because you or me (or any geek off the street) **cannot** just make an app that sells copyrighted books from major publishers
That has nothing to do with what you said. You claimed that the lack of voice input and note-taking, and interfacing to desktop systems was a "copyright problem". Who sells what book to whom has nothing to do with what other applications are on a device. Nothing at all. Since you've failed to show that it does, I'll just assume you can't back up that claim.
the tech exists to have those features, but **no one can make better apps** because only the likes of Amazon, Google, and Apple can negotiate licensing agreements with copyright holders
You are a complete moron. Book reading apps aren't limited to Amazon or Google. I've got at least three on most of my devices that have nothing to do with any of those companies, much less any companies that actually sell books. e-reader apps don't need to be tied to a specific vendor, and many of them are not.
Even WERE they tied to the vendors, there is no reason that other apps to do what the OP wants can't be used. There simply is no "copyright problem" in getting what he wants, and no "artificial scarcity" as you pretend.
I'm not explaining this any further, if you don't get it after this you're hopeless
The fact that you think the that only source of e-reader apps is the major book vendors, and that the only way voice input or note-taking software could exist is if they provide it shows who the hopeless one here is, I'm afraid. Your inability to defend your claim is noted.
The Scots are pretty good about denying that the English are part of their ranks.
I was referring to the "No True Scotsman" argument, which is not very effective. Just about as effective as saying "No True Nerd would..." do any of those things. That's about how much power to UNdefine someone as a nerd as we have. It truly is not about how WE think of such people, it is how OTHERS view them, so even your comment about the Scots being "pretty good" at excluding the English is off-base. "No true Scotsman would eat Cornish pasties..." proves nothing; solves nothing, if the guy who is eating the pastie is wearing a kilt.
but if we kick them out of our cons, mute them in our forums, and otherwise refuse to deal with them,
Explain how I kick someone out of a con. And the best I can do here is when I have a mod point to mod them down.
then no one is going to confuse us with them.
You are simply wrong. "No True Scotsman" does not work.
yes...because they paid for the right to sell the 'ebook'
Who paid for what right to sell what book that I got for free? How does this deal with the question of how voice control and note-taking apps have some kind of "copyright problem" according to you?
you admit you have 'e-reader apps'...so we agree they exist
I agree you are avoiding the question. I didn't say there weren't such apps, in fact, I told the OP that a tablet with such applications was the answer to his question.
you acknowledge copyright exists
I'm still waiting for you to explain how a lack of voice control and note-taking apps has anything to do with copyright.
the maker of your current "e-reader app" could make a feature to do what TFA says *now*...which is a software fix
They all could, but so what? What is stopping other applications from doing it? Where is the copyright problem and artificial scarcity that you claim causes this problem?
we have the apps, we have the technology to do it on the devices...
And we have the applications that can do it, which pretty much puts to the shitter your claim that there is some "copyright problem" that keeps them from existing.
it's a software fix that any licensed seller of "e-reader" books could make to their software....done
It's a fix that already exists. Why do you keep avoiding the question? Where is the copyright problem that keeps the voice control and note-taking applications off of the same tablet that has an e-reader?
We have about as much power to define who is "amongst our ranks" as we do to define who Anonymous is. "No true nerd..." is about as useful as "No true Scotsman..."
and by letting them know it's OK to cyberstalk someone or that hey it's ok, she was a bitch anyway or any number of inhuman and gross misogynistic streaks in our culture,
I can't recall the last time I told anyone any of that. I also can't recall the first time. That's because I can recall all the times, and the count is ZERO.
Pretty simple question. You claimed that copyright issues had something to do with a lack of voice input and note taking applications that the article asked about. I asked you what the hell you were talking about.
your 'e-reader' app wouldn't have any books in it though, would it?
I don't know what the hell you are talking about, and I don't think you do, either. All of my "e-reader apps" have plenty of books "in them".
maybe you should think more about what an 'e-reader' really does
I know what an "e-reader" does. I also know that copyright problems have nothing to do with what other apps are on the device I use to "e-read".
I'm sorry, but did you even read past the word "Kindle"? How is a lack of voice input and good note-taking software a "copyright issue"? Where is the "artificial scarcity" imposed by "copyright holders" here? You think a book author or publisher can control what other applications are on your notebook or tablet device?
So, the answer to the "Kindle Killer" question is -- use a real tablet, not a book reader. They all have book reader apps and interface with desktops just fine. I don't use voice input because I don't choose to announce to everyone within earshot what I am doing. I think I've seen handwriting input for them, but I'm not big on trying to do small precise actions on a touch screen.
Mod parent up. This is from a group of osteopaths. Here's what Wikpedia has to say about osteopathy:
(Osteopaths) believe that their treatments, which primarily consist of moving, stretching and massaging a person's muscles and joints, help allow the body to heal itself.
When I was young my doctor was a DO. I don't recall ever getting a massage from him, but I do remember all the same vaccines and treatments with prescriptions and everything. And when my appendix went wonky I was in the hospital that day.
Perhaps osteopathy has changed in the last two decades, but I doubt it. From what I could tell back then, DO and MD were both licensed medical doctors who did the same things.
However, if I'm sitting in front of a network-connected device, I should be able to connect to any arbitrary server on the internet and achieve 50Mbps transfer rates at any time of day.
This is a fascinating idea.
Suppose I am using the same service you are, but I've paid for a 10Mbps connection. You connect to my server and demand 50Mbps. Who pays to upgrade my connection to 50Mbps so you can get what you think you were promised? There are several options:
1. You do. You want that data rate from me, you pay me to upgrade.
2. I do. Except that I don't care that you aren't getting your data at the speed you want, so good luck with that.
3. The service provider. Obviously they ought to pay to upgrade my connection because they sold you a full-time 50Mbps data rate and it is their fault you aren't getting it.
