Given there will be bottlenecks but I want them far away from me. I am sick of the last mile to my house being the bottleneck, move it somewhere else for a while, somewhere where it can be more easily updated.
Now, once we have a wire to my house capable of some outrageous speed go ahead and restrict it to match your network speed as long as that excess capacity is kept in reserve for future improvements. This seems to me a more sensible way of engineering the network, the most expensive upgrades (last mile) should be done right once and let the rest of the network catch up after many incremental updates.
I thought the entire point of TiVo was that it learned what you liked to watch and automatically pulled content without asking for it. Why would I have to tell a TiVo that I want to watch a show, doesn't it already know?
I have no TV reception, just a big screen and a stack of DVDs but I always planned on getting HDTVoIP when Verizon rolls its Fiber service to my area as long as I could TiVo it.
First, the iMac mini... I would like to put this on my HDTV but hey the wireless Mac keyboard has no mouse support, how am I supposed to use a mouse on the couch. The mac remote doesn't provide these features. That is just poor thinking. Other than that I would like to see someone make their DVD library on a fileserver available via Frontrow.
Second, the iPod case, why doesn't apple leave this market to 3rd parties, they do just fine thanks.
Third, the boombox. The iMac mini can get music from your home iTunes install, that is how a home stereo should work, leverage iTunes and a home network not plug in an iPod. Besides this is another market best left to 3rd parties. Let Bose, JBL, HK, etc. build stereos and consumers will demand iTunes / iPod interaction, Apple should help them not compete with them. What's next an Apple car with iPod connectivity? It is backwards
I am a Verizon residential DSL customer. I am writing to register my anger towards the comments John Thorne, a Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel, made on February 6, 2006 concerning Google's alleged freeloading for gaining access to people's homes using, in part, Verizon's network.
I am your customer. I pay my Internet bill with an expectation that you will allow me to transmit and receive IP packets to and from arbitrary Internet hosts without undue concern for the nature of those communications. Of the many services I receive by using the Internet, Google's services rank highly. Google is not your customer, you do not provide these services for Google's benefit. I am your customer and pay you to provide access to Google's (among other's) services for my benefit. If you feel that you are not being adequately compensated for providing me with those services, it is I, your customer to whom you should be turning to receive extra compensation not Google.
I pay for the services I receive from Google (and other Internet content providers) not by paying my DSL bill to Verizon, but by subscribing to premium content and by viewing additional advertising content paid for by other parties. Google then uses their income from these transactions to pay for their Internet Service Providers to transmit and deliver IP packets on their behalf in order to provide their services. The Internet communications network economy functions by ISPs cooperating in order to share each other's networks in order to provide worldwide connectivity services to their customers. If you want to get paid from both ends of the table I suggest you provide end-to-end connectivity from each of your customers to each of the services your customer is interested in at a rate that is competitive with the multi-AS Internet infrastructure.
I am not just paying for the infrastructure required for me to communicate with your corporate network. I would not pay for that service. I am paying for the fact that your corporate network, which is connected to my home via DSL, is well connected to the Internet at large and provides me with a gateway to the content I desire.
I find it discouraging that I, as a customer, have a better understanding of the functioning of your business model than does your own senior vice president John Thorne. I suggest you remember who your customers are and are not.
If we make a commitment to return to the moon we should be prepared to explore, armed with airplanes (both manned and UAV), MPS (GPS on the moon) constellation, multiple bases, regular supply drops and greenhouses. We made it to the moon in the 1960s with technology that is downright scary by todays standards, we should prepare to return to the moon with a vengence on July 20, 2019.
Re:It's Linge'RFIQin good!
on
RFID Cookware
·
· Score: 2, Funny
All I need is more negative feedback on my cooking... I get plenty of that already.
I never got into dual-headed setups, I think I could go for a 3-head display, but I just don't like the idea of the middle of my workspace being a break between two monitors. Does anyone else feel this way?
> How can giving poor people money for taking medication that may be a little risky be a bad thing?
