclusivity, it is harder to play competitive sponsors off against each other."
While worrying about "brand impurity" cutting to the "heart" of "commercial viability," they seem to have forgotten about the soul of the games.
Which is understandable, since to the promoters and "marketing protection squads," the games ceased long ago to be anything other than a way to make lots of profits.
When it becomes so bad that the majority of participants and spectators don't want to play a role in these little marketing games, it'll be too late. And that day is getting closer.
Right; electrical (ASIC design.)
;)
Oh, I see. Sorry about that
Why don't I see many falling bridges then (Tacoma Narrows and such remarkable but isolated examples aside?) (that's 0 personally.)
I see lots of bad semiconductor designs (both processes and individual devices.) It's hard to make a chip, but in the process from specification or idea to crystallized sand wafers, a lot of smart people with common sense (i.e., they know when close enough is good enough) work on it. Each specializes on rather small parts of the design (more or fewer depending on design size and designer talent breadth, as I assume it is with bridges and roads.) So it gets done, but it fails a lot. And we re-make them (at huge cost -- lower than bridges, of course, but in the millions each.)
Bridges rarely fall. Is it because civil engineers are that good, or the building standards are perfectly tuned in the balance of cost/safety? Or material science is so advanced that it's "cheap" to build an unbreakable bridge?
Or it is because of a lack of competition?
That is, since usually only governments can afford bridges, and since the spending of government is controlled by politicians, and since more than zero percent of politicians corruptly and unfairly award contracts to their friends/benefactors (they even occasionally get caught,) then succeeding at CivE allows for a larger margin in price (cost of implementation) than semiconductors because you can charge more when your comany knows it will get the job? I'm not saying that's the case -- I'm asking.
I think you can see this isn't a troll or attempt to bait flames -- I'm really curious.
You're exactly right. As an engineering student I noticed the same thing (lack of common sense in many other engineering students.)
But, in the 7ish years since I graduated and started wotking, I have noticed that the percentage of practicing engineers lacking common sense is much lower. Not zero (or even close) but much, much lower than engineering students.
I'd even go so far as to say that even those very-highly-intelligent engineering students that happen to lack common sense do not do well in the industry.
With apologies to the perl quote that inspired it, I think the primary virtues of engineers are (in this order:) laziness, hubris, sensibility (common sense,) enthusiasm, and communication skills.
Sorry, no, I meant to say "can't" both times, not just the first :)
The big deal is not that it's USB power, to the discredit of the story title author, rather that this device can work without a computer (no drivers) and thus can be used with the many other sorts of wireless devices out there. Without a computer.
It could come from an Audrey or any of the other many non-PC/Mac devices with USB (which means it ultimately comes from some device's power supply, of course.) Or it could come from the (included) DC power supply.
Again, despite the article title (which seems to have thrown everyone off,) USB-power isn't the primary feature of this device. Apple's airpad has it. But what Apple's airpad and the other devices mentioned don't have is the driverless, computerless option.
Stick with whateve you want. But if you want to hook up a few Xboxes to one ethernet port, you need something like this. Which is why it's interesting.
If you're always on a powerbook and not interested in networking other devices ever, this isn't for you. That doesn't mean it has no applications, or that some other device can do everything this can (nothing on the market can, AFAIK.)
But you can be more creative: since data is transmitted by a modulated signal, you can use a DC potential between the two pairs to transmit power
No you can't. Read your own link:
Since Ethernet pairs are transformer coupled at each end, it is possible to apply DC power to the center tap of the isolation transformer without upsetting the data transfer. In this mode of operation the pair on pins 3 and 6 and the pair on pins 1 and 2 can be of either polarity.
You'd need an ethernet jack that puts power on the spare lines, which a device like this can't possibly provide.
Power over ethernet requires changes to the ethernet ports on everything -- you can just modify a client and make it draw power from the hub/switch/jack.
FYI that +1 is not the result of moderation. It's the default in your user preferences. Look for "Karma Bonus (modifier assigned to posts where the user has good karma)" and note that it's set to "+1".
;)
If you didn't know that, maybe the "(Edit)" link next to the "Karma-Bonus Modifier +1 (Edit)" you quoted could have been a hint. Or do you normally get the option to immediately change a moderation? (Boy I wish I did.)
Change it to 0 and re-check his post. Like magic, it's back to 1. Change it to -5 and mod him down if you like! Look! Unlimited mod points for you (except that no one else sees the results of your shennanigans.)
Oh, and I'll take that bet -- no +1 funny for you!
(Says the mod nazi
Why is this device any better than just bridging your ethernet to your wireless peer network?
It doesn't require a PC or Mac, needs no drivers, and so can provide connectivity to devices such as Audrey, ReplayTV, TiVO, Xbox with network connector, or playstation2 with network connector.
I think it's closer to the Airpad since that uses USB power, except that this new device doesn't require a computer so it plugs directly into the ethernet port and allows any number of devices to connect to it -- none of which need be PC or Mac computers, and so no drivers are required.
Examples of such devices include Audrey [audreyhacking.com], ReplayTV [digitalnetworksna.com], TiVO [tivo.com], Xbox with network connector [xbox.com], or playstation2 with network connector [playstation2.com] just to list a few.
Thanks for the laugh!
Slashdot ate half my post, 503 errors suck, here's the full post
Your post confuses me. I read your (broken) link (HTML isn't hard -- try it!) and it seems that "any number" is, well, one. And, unless you mean drivers (which the Airpad requires, but the new D-Link device does not,) I don't understand what software has to do with it.
Most importantly, the product you linked to requires a computer to be connected to the ethernet port, upon which drivers muct be installed, and into which the Airpad connects to allow other computers to share said connection.
In contrast, the new D-Link device plugs directly into the ethernet port and seems to allow any number of (and I do mean more than one!) devices to connect to it -- none of which need be PC or Mac computers, and so no drivers are required. Examples of such devices include Audrey, ReplayTV, TiVO, Xbox with network connector, or playstation2 with network connector just to name (and link) a few.
Maybe it's just me, but given the wording of your post, I expected more than one. I suppose "one" is "any number," but I think that's phrase is usually reserved for cases where there are several. I also expected an equivalent device (hint: USB-power isn't the main feature) which the device you mentioned is not.
And, since the Airpad costs $92 and requires a computer (PC or Mac only,) and the D-link device is $99 with no computer required I can think of (and link to) any number of possible devices for which this new product may have applications where the Airpad can't work.
Your post confuses me. I read your (broken) link (HTML isn't hard -- try it!) and it seems that "any number" is, well, one.
Maybe it's just me, but given the wording of your post, I expected more than one. I suppose "one" is "any number," but I think that's phrase is usually reserved for cases where there are several.