Option 3 means that the service provider is on the hook for making EVERY connection it sells the same speed so that nobody ever gets less than they were promised. Except now there are two people like you accessing my server at the same time and even though I've been upgraded to 50Mbps service when you complained (thanks, I like free stuff) you are both only getting 25Mbps. I get another free upgrade to 100Mbps! Add two more people, I get free 200Mbps. I love it. Except my server is on a 100Mbps network connection to the router. I get a free upgrade to my server to a gigabit net.
Or you realize that the 50Mbps you pay for is a maximum rate and not a guaranteed rate and prices don't need to skyrocket as the service provider gives away free service to everyone you might want to connect to on their network, much less to everyone outside their net.
But Comcast has oversold its actual capacity creating the disparity and thus responsible for its occurrence.
Every provider does that, and has done that. Nobody builds every part of their service to serve 100% of maximum possible load. They ALL use statistical predictions of load to design their networks so they work at a reasonable level. If those statistics change, well, the amount of buildout changes -- and that takes money to fix. And nobody builds to 100% because that is very expensive. You wouldn't want to pay the costs of 100%.
Have you complained to your telephone company that they aren't building to 100% max possible capacity? They don't do that. They've never done that. In the early days of telephone there may have been two long distance trunks out of a local office. If more than two people at a time wanted to make a long distance phone call everyone else had to wait. But Hey! You promised I could make long distance phone calls! Could you imagine the cost of putting in 100 trunk lines out of a local office that served 100 people? Nobody could afford to have a phone. And do you understand how wasteful that would be, with 100 trunk lines sitting idle for a large part of the day?
A lot more recently, and more computer related, I remember the days when modems and dialup BBS and ISPs blossomed. Those devices connected to standard phone lines skewed the usage statistics heavily. Instead of the statistics based on voice calls, the average number of calls went way up and the length of calls did, too. Before the nice crossbar switches where every input could connect to every output there was something called "step by step", and every call in progress used one of a limited number of paths through the switch. The longer someone used one of those paths, the fewer people could be served. The response from the phone companies? They wanted to create "data service", which they claimed were better maintained copper pairs, but in reality was just a way to charge more to deal with the increased usage. And people complained bitterly about that. It was all because the telco did not build to 100% maximum capacity.
Then going to its customer's other vendors and insisting they pay extra to provide the bandwidth their customers have already paid for.
Let me ask you this. You pay for a business class 100Mb line to some provider. You fire up your web browser and point it at a web server I'm running. You watch the data rate you're getting from me. It's a small fraction of your 100Mbps. Do you call your provider and complain? Do you imagine that you've paid to get every data connection you make to run at 100Mbps?
Of course not. That's a silly assumption. You've paid for a certain maximum rate. If the data isn't available at that rate, it isn't available at that rate, and complaining to your service provider won't fix that. If you think you service provider promised you that you'd be able to connect to every other destination on the planet at 100Mbps, then you didn't read the contract.
So, do you complain to me? Probably. And I'll tell you that you can buy me a faster connection and a replacement for my Raspberry Pi, but that you paying your service provider for your connection isn't paying me anything.
In control of the vehicle? Maybe if you're a professional, trained stunt car driver.
You're kidding. You don't have to be a stunt car driver to be in control of a vehicle on the freeway. Most people manage to do it every day without special training at all.
As I said, the difference between a human-initiated emergency stop and an autonomous vehicle one (using your protocol) is that the human was in control of the vehicle and observing what was going on prior, versus reading a book, taking a nap, typing on the computer, etc, and being handed control by a computer that just shut the engine off. That seems like a significant difference to me, and a pretty obvious one.
the autonomous car doesn't have to be better than the very best drivers, it just has to be better that the average driver.
It has to be better, and it has to fail in safe and manageable ways, and take predictable actions when it deals with failure. Any one of those conditions not met means more danger to everyone around it instead of less.
And the average drive really isn't good in emergency situations.
p
The average driver is a lot better at emergency situations than shutting the engine off and thrusting control onto someone who wasn't paying any attention to anything that led up to the situation, which is what you propose the autonomous vehicle should for even just things that are "outside the parameters" it was programmed to handle.
The problem with assuming something is obvious when your interlocutor points out it isn't is that when you are wrong and/or ignorant, you don't discover it. You are experiencing that in this situation.
Uhhh, what? I'm neither wrong nor ignorant, and it is obvious where the costs are.
Even with the bandwidth offered by comcast/tw, one user streaming video does not tax the bandwidth that user is paying for.
I'm sorry, but I think that's the point I'm making.
It might seem like it does, but only because it is being actively throttled by the ISP.
Except in this case it isn't. Comcast is not actively throttling anything, they are simply refusing to pay for more bandwidth on a clogged gateway.
You are *greatly* underestimating the amount of bandwidth which is actually available.
I'm not making any estimates of what is available, so I cannot be underestimating it. What is available is what the companies involved in the peering relationship agree to, and we've discovered over time that more people using more services (more in bandwidth of each service, more services, and more people) means at some point the gateways get filled. At that point, someone has to pay to increase the bandwidth.
My quite reasonable question to Google is, how is their system different in that respect, and how do they plan on dealing with the costs of increasing the peering bandwidth when it is going to be needed?
An analogy with a comcast connection would be having a router in your house letting two people browse the internet at once.
We are not talking about two people using two streams at the same time overloading the fiber coming into their house. We're talking about thousands of people (or tens of thousands) who are otherwise unrelated all trying to stream things at the same time through a Google to Netflix pipe.
Does this doubling of bandwidth use require comcast upgrade their infrastructure? No, because it was expected and accounted for in the initial deployment of said infrastructure.