This should be obvious...
A poor villager with insufficient medical care could probably be aided by a routine (in the west) procedure but there is no research money in that. Research money is given for risky new procedures. The poor villager is left with the sub-standard options of no treatment or risky treatment while the medically optimal treatment is not available.
Medical research should be strictly reserved for terminal patients with no other options not terminally poor patients with no affordable options.
Scratches on optical media come from handling the media, this happens at all sorts of velocities and thus there are a wide variety of scratches with varying degrees of damage.
Scratches on Hard disks come from the freakin' head smashing into the disk while it is spinning at 7200rpm, there is no such thing as a benign head crash, when it happens it is bad, the head is gonna skip off the surface of the disk like a pebble on a lake. It is going to be bad no matter what the data density is.
So the difference between scratches and head crashes is miles apart, not just due to data density. In actuality the data density differences are insignificant compared to the other issues.
But by doing this, online stores have sold out of their initial supply or bundled them together into outrageously priced bundles. They are not taking pre-orders with a sane wait-list methodology they just say to check back latter. For my convinience, as the customer, if you aren't willing to put me in a line so I don't have to monkey around myself, then I am not sure I want to be your customer anymore. Companies that I have seen this done on the Xbox 360 include Amazon, Gamestop, Walmart, Costco, BestBuy, and many more. I feel this customer unfriendly "check back latter or buy a big bundle" attitude is much worse than details of when stock arrives.
I see the following as possible incentives for Apple to screw us:)
* Increased Market Security / Customer Lock-in. If it isn't growing your number one job is to maintain market share
* Pressure from Labels (as you suggest) / pricing negotiations. Labels will continue to pressure Apple to do their bidding or pull product.
* Market shift towards DRM from intel, Microsoft, HD-DVD/BluRay, HDTV, HDCP and DMCA all has the potential to hurt us bad, a lot worse than it has. So far Apple has been mostly on our side but the tide is against us and they will not be able to stand up for us.
Apple needed to utilize very weak DRM in order to make the iPod and iTMS a success. People want to move their music to their car and home stereo not just computer and iPod.
Now that iPod is the champ that is changing, products for connecting the iPod to your car stereo and connecting your iTunes computer to your home stereo are rapidly expanding and will soon be standard on many new cars / car stereos and home stereos.
Once that has been acomplished the need for consumers to burn CDs of iTMS music will be dramatically reduced. At that point Apple could clamp down on the DRM and they may hurt a bit but they would still survive and fluorish.
We can see the beginings of this with the iPod video roll-out. Keep a close lookout and you will see the loose DRM which made iPod a success begin to deteriorate.
You see when an organization is permitted to manage any DNS domain it has sole authority over how to hand out and revoke names contained within that domain. The US government, having authority over.gov can do what it likes to it. The owners of this website own the domain slashdot.org and can adhere to whatever draconian standards they like.
So society has just given.mobi to a group that will ensure that when they give out a sub-domain the recipient follows an agreement to publish a mobile friendly website on www.whatever.mobi.
There is nothing groundbreaking or out of the ordinary about this.
I don't understand the desire to make this all EU politicized...
Each country has been given its own TLD (.uk,.au,.fr,.jp,...) doesn't the governments of these countries have DNS administration authority over those domains? They can do what they like and everyone else (sane countries that support the DNS root) can just append the appropriate suffix to those names... France want to give www.ebay.com.fr to a site talking about the evils of selling Nazi items then let them do so. If French residents want to set their DNS root to a French server they can query www.ebay.com and get what the rest of the world would call www.ebay.com.fr and if they really want to go to ww.ebay.com the French domain name server can map the global DNS Space back into.us (actually.us.fr !!!) so that www.ebay.com.us.fr = www.ebay.com.
DNS works by delegating authority over domains to domain administrators. The only special thing about the root is that we all agree on it being the root.
The Public Domain cannot be improved upon. The notion that copyright can be used to help free software is incorrect, based on an invalid definition of 'free'.