And you're trying to argue that Google has considered all possible future uses of their peering to content providers when they install the gateways today. They've got a crystal ball that tells them that there will be a ten-fold increase in their customer base and a ten-fold increase in the bandwidth required for services, and they've overbuilt by two orders of magnitude so hen the inevitable happens they're already covered? Ok, then take that another year into the future where this now almost saturated link becomes fully saturated. They're not making money peering, so where does the money come from to pay for the upgrade? The customers, the content providers, or a gift from unicorns?
Yeah. How's that any different then when you have to slam on your brakes during any other emergency?
Well, I'd guess it's different because YOU were in control of the vehicle and aware of the surroundings when you applied the brakes, and you didn't shut off the engine when doing so (killing any power steering, btw). When the car decides to bail out on you because it finds itself "outside the operating parameters" you may be in the middle of a book, completely unaware of what's going on, need to observe and analyze the situation, and then deal with a car that has left you without an engine or reasonable steering control in the middle of a freeway where everyone else is still going 70MPH.
I thought that difference would be obvious from the context.
Even with IR filters, visible spectrum cameras can be overloaded with thermal energy.
Since they are not sensitive in the thermal (far IR) bands, they can't really be overloaded there. And the glass in the lenses pretty well stops the far IR, not to mention the visible cutoff filters. True thermal cameras don't have glass lenses.
The main thing that gets overloaded is the focus logic that most visible spectrum cameras use,
If the camera doesn't see the radiation, it won't impede the focus algorithms. But I would hope that the autonomous sensors are not auto-focus to begin with. They should be fixed focus.
If you've got a few cameras (thermal and visual) around, you can test this with an IR laser -- point it at each device while it's on, and check the result -- it will likely be a big white spot in the image.
I have both, and the near IR is stopped very well by the filters for the visible cameras, and the IR ones don't see near IR at all.
I caneven do this with my IR-based remote for my digital cameras -
Your IR remote is operating in the near IR, which is not where thermal cameras operate. Your near IR remote will have no effect on true thermal cameras, other than the heat generated by the LED itself.
Most of those: power down engine, alert the driver and transfer to manual control.
Excellent response. Your car is driving you at 70MPH on the freeway in traffic and sees a problem. "Bong -- I've detected a condition outside my parameters. I've shut your engine off and you've got control. Put the book down, assess the situation, and do the right thing, human! NOW!"
"Oh, I forgot to tell you, that semi right behind us doesn't respond to my data signal so it must have a human driver. Hope he's awake and alert, cause we're STOPPIN!"
as visual cameras always go a bit into the thermal spectrum and can be overloaded.
Visual cameras have no thermal capability. Many of them are sensitive to near IR (if there are no explicit IR filters installed, which color cameras certainly have to keep the colors correct), but that's not what a thermal camera sees. Thermal sensors are in the far IR.
Airplanes can take off, fly, and land better than you or I can, far, far better...
Because airplanes have wings that provide lift and you and I don't.
If you are saying that autopilots can fly aircraft better than you can, well, that may be true. I'd like to see one handle the Gimli Glider or Sully's Water Landing better than the pilots involved. Or the the Sioux City DC9.
Airplanes have had autoland for almost 40 years now,
Some airplanes have had that, and it requires special certification for the aircraft and crew to do it. A bit more training than the typical Department of Motor Vehicles road testing for a new driver's license. Many more airplanes do NOT have it, and many do not have any autopilot at all. Why? Because the cost of an autopilot is high based on liability issues when they get the pilots into trouble.
people can't do that without being able to see something
And autopilots in aircraft can't do it without being able to "see" something, either. They require a certified ILS or MLS approach (to "see" the vertical and lateral flight path), and a radar altimeter (to "see" the ground). And the Wikipedia entry for "Autoland" points out: "they are not generally smooth in their responses to varying wind shear or gusting wind conditions - i.e. not able to compensate in all dimensions rapidly enough - to safely permit their use." So a human pilot who could deal with a wind shear is better at it than the autoland autopilot.
In the big picture, computer driven cars will be much safer than human driven ones...
That may turn out to be true, someday, somewhere, in some instances. It is far from a fact, however. I view this claim using the hindsight of hearing the claims that we would all have helicopter-cars by 1980, and based on an understanding of how aviation autopilots have their limitations and have not become ubiquitous and mandatory.
Autopilots in airplanes do not remove the pilot's requirement to pay attention to what is going on.
Autonomous vehicles are being promoted for exactly their ability to allow the driver to do non-driving functions (like read, eat, nap, or other things). That's what they mean when they talk about increasing productivity of those who commute to work using one.
I can tell you from much experience that autopilots are wonderful things,
Yes, they are. But they are not intended to allow flight in close formation (like a string of autos on the freeway would be), or in close proximity to the ground*. These autopilots are intended for an environment where the closest thing to you is more than 500 feet away at least. And they will quite happily fly you into the ground when they fail. Or fly you to the point you stall and then fall to the ground.
Here's just one example of how the autopilot can fail, even though the NTSB would call it pilot error (just like everything else, almost.) The Garmin G1000 with (mumble) 700 autopilot has a VS command. That's "vertical speed". You can tell the autopilot to climb at a set rate, say 500 fpm. If you forget to add power you may not be able to achieve a 500 fpm climb (or you may initially make it, but as you climb the performance decreases and you can't keep it) -- but the autopilot will keep trying. It will try to increase your angle of attack to get more lift so you can climb at the rate you've requested. It will keep trying so hard that it may cause your airspeed to drop below stall speed.
Hello, Pilot, you are now in a full-on stall, probably about to enter a spin, maybe in IMC, and your autopilot has adjusted your elevator trim to full-up trying to do what you told it to do. It's your aircraft. HAND.