I really like my Powerbook but hey who charges it right before letting it sleep for 5 days? I use it until it is nearly depleted (~10%) and THEN I need it to last 36 hours. There is no excuse, OS X NEEDS real hibernation, standby is great 90% of the time but that last 10% is 'attention to detail'
Lets say you bought a stock for $100 a share and the company is making a substantial profit and THUS pays the shareholders a handsome dividend of $50 a share. This is a very good return, the company need not grow but no one will want to sell their stock (paying $50 a share) for less than $2,000 a share because they are making a rate of return that is better than the worth of $2,000 cash.
So in this scenario one could say that the company need not grow in order to increase in stock. But of course how did you procure such a handsome stock for $100 a share? The company must have not been paying a $50 a share dividend if it was trading at $100 a share, thus you were speculating upon purchasing the stock that the company would grow to the point where it would pay $2.50 a share, at which point you would be happy to own that stock because it would be paying you more, but if someone were to offer you more, say $200 a share the only reason you would not sell is that YOU were speculating that in the future the stock would be paying at least $5 a share dividend.
So you see irregardless of the dividend a stock is paying the only fluctuations in cost that motivate trading that stock are speculations about whether that company will do better or worse in the future.
Hence if you own a proffitable company or one you believe will be proffitable without the need for borrowing money at a reduced interest rate (through an IPO) you don't put that company on the stock market, you keep the shares and grow the company without putting it on the stock market, why would you sell a good thing?
Of course money begits money and you need money to make money so that forces owners to IPO and sell off parts of there company and accept a smaller rate of return on their investment to 'play the game' so yes our entire stock market is based on the expectation of growth.
Okay instead of thinking about how to hack it, why don't we think of the harder question, how to make it secure?
What if the drive has multiple partitions (is this possible with USB?) and one is normal and two are small specialized partitions. When a challenge is written to one of these (only a couple bytes long) and then the other one is read than the result of the read is a response to that challenge instead of a normal data value. This would effectively hide an arbitrary secure chip behind a USB key interface. This could easilly be implemented without the partitioning (in some convoluted way)
If you want to be able to transfer the data to a new key and actually have it work though there is no way to make it super copy safe. Of course as many have mentioned most car keys aren't super copy safe and those that are tend to be annoying, my VW key would cost several hundred dollars to replace because we bought it used and didn't get the key number tag that came with the car. That is annoying but the dealer likes itbecause its a good source of income for them.
Lets replace a game, meant for ammusement, with a corporate network, meant for getting work done. The avatar in the game being replaced by your user account. If someone subverts the rules of the system to take something of value from a user's home directory...
You see where I am going, what makes a game special so that this isn't a crime as it would be on a corporate network. Technically there is NO difference. Both systems map virtual objects to real money in the real world.
You may say that in the game users agree to possibly loose, a kind of gambling. So if we treat the game like a casino than doesn't the casino have a legal requirement to play fair, keep customers from being swindled? So are the game developers liabel for the losses as they would be in a casino? With that comes gaming regulations and oversight that exists for casinos but not MMORPGs...
Everywhere you look at this problem the lines between entertainment, profit, and crime are blurred.
I can't fault the guy for using a bot, that is like faulting a user from using a shell script to check their email (or a spam filter). I can't fault the guy for attacking other players, that is the point of the game isn't it? I can't fault the concept of being able to sell in game items for real money, if they are transferable and people want them they will find a way to allow trading.
What about a MMORPG like The sims and the concept of prostitution online? rape? murder!? Okay a virtual avatar can't really be killed but what if the game rules are as they are with life, if you die you can't come back, you can't continue to use that avatar or its possessions (which can pass to others via a will) after death.
Everytime I think of a game I say, no rights, no laws its free for all, good luck to you sir. But everytime I think about a corporate network I say, its exactly the same as the real world, if I use my avatar to sexually harrass another users avatar then I am culpable. but then I ask myself what is the difference between one and the other and I don't think there is a difference except maybe the arrangements by which I have an account.
When I play a game I do not expect that actions I take can hurt me any worse than loosing my right to play the game.
When I log on to a corporate system I do expect that actions I perform online to represent me.
Its like the difference between reading non-fiction and fiction, I have different expectations as to whether the author is telling me something that happened or something they made up.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you see then the purchaser could seperate the discs (give one to a friend). Obviously the studios would not like this...
:)
You aren't thinking nearly evil enough to be a film studio.
Given there will be bottlenecks but I want them far away from me. I am sick of the last mile to my house being the bottleneck, move it somewhere else for a while, somewhere where it can be more easily updated.
Now, once we have a wire to my house capable of some outrageous speed go ahead and restrict it to match your network speed as long as that excess capacity is kept in reserve for future improvements. This seems to me a more sensible way of engineering the network, the most expensive upgrades (last mile) should be done right once and let the rest of the network catch up after many incremental updates.
I thought the entire point of TiVo was that it learned what you liked to watch and automatically pulled content without asking for it. Why would I have to tell a TiVo that I want to watch a show, doesn't it already know?
I have no TV reception, just a big screen and a stack of DVDs but I always planned on getting HDTVoIP when Verizon rolls its Fiber service to my area as long as I could TiVo it.
First, the iMac mini... I would like to put this on my HDTV but hey the wireless Mac keyboard has no mouse support, how am I supposed to use a mouse on the couch. The mac remote doesn't provide these features. That is just poor thinking. Other than that I would like to see someone make their DVD library on a fileserver available via Frontrow.
Second, the iPod case, why doesn't apple leave this market to 3rd parties, they do just fine thanks.
Third, the boombox. The iMac mini can get music from your home iTunes install, that is how a home stereo should work, leverage iTunes and a home network not plug in an iPod. Besides this is another market best left to 3rd parties. Let Bose, JBL, HK, etc. build stereos and consumers will demand iTunes / iPod interaction, Apple should help them not compete with them. What's next an Apple car with iPod connectivity? It is backwards
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a Verizon residential DSL customer. I am writing to register my anger towards the comments John Thorne, a Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel, made on February 6, 2006 concerning Google's alleged freeloading for gaining access to people's homes using, in part, Verizon's network.
I am your customer. I pay my Internet bill with an expectation that you will allow me to transmit and receive IP packets to and from arbitrary Internet hosts without undue concern for the nature of those communications. Of the many services I receive by using the Internet, Google's services rank highly. Google is not your customer, you do not provide these services for Google's benefit. I am your customer and pay you to provide access to Google's (among other's) services for my benefit. If you feel that you are not being adequately compensated for providing me with those services, it is I, your customer to whom you should be turning to receive extra compensation not Google.
I pay for the services I receive from Google (and other Internet content providers) not by paying my DSL bill to Verizon, but by subscribing to premium content and by viewing additional advertising content paid for by other parties. Google then uses their income from these transactions to pay for their Internet Service Providers to transmit and deliver IP packets on their behalf in order to provide their services. The Internet communications network economy functions by ISPs cooperating in order to share each other's networks in order to provide worldwide connectivity services to their customers. If you want to get paid from both ends of the table I suggest you provide end-to-end connectivity from each of your customers to each of the services your customer is interested in at a rate that is competitive with the multi-AS Internet infrastructure.
I am not just paying for the infrastructure required for me to communicate with your corporate network. I would not pay for that service. I am paying for the fact that your corporate network, which is connected to my home via DSL, is well connected to the Internet at large and provides me with a gateway to the content I desire.
I find it discouraging that I, as a customer, have a better understanding of the functioning of your business model than does your own senior vice president John Thorne. I suggest you remember who your customers are and are not.
Thank you,
John Jones
xyz@verizon.net
And
xyz@gmail.com
e-mail addresses changed to protect my inbox.