It has, in it's data, the stall speeds for the aircraft it is in because it will display the critical speeds as flags on the airspeed indicator, so it could easily report the problem to the pilot. "Bong -- minimum airspeed reached, climb aborted." It does not. There is a recent article in Aviation Safety, I think it was, about a crash of a military version of a King Air in the mideast that did exactly that. The pilot was IFR and distracted and the aircraft stalled and then spun in.
There is a very good reason that there are half a dozen (8 for the G1000, as I recall) or more ways of disabling the autopilot in an aircraft. They fail often enough, and in serious enough ways ("hey, let's run your elevator trim FULL UP for no reason at all, bud", e.g.) that it is important to be able to kill George immediately. And have multiple ways to kill him in case the first three didn't kill him well enough.
You should probably not use aircraft autopilots as examples of robo-perfection.
* Yes, there are cat III autopilots that will fly the aircraft onto the runway, or "auto-land". It takes specially certified equipment AND CREWS to do that. You aren't going to find many Joe Sixpacks out on a drive that could meet equivalent quals. And that G1000 I use as an example? The aircraft manual prohibits use of the autopilot below 800 AGL, as I recall.
It appears that you may not have read the article. They let the providers put servers in their racks at the datacenters,
That's not peering, that is co-location. I was responding to the claim that they don't make money from peering.
Adding servers for colo means Netflix is paying more for better service to their customers and not expecting their ISP to pass the costs on, or for their customer's ISP to pay the extra cost. That is the correct way to allocate the costs, but peering doesn't do it that way.
It is Comcast creating the bottleneck and it is done deliberately
That's what Level 3 says. Level 3 has a dog in the fight, so I'd not accept what they say at face value just as one should not accept what Comcast says at face value.
"Deliberately", in this case, means "Comcast isn't paying for more bandwidth", which applies to all traffic through that gateway, not just Netflix.
What costs? You have not made a case that there is extra costs.
If you set up a peering connection for a certain amount of bandwidth, and then have to install new hardware to increase the bandwidth because more people are trying to use high-bandwidth low-latency services through that gateway, there is a cost. I shouldn't have to "make a case" for something so obvious.
If the users request it and are within their bandwidth then there is no extra cost then what is expected.
The user does not get a guaranteed bandwidth through the peering connection. That's absurd. And it's not a single user we're talking about, it is the aggregate of all the users who may be streaming one video each, but all together managing to overload the peering connection.
We don't make money from peering or colocation; since people usually only stream one video at a time, video traffic doesn't bog down or change the way we manage our network in any meaningful way
"One person" may only stream one video at a time, but "people" as a whole may stream thousands or tens of thousands of videos all at the same time, and that's what creates the bottleneck in the peering connection. These same "people" are the "people" who currently stream videos over Comcast et.al. and create the peering bottleneck between Comcast and Level 3.
What keeps the same thing from happening to your gateways? And what keeps the price for your service from going up as you have to add more bandwidth to your peering arrangement to deal with ever-increased levels of streaming? Or will you try charging the data source for the extra bandwidth so you don't have to charge your customers directly?
You say you don't want to make money from the peering, but you also don't want to lose money. The costs have to go somewhere, and the customer is the most likely recipient.
And since you forgot, the question was about NEED, not WANT.
You apparently forgot. The comment you made that I replied to was: "A screen would be less convenient." That's not a statement of need, that's a statement of want. And wrong, except for the little printer you run in your house where you sit with a web browser up watching your printer status while you post to/.
DHCP gives it an address, then you can connect and configure whatever you want, including a static address if you like.
You clearly have no experience in an enterprise network, so please stop telling others how they should manage their networks.
So the light marked out of paper doesn't do it for them?
There is no light marked "out of paper". There's a nice LCD that tells them explicitely which tray needs paper. And sometimes, just sometimes, the problem is not that the printer is "out of paper", it is full -- but not in the tray they're accidentally trying to print from. What a useful idiot light that would be! "Out of paper". But I put a whole ream in tray 2 and it still doesn't print!
If that doesn't help, nothing short of a 32 inch display showing someone putting paper in the printer will help.
Yeah, because there's no idiot light to cover the problem, there needs to be a 32 inch display. Right.
It never needs toner or has a jam?
Of course it needs toner and sometimes jams. The toner is stored next to the printer, why would I have to bring it with me to replace it? And jams? What do you think I'd need to bring with me to fix a jam? Open door, pull out jammed paper, close door. Not rocket science.
I maintain it doesn't NEED a display, even if you might WANT one.
And you're basing your vast experience on your home printer and how great it works for you.
Since the post I replied to only mentioned one thing, I figured people might be able to figure it out.
The post you replied to was below the reading threshold here. It took extra effort to find out what you were replying to, must less what it said.
It gets it's IP and subnet mask via DHCP.
And if the IP address or subnet mask are wrong, then your pretty little lights aren't going to tell you that, and you won't be able to talk to it with a web browser. I've seen DHCP servers hand out not only bad subnet masks, but IP addresses that weren't even on the net the DHCP server was on. Yes, it was a stupid SOHO wireless router, and it was especially stupid because it was not configurable, could not be disabled, AND WAS ON THE WAN PORT. I plugged the POS into the corporate net and it started handing out addresses that were worthless.
If it has the wrong subnet mask, so does everything in my house.
We don't care about what you do in your house. We're talking about enterprise level multi-user printers.
You can't disable the HTTP port at all,
On the printers I have you can. What an incredible security issue you've got.
and I can look up the IP address.
Yeah, and I can nmap the network here to see where the device decided to show up, and if it isn't somewhere on the/21 I can spend a decade scanning the entire 32-bit address range (can't exclude non-routable or multicast). How convenient. Or I could just use the LCD display and the limited number of buttons and set the IP address to what I want it to be directly.
I have had zero problems with it.
Why then, nobody needs and displays on their printers because you've had no problem with your home printer. Ok.