If we make a commitment to return to the moon we should be prepared to explore, armed with airplanes (both manned and UAV), MPS (GPS on the moon) constellation, multiple bases, regular supply drops and greenhouses. We made it to the moon in the 1960s with technology that is downright scary by todays standards, we should prepare to return to the moon with a vengence on July 20, 2019.
All I need is more negative feedback on my cooking... I get plenty of that already.
I never got into dual-headed setups, I think I could go for a 3-head display, but I just don't like the idea of the middle of my workspace being a break between two monitors. Does anyone else feel this way?
> How can giving poor people money for taking medication that may be a little risky be a bad thing?
This should be obvious...
A poor villager with insufficient medical care could probably be aided by a routine (in the west) procedure but there is no research money in that. Research money is given for risky new procedures. The poor villager is left with the sub-standard options of no treatment or risky treatment while the medically optimal treatment is not available.
Medical research should be strictly reserved for terminal patients with no other options not terminally poor patients with no affordable options.
Scratches on Hard disks come from the freakin' head smashing into the disk while it is spinning at 7200rpm, there is no such thing as a benign head crash, when it happens it is bad, the head is gonna skip off the surface of the disk like a pebble on a lake. It is going to be bad no matter what the data density is.
So the difference between scratches and head crashes is miles apart, not just due to data density. In actuality the data density differences are insignificant compared to the other issues.
If the emulator can't run friggin' emacs fast enough then this whole intel transition is going to be very very ugly!
But by doing this, online stores have sold out of their initial supply or bundled them together into outrageously priced bundles. They are not taking pre-orders with a sane wait-list methodology they just say to check back latter. For my convinience, as the customer, if you aren't willing to put me in a line so I don't have to monkey around myself, then I am not sure I want to be your customer anymore. Companies that I have seen this done on the Xbox 360 include Amazon, Gamestop, Walmart, Costco, BestBuy, and many more. I feel this customer unfriendly "check back latter or buy a big bundle" attitude is much worse than details of when stock arrives.
* Increased Market Security / Customer Lock-in. If it isn't growing your number one job is to maintain market share
* Pressure from Labels (as you suggest) / pricing negotiations. Labels will continue to pressure Apple to do their bidding or pull product.
* Market shift towards DRM from intel, Microsoft, HD-DVD/BluRay, HDTV, HDCP and DMCA all has the potential to hurt us bad, a lot worse than it has. So far Apple has been mostly on our side but the tide is against us and they will not be able to stand up for us.
Now that iPod is the champ that is changing, products for connecting the iPod to your car stereo and connecting your iTunes computer to your home stereo are rapidly expanding and will soon be standard on many new cars / car stereos and home stereos.
Once that has been acomplished the need for consumers to burn CDs of iTMS music will be dramatically reduced. At that point Apple could clamp down on the DRM and they may hurt a bit but they would still survive and fluorish.
We can see the beginings of this with the iPod video roll-out. Keep a close lookout and you will see the loose DRM which made iPod a success begin to deteriorate.
So society has just given .mobi to a group that will ensure that when they give out a sub-domain the recipient follows an agreement to publish a mobile friendly website on www.whatever.mobi.
There is nothing groundbreaking or out of the ordinary about this.
I don't understand the desire to make this all EU politicized... Each country has been given its own TLD (.uk, .au, .fr, .jp, ...) doesn't the governments of these countries have DNS administration authority over those domains? They can do what they like and everyone else (sane countries that support the DNS root) can just append the appropriate suffix to those names... France want to give www.ebay.com.fr to a site talking about the evils of selling Nazi items then let them do so. If French residents want to set their DNS root to a French server they can query www.ebay.com and get what the rest of the world would call www.ebay.com.fr and if they really want to go to ww.ebay.com the French domain name server can map the global DNS Space back into .us (actually .us.fr !!!) so that www.ebay.com.us.fr = www.ebay.com.
DNS works by delegating authority over domains to domain administrators. The only special thing about the root is that we all agree on it being the root.
We all know where this will lead...
The Public Domain cannot be improved upon. The notion that copyright can be used to help free software is incorrect, based on an invalid definition of 'free'.