Slashdot Mirror
because you or me (or any geek off the street) **cannot** just make an app that sells copyrighted books from major publishers
That has nothing to do with what you said. You claimed that the lack of voice input and note-taking, and interfacing to desktop systems was a "copyright problem". Who sells what book to whom has nothing to do with what other applications are on a device. Nothing at all. Since you've failed to show that it does, I'll just assume you can't back up that claim.
the tech exists to have those features, but **no one can make better apps** because only the likes of Amazon, Google, and Apple can negotiate licensing agreements with copyright holders
You are a complete moron. Book reading apps aren't limited to Amazon or Google. I've got at least three on most of my devices that have nothing to do with any of those companies, much less any companies that actually sell books. e-reader apps don't need to be tied to a specific vendor, and many of them are not.
Even WERE they tied to the vendors, there is no reason that other apps to do what the OP wants can't be used. There simply is no "copyright problem" in getting what he wants, and no "artificial scarcity" as you pretend.
I'm not explaining this any further, if you don't get it after this you're hopeless
The fact that you think the that only source of e-reader apps is the major book vendors, and that the only way voice input or note-taking software could exist is if they provide it shows who the hopeless one here is, I'm afraid. Your inability to defend your claim is noted.
The Scots are pretty good about denying that the English are part of their ranks.
I was referring to the "No True Scotsman" argument, which is not very effective. Just about as effective as saying "No True Nerd would..." do any of those things. That's about how much power to UNdefine someone as a nerd as we have. It truly is not about how WE think of such people, it is how OTHERS view them, so even your comment about the Scots being "pretty good" at excluding the English is off-base. "No true Scotsman would eat Cornish pasties..." proves nothing; solves nothing, if the guy who is eating the pastie is wearing a kilt.
but if we kick them out of our cons, mute them in our forums, and otherwise refuse to deal with them,
Explain how I kick someone out of a con. And the best I can do here is when I have a mod point to mod them down.
then no one is going to confuse us with them.
You are simply wrong. "No True Scotsman" does not work.
But have you ever heard someone else say it?
No.
yes...because they paid for the right to sell the 'ebook'
Who paid for what right to sell what book that I got for free? How does this deal with the question of how voice control and note-taking apps have some kind of "copyright problem" according to you?
you admit you have 'e-reader apps'...so we agree they exist
I agree you are avoiding the question. I didn't say there weren't such apps, in fact, I told the OP that a tablet with such applications was the answer to his question.
you acknowledge copyright exists
I'm still waiting for you to explain how a lack of voice control and note-taking apps has anything to do with copyright.
the maker of your current "e-reader app" could make a feature to do what TFA says *now*...which is a software fix
They all could, but so what? What is stopping other applications from doing it? Where is the copyright problem and artificial scarcity that you claim causes this problem?
we have the apps, we have the technology to do it on the devices...
And we have the applications that can do it, which pretty much puts to the shitter your claim that there is some "copyright problem" that keeps them from existing.
it's a software fix that any licensed seller of "e-reader" books could make to their software....done
It's a fix that already exists. Why do you keep avoiding the question? Where is the copyright problem that keeps the voice control and note-taking applications off of the same tablet that has an e-reader?
By letting them amongst our ranks,
We have about as much power to define who is "amongst our ranks" as we do to define who Anonymous is. "No true nerd ..." is about as useful as "No true Scotsman..."
and by letting them know it's OK to cyberstalk someone or that hey it's ok, she was a bitch anyway or any number of inhuman and gross misogynistic streaks in our culture,
I can't recall the last time I told anyone any of that. I also can't recall the first time. That's because I can recall all the times, and the count is ZERO.
we are defined by them now.
Speak for yourself.
so...what was your point again?
Pretty simple question. You claimed that copyright issues had something to do with a lack of voice input and note taking applications that the article asked about. I asked you what the hell you were talking about.
your 'e-reader' app wouldn't have any books in it though, would it?
I don't know what the hell you are talking about, and I don't think you do, either. All of my "e-reader apps" have plenty of books "in them".
maybe you should think more about what an 'e-reader' really does
I know what an "e-reader" does. I also know that copyright problems have nothing to do with what other apps are on the device I use to "e-read".
So, the answer to the "Kindle Killer" question is -- use a real tablet, not a book reader. They all have book reader apps and interface with desktops just fine. I don't use voice input because I don't choose to announce to everyone within earshot what I am doing. I think I've seen handwriting input for them, but I'm not big on trying to do small precise actions on a touch screen.
Mod parent up. This is from a group of osteopaths. Here's what Wikpedia has to say about osteopathy:
(Osteopaths) believe that their treatments, which primarily consist of moving, stretching and massaging a person's muscles and joints, help allow the body to heal itself.
When I was young my doctor was a DO. I don't recall ever getting a massage from him, but I do remember all the same vaccines and treatments with prescriptions and everything. And when my appendix went wonky I was in the hospital that day.
Perhaps osteopathy has changed in the last two decades, but I doubt it. From what I could tell back then, DO and MD were both licensed medical doctors who did the same things.
However, if I'm sitting in front of a network-connected device, I should be able to connect to any arbitrary server on the internet and achieve 50Mbps transfer rates at any time of day.
This is a fascinating idea.
Suppose I am using the same service you are, but I've paid for a 10Mbps connection. You connect to my server and demand 50Mbps. Who pays to upgrade my connection to 50Mbps so you can get what you think you were promised? There are several options:
1. You do. You want that data rate from me, you pay me to upgrade.
2. I do. Except that I don't care that you aren't getting your data at the speed you want, so good luck with that.
3. The service provider. Obviously they ought to pay to upgrade my connection because they sold you a full-time 50Mbps data rate and it is their fault you aren't getting it.
Option 3 means that the service provider is on the hook for making EVERY connection it sells the same speed so that nobody ever gets less than they were promised. Except now there are two people like you accessing my server at the same time and even though I've been upgraded to 50Mbps service when you complained (thanks, I like free stuff) you are both only getting 25Mbps. I get another free upgrade to 100Mbps! Add two more people, I get free 200Mbps. I love it. Except my server is on a 100Mbps network connection to the router. I get a free upgrade to my server to a gigabit net.
Or you realize that the 50Mbps you pay for is a maximum rate and not a guaranteed rate and prices don't need to skyrocket as the service provider gives away free service to everyone you might want to connect to on their network, much less to everyone outside their net.
But Comcast has oversold its actual capacity creating the disparity and thus responsible for its occurrence.
Every provider does that, and has done that. Nobody builds every part of their service to serve 100% of maximum possible load. They ALL use statistical predictions of load to design their networks so they work at a reasonable level. If those statistics change, well, the amount of buildout changes -- and that takes money to fix. And nobody builds to 100% because that is very expensive. You wouldn't want to pay the costs of 100%.
Have you complained to your telephone company that they aren't building to 100% max possible capacity? They don't do that. They've never done that. In the early days of telephone there may have been two long distance trunks out of a local office. If more than two people at a time wanted to make a long distance phone call everyone else had to wait. But Hey! You promised I could make long distance phone calls! Could you imagine the cost of putting in 100 trunk lines out of a local office that served 100 people? Nobody could afford to have a phone. And do you understand how wasteful that would be, with 100 trunk lines sitting idle for a large part of the day?
A lot more recently, and more computer related, I remember the days when modems and dialup BBS and ISPs blossomed. Those devices connected to standard phone lines skewed the usage statistics heavily. Instead of the statistics based on voice calls, the average number of calls went way up and the length of calls did, too. Before the nice crossbar switches where every input could connect to every output there was something called "step by step", and every call in progress used one of a limited number of paths through the switch. The longer someone used one of those paths, the fewer people could be served. The response from the phone companies? They wanted to create "data service", which they claimed were better maintained copper pairs, but in reality was just a way to charge more to deal with the increased usage. And people complained bitterly about that. It was all because the telco did not build to 100% maximum capacity.
Then going to its customer's other vendors and insisting they pay extra to provide the bandwidth their customers have already paid for.
Let me ask you this. You pay for a business class 100Mb line to some provider. You fire up your web browser and point it at a web server I'm running. You watch the data rate you're getting from me. It's a small fraction of your 100Mbps. Do you call your provider and complain? Do you imagine that you've paid to get every data connection you make to run at 100Mbps?
Of course not. That's a silly assumption. You've paid for a certain maximum rate. If the data isn't available at that rate, it isn't available at that rate, and complaining to your service provider won't fix that. If you think you service provider promised you that you'd be able to connect to every other destination on the planet at 100Mbps, then you didn't read the contract.
So, do you complain to me? Probably. And I'll tell you that you can buy me a faster connection and a replacement for my Raspberry Pi, but that you paying your service provider for your connection isn't paying me anything.
In control of the vehicle? Maybe if you're a professional, trained stunt car driver.
You're kidding. You don't have to be a stunt car driver to be in control of a vehicle on the freeway. Most people manage to do it every day without special training at all.
As I said, the difference between a human-initiated emergency stop and an autonomous vehicle one (using your protocol) is that the human was in control of the vehicle and observing what was going on prior, versus reading a book, taking a nap, typing on the computer, etc, and being handed control by a computer that just shut the engine off. That seems like a significant difference to me, and a pretty obvious one.
the autonomous car doesn't have to be better than the very best drivers, it just has to be better that the average driver.
It has to be better, and it has to fail in safe and manageable ways, and take predictable actions when it deals with failure. Any one of those conditions not met means more danger to everyone around it instead of less.
And the average drive really isn't good in emergency situations.
p The average driver is a lot better at emergency situations than shutting the engine off and thrusting control onto someone who wasn't paying any attention to anything that led up to the situation, which is what you propose the autonomous vehicle should for even just things that are "outside the parameters" it was programmed to handle.
Autodriving cars will, sooner or later, kill someone. What about the thousands who didn't die because of them?
Your argument sounds very much like "what about the thousands of terrorist bombs that didn't make their way onto airplanes because of TSA?"
The problem with assuming something is obvious when your interlocutor points out it isn't is that when you are wrong and/or ignorant, you don't discover it. You are experiencing that in this situation.
Uhhh, what? I'm neither wrong nor ignorant, and it is obvious where the costs are.
Even with the bandwidth offered by comcast/tw, one user streaming video does not tax the bandwidth that user is paying for.
I'm sorry, but I think that's the point I'm making.
It might seem like it does, but only because it is being actively throttled by the ISP.
Except in this case it isn't. Comcast is not actively throttling anything, they are simply refusing to pay for more bandwidth on a clogged gateway.
You are *greatly* underestimating the amount of bandwidth which is actually available.
I'm not making any estimates of what is available, so I cannot be underestimating it. What is available is what the companies involved in the peering relationship agree to, and we've discovered over time that more people using more services (more in bandwidth of each service, more services, and more people) means at some point the gateways get filled. At that point, someone has to pay to increase the bandwidth.
My quite reasonable question to Google is, how is their system different in that respect, and how do they plan on dealing with the costs of increasing the peering bandwidth when it is going to be needed?
An analogy with a comcast connection would be having a router in your house letting two people browse the internet at once.
We are not talking about two people using two streams at the same time overloading the fiber coming into their house. We're talking about thousands of people (or tens of thousands) who are otherwise unrelated all trying to stream things at the same time through a Google to Netflix pipe.
Does this doubling of bandwidth use require comcast upgrade their infrastructure? No, because it was expected and accounted for in the initial deployment of said infrastructure.