I really like my Powerbook but hey who charges it right before letting it sleep for 5 days? I use it until it is nearly depleted (~10%) and THEN I need it to last 36 hours. There is no excuse, OS X NEEDS real hibernation, standby is great 90% of the time but that last 10% is 'attention to detail'
So in this scenario one could say that the company need not grow in order to increase in stock. But of course how did you procure such a handsome stock for $100 a share? The company must have not been paying a $50 a share dividend if it was trading at $100 a share, thus you were speculating upon purchasing the stock that the company would grow to the point where it would pay $2.50 a share, at which point you would be happy to own that stock because it would be paying you more, but if someone were to offer you more, say $200 a share the only reason you would not sell is that YOU were speculating that in the future the stock would be paying at least $5 a share dividend.
So you see irregardless of the dividend a stock is paying the only fluctuations in cost that motivate trading that stock are speculations about whether that company will do better or worse in the future.
Hence if you own a proffitable company or one you believe will be proffitable without the need for borrowing money at a reduced interest rate (through an IPO) you don't put that company on the stock market, you keep the shares and grow the company without putting it on the stock market, why would you sell a good thing?
Of course money begits money and you need money to make money so that forces owners to IPO and sell off parts of there company and accept a smaller rate of return on their investment to 'play the game' so yes our entire stock market is based on the expectation of growth.
What if the drive has multiple partitions (is this possible with USB?) and one is normal and two are small specialized partitions. When a challenge is written to one of these (only a couple bytes long) and then the other one is read than the result of the read is a response to that challenge instead of a normal data value. This would effectively hide an arbitrary secure chip behind a USB key interface. This could easilly be implemented without the partitioning (in some convoluted way)
If you want to be able to transfer the data to a new key and actually have it work though there is no way to make it super copy safe. Of course as many have mentioned most car keys aren't super copy safe and those that are tend to be annoying, my VW key would cost several hundred dollars to replace because we bought it used and didn't get the key number tag that came with the car. That is annoying but the dealer likes itbecause its a good source of income for them.
It looks more like the Matrix than the Matrix...
Has anyone (partially) developed a game with the GPLed code from id, then decided to purchase a liscense so they didn't have to GPL their game?
Okay so we still have SHA-256 and SHA-512 but can we really feel good about them?
Wanted: One reliable hash...
You see where I am going, what makes a game special so that this isn't a crime as it would be on a corporate network. Technically there is NO difference. Both systems map virtual objects to real money in the real world.
You may say that in the game users agree to possibly loose, a kind of gambling. So if we treat the game like a casino than doesn't the casino have a legal requirement to play fair, keep customers from being swindled? So are the game developers liabel for the losses as they would be in a casino? With that comes gaming regulations and oversight that exists for casinos but not MMORPGs...
Everywhere you look at this problem the lines between entertainment, profit, and crime are blurred.
I can't fault the guy for using a bot, that is like faulting a user from using a shell script to check their email (or a spam filter). I can't fault the guy for attacking other players, that is the point of the game isn't it? I can't fault the concept of being able to sell in game items for real money, if they are transferable and people want them they will find a way to allow trading.
What about a MMORPG like The sims and the concept of prostitution online? rape? murder!? Okay a virtual avatar can't really be killed but what if the game rules are as they are with life, if you die you can't come back, you can't continue to use that avatar or its possessions (which can pass to others via a will) after death.
Everytime I think of a game I say, no rights, no laws its free for all, good luck to you sir. But everytime I think about a corporate network I say, its exactly the same as the real world, if I use my avatar to sexually harrass another users avatar then I am culpable. but then I ask myself what is the difference between one and the other and I don't think there is a difference except maybe the arrangements by which I have an account.
When I play a game I do not expect that actions I take can hurt me any worse than loosing my right to play the game.
When I log on to a corporate system I do expect that actions I perform online to represent me.
Its like the difference between reading non-fiction and fiction, I have different expectations as to whether the author is telling me something that happened or something they made up.