And you're trying to argue that Google has considered all possible future uses of their peering to content providers when they install the gateways today. They've got a crystal ball that tells them that there will be a ten-fold increase in their customer base and a ten-fold increase in the bandwidth required for services, and they've overbuilt by two orders of magnitude so hen the inevitable happens they're already covered? Ok, then take that another year into the future where this now almost saturated link becomes fully saturated. They're not making money peering, so where does the money come from to pay for the upgrade? The customers, the content providers, or a gift from unicorns?
Yeah. How's that any different then when you have to slam on your brakes during any other emergency?
Well, I'd guess it's different because YOU were in control of the vehicle and aware of the surroundings when you applied the brakes, and you didn't shut off the engine when doing so (killing any power steering, btw). When the car decides to bail out on you because it finds itself "outside the operating parameters" you may be in the middle of a book, completely unaware of what's going on, need to observe and analyze the situation, and then deal with a car that has left you without an engine or reasonable steering control in the middle of a freeway where everyone else is still going 70MPH.
I thought that difference would be obvious from the context.
Even with IR filters, visible spectrum cameras can be overloaded with thermal energy.
Since they are not sensitive in the thermal (far IR) bands, they can't really be overloaded there. And the glass in the lenses pretty well stops the far IR, not to mention the visible cutoff filters. True thermal cameras don't have glass lenses.
The main thing that gets overloaded is the focus logic that most visible spectrum cameras use,
If the camera doesn't see the radiation, it won't impede the focus algorithms. But I would hope that the autonomous sensors are not auto-focus to begin with. They should be fixed focus.
If you've got a few cameras (thermal and visual) around, you can test this with an IR laser -- point it at each device while it's on, and check the result -- it will likely be a big white spot in the image.
I have both, and the near IR is stopped very well by the filters for the visible cameras, and the IR ones don't see near IR at all.
I caneven do this with my IR-based remote for my digital cameras -
Your IR remote is operating in the near IR, which is not where thermal cameras operate. Your near IR remote will have no effect on true thermal cameras, other than the heat generated by the LED itself.
Most of those: power down engine, alert the driver and transfer to manual control.
Excellent response. Your car is driving you at 70MPH on the freeway in traffic and sees a problem. "Bong -- I've detected a condition outside my parameters. I've shut your engine off and you've got control. Put the book down, assess the situation, and do the right thing, human! NOW!"
"Oh, I forgot to tell you, that semi right behind us doesn't respond to my data signal so it must have a human driver. Hope he's awake and alert, cause we're STOPPIN!"
as visual cameras always go a bit into the thermal spectrum and can be overloaded.
Visual cameras have no thermal capability. Many of them are sensitive to near IR (if there are no explicit IR filters installed, which color cameras certainly have to keep the colors correct), but that's not what a thermal camera sees. Thermal sensors are in the far IR.
Airplanes can take off, fly, and land better than you or I can, far, far better...
Because airplanes have wings that provide lift and you and I don't.
If you are saying that autopilots can fly aircraft better than you can, well, that may be true. I'd like to see one handle the Gimli Glider or Sully's Water Landing better than the pilots involved. Or the the Sioux City DC9.
Airplanes have had autoland for almost 40 years now,
Some airplanes have had that, and it requires special certification for the aircraft and crew to do it. A bit more training than the typical Department of Motor Vehicles road testing for a new driver's license. Many more airplanes do NOT have it, and many do not have any autopilot at all. Why? Because the cost of an autopilot is high based on liability issues when they get the pilots into trouble.
people can't do that without being able to see something
And autopilots in aircraft can't do it without being able to "see" something, either. They require a certified ILS or MLS approach (to "see" the vertical and lateral flight path), and a radar altimeter (to "see" the ground). And the Wikipedia entry for "Autoland" points out: "they are not generally smooth in their responses to varying wind shear or gusting wind conditions - i.e. not able to compensate in all dimensions rapidly enough - to safely permit their use." So a human pilot who could deal with a wind shear is better at it than the autoland autopilot.
In the big picture, computer driven cars will be much safer than human driven ones...
That may turn out to be true, someday, somewhere, in some instances. It is far from a fact, however. I view this claim using the hindsight of hearing the claims that we would all have helicopter-cars by 1980, and based on an understanding of how aviation autopilots have their limitations and have not become ubiquitous and mandatory.
Autopilots in airplanes do not remove the pilot's requirement to pay attention to what is going on.
Autonomous vehicles are being promoted for exactly their ability to allow the driver to do non-driving functions (like read, eat, nap, or other things). That's what they mean when they talk about increasing productivity of those who commute to work using one.
I can tell you from much experience that autopilots are wonderful things,
Yes, they are. But they are not intended to allow flight in close formation (like a string of autos on the freeway would be), or in close proximity to the ground*. These autopilots are intended for an environment where the closest thing to you is more than 500 feet away at least. And they will quite happily fly you into the ground when they fail. Or fly you to the point you stall and then fall to the ground.
Here's just one example of how the autopilot can fail, even though the NTSB would call it pilot error (just like everything else, almost.) The Garmin G1000 with (mumble) 700 autopilot has a VS command. That's "vertical speed". You can tell the autopilot to climb at a set rate, say 500 fpm. If you forget to add power you may not be able to achieve a 500 fpm climb (or you may initially make it, but as you climb the performance decreases and you can't keep it) -- but the autopilot will keep trying. It will try to increase your angle of attack to get more lift so you can climb at the rate you've requested. It will keep trying so hard that it may cause your airspeed to drop below stall speed.
Hello, Pilot, you are now in a full-on stall, probably about to enter a spin, maybe in IMC, and your autopilot has adjusted your elevator trim to full-up trying to do what you told it to do. It's your aircraft. HAND.
It has, in it's data, the stall speeds for the aircraft it is in because it will display the critical speeds as flags on the airspeed indicator, so it could easily report the problem to the pilot. "Bong -- minimum airspeed reached, climb aborted." It does not. There is a recent article in Aviation Safety, I think it was, about a crash of a military version of a King Air in the mideast that did exactly that. The pilot was IFR and distracted and the aircraft stalled and then spun in.
There is a very good reason that there are half a dozen (8 for the G1000, as I recall) or more ways of disabling the autopilot in an aircraft. They fail often enough, and in serious enough ways ("hey, let's run your elevator trim FULL UP for no reason at all, bud", e.g.) that it is important to be able to kill George immediately. And have multiple ways to kill him in case the first three didn't kill him well enough.
You should probably not use aircraft autopilots as examples of robo-perfection.
* Yes, there are cat III autopilots that will fly the aircraft onto the runway, or "auto-land". It takes specially certified equipment AND CREWS to do that. You aren't going to find many Joe Sixpacks out on a drive that could meet equivalent quals. And that G1000 I use as an example? The aircraft manual prohibits use of the autopilot below 800 AGL, as I recall.
It appears that you may not have read the article. They let the providers put servers in their racks at the datacenters,
That's not peering, that is co-location. I was responding to the claim that they don't make money from peering.
Adding servers for colo means Netflix is paying more for better service to their customers and not expecting their ISP to pass the costs on, or for their customer's ISP to pay the extra cost. That is the correct way to allocate the costs, but peering doesn't do it that way.
It is Comcast creating the bottleneck and it is done deliberately
That's what Level 3 says. Level 3 has a dog in the fight, so I'd not accept what they say at face value just as one should not accept what Comcast says at face value.
"Deliberately", in this case, means "Comcast isn't paying for more bandwidth", which applies to all traffic through that gateway, not just Netflix.
What costs? You have not made a case that there is extra costs.
If you set up a peering connection for a certain amount of bandwidth, and then have to install new hardware to increase the bandwidth because more people are trying to use high-bandwidth low-latency services through that gateway, there is a cost. I shouldn't have to "make a case" for something so obvious.
If the users request it and are within their bandwidth then there is no extra cost then what is expected.
The user does not get a guaranteed bandwidth through the peering connection. That's absurd. And it's not a single user we're talking about, it is the aggregate of all the users who may be streaming one video each, but all together managing to overload the peering connection.
We don't make money from peering or colocation; since people usually only stream one video at a time, video traffic doesn't bog down or change the way we manage our network in any meaningful way
"One person" may only stream one video at a time, but "people" as a whole may stream thousands or tens of thousands of videos all at the same time, and that's what creates the bottleneck in the peering connection. These same "people" are the "people" who currently stream videos over Comcast et.al. and create the peering bottleneck between Comcast and Level 3.
What keeps the same thing from happening to your gateways? And what keeps the price for your service from going up as you have to add more bandwidth to your peering arrangement to deal with ever-increased levels of streaming? Or will you try charging the data source for the extra bandwidth so you don't have to charge your customers directly?
You say you don't want to make money from the peering, but you also don't want to lose money. The costs have to go somewhere, and the customer is the most likely recipient.
And since you forgot, the question was about NEED, not WANT.
You apparently forgot. The comment you made that I replied to was: "A screen would be less convenient." That's not a statement of need, that's a statement of want. And wrong, except for the little printer you run in your house where you sit with a web browser up watching your printer status while you post to /.
DHCP gives it an address, then you can connect and configure whatever you want, including a static address if you like.
You clearly have no experience in an enterprise network, so please stop telling others how they should manage their networks.
So the light marked out of paper doesn't do it for them?
There is no light marked "out of paper". There's a nice LCD that tells them explicitely which tray needs paper. And sometimes, just sometimes, the problem is not that the printer is "out of paper", it is full -- but not in the tray they're accidentally trying to print from. What a useful idiot light that would be! "Out of paper". But I put a whole ream in tray 2 and it still doesn't print!
If that doesn't help, nothing short of a 32 inch display showing someone putting paper in the printer will help.
Yeah, because there's no idiot light to cover the problem, there needs to be a 32 inch display. Right.
It never needs toner or has a jam?
Of course it needs toner and sometimes jams. The toner is stored next to the printer, why would I have to bring it with me to replace it? And jams? What do you think I'd need to bring with me to fix a jam? Open door, pull out jammed paper, close door. Not rocket science.
I maintain it doesn't NEED a display, even if you might WANT one.
And you're basing your vast experience on your home printer and how great it works for you.
Since the post I replied to only mentioned one thing, I figured people might be able to figure it out.
The post you replied to was below the reading threshold here. It took extra effort to find out what you were replying to, must less what it said.
It gets it's IP and subnet mask via DHCP.
And if the IP address or subnet mask are wrong, then your pretty little lights aren't going to tell you that, and you won't be able to talk to it with a web browser. I've seen DHCP servers hand out not only bad subnet masks, but IP addresses that weren't even on the net the DHCP server was on. Yes, it was a stupid SOHO wireless router, and it was especially stupid because it was not configurable, could not be disabled, AND WAS ON THE WAN PORT. I plugged the POS into the corporate net and it started handing out addresses that were worthless.
If it has the wrong subnet mask, so does everything in my house.
We don't care about what you do in your house. We're talking about enterprise level multi-user printers.
You can't disable the HTTP port at all,
On the printers I have you can. What an incredible security issue you've got.
and I can look up the IP address.
Yeah, and I can nmap the network here to see where the device decided to show up, and if it isn't somewhere on the /21 I can spend a decade scanning the entire 32-bit address range (can't exclude non-routable or multicast). How convenient. Or I could just use the LCD display and the limited number of buttons and set the IP address to what I want it to be directly.
I have had zero problems with it.
Why then, nobody needs and displays on their printers because you've had no problem with your home printer. Ok.