That is the key. Years ago Comdex was about finding out information about new products from vendors you had never heard of. Now it's all available online and the sales people on the floor simply hand you a brouchre and tell you to look on the web site for more information...
Yet she had no problem not reporting that she hadn't been billed for a year, then acted all surprised when they asked her to pay up. Honestly, as an ISP we'd eat the costs ourselves but the customer certainly isn't all rosy and clean in this case.
...and doesn't want people to be able to get the backdoor through brute-force then it's very easy to prevent backdoor attempts. After 3 incorrect attempts, require the correct password to be typed in 3 times in a row correctly (while giving the same access denied message the first 2 times) with 5 minute intervals between attempts required. Tada, brute-force rendered useless.
Having the user interface stall when you're receiving big mail messages is bad - if you want to look at something in your mailbox but somebody in marketing sent you a 5 MB Powerpoint that's trickling in over modem, it'll be a while before you can find out the phone number on that calendar entry you wished you could open.
That bug was fixed in Outlook 98, so it sounds like you're running Outlook 95? There have been a few new releases since then you might want to check out.:-)
We're lucky that we don't get AOL marketing like this due to CD-use being illegal up North (I think it's because the silver coating freezes in the computers causing poisonous vapours?) but we occasionally still get the AOL floppies but not very often as it probably costs a lot of postage to deliver the 82 disks by sled to all 40,000 habitants, eh?
Except Verizon won't even check the user account (they "haven't involved the customer" and won't until they get a court document). If it was my customer I'd check it out, and if they were violating it I'd have no problem booting them on their ass, but I wouldn't give their information without court orders.
I was really expecting to see something along the lines of the fact that Celine Dion can kill computers with her music. We knew it had the same effect on mice and other small rodents, but this is definite a step up for her.
CNN, a Time Warner AOL company, who happens to own Netscape, offering a strong anti-MS article. Really, wow, how facinating. I thought this was way news companies weren't supposed to own products.
What's next, the news company promoting fears of which they own remedies for?
Okay, I know this is slashdot so everyone wants everything both ways, but isn't this what people were asking for?
There was reference in an earlier article that said how when Bill Gates first starting selling software that there was a lot of piracy and how legal process was used to enforce copyright rather than technical means. Ie, let the law sort out the criminals instead of having all the devices treat us like ones. Now music is making the same inroads, and except for the whackjobs that think they should never pay for music (or heat, or rent or anything else I'm sure as those things don't cause unknown musicians to die either), the rest of us like to have our purchased music available for playing on several devices in several locations.
I think it's great that they proved that they can protect their copyrights through legal process (although the settlement seems a little excessive, setting an example perhaps), but it's one step backwards in being able to convince governments that technological methods are required instead.
That is over simplistic, as in your example you cannot achieve any compression as there is no way to convert 2 bits to 1 and therefore 0% compression is the best we can achieve -- which we of course know is false. Compression works consideribly better on larger data sets.
I need a compression routine with more than a Zero Space Tuner(tm) and BitRate Accelerator(tm) and Fake Article Compounder(tm), I need one with Sub-Space Intergalactical Holographic Nucleoumical Redifferenciator Protocol(tm) support.
1) Businesses subsidize (sp?) residential service, same as telephone service.
2) Usage is typically greater for business customers, with the exception of those that like to run porn sharing software all day and night thinking somehow that their $40 pays for all the ISP's bandwidth.
Microsoft is trying to establish the idea that they can kill their products even when people still are using them.
They are hardly killing them or causing you to stop using them, but if you want to run latest software then yes you'll need to upgrade your OS. Same goes for any OS, I don't see a lot of complaints that no one has backported USB, LVM, etc, to Linux 1.3 (same age as Windows 95) Don't want to upgrade, fine, just don't plan on being able to use newer software on an older OS.
The cost of fully using 10MB/s is considerably more than $40 per month. The companies offer this high-speed service with the intent that a single individual does not use the entire amount of bandwidth all the time and therefore they can share that capacity with hundreds of others, making it affordable to all. If you start giving it away to other people and use up that capacity then they simply cannot afford to offer you six T1's for $40/month. I think most companies will start to adopt a pay-per-use model, where there is a $40 base fee for x GB of transfer, more than enough for even 'power users', but for those that share with everyone on their block and set up FTP servers, they'll get dinged for bandwidth used.
My only exception to stwilwebm's comment above is the phrase "quite possibly". IMNSHO, "not bloody likely" is the correct adverbial phrase.
I'm not usually a "word-freak", but "quite possibly" and "quite probably" are two very distinct things, people sometimes use "possibly" and "probably" interchangably which is incorrect. He is right in saying that it is "quite possible", but I'd agree that it's not very "probable".
Slashdot Mirror
16 drives and cables and power and a dual Xeon MB in a 4U case??? Seems a little tight.
What if they told you, you could only drive 500Miles a month, how would you feel then?
On my $40/month of gas I'd say that's pretty good. If I needed to go further I'd have to buy more gas.
The internet has also made Comdex obosolete.
That is the key. Years ago Comdex was about finding out information about new products from vendors you had never heard of. Now it's all available online and the sales people on the floor simply hand you a brouchre and tell you to look on the web site for more information...
By the sound of the article, Mike Doyle won't be selling out any time soon
Yeah, right. "Here's a cheque for 1 billion dollars (finger to side of lips)", "Oh, no thanks, I'm not interested in a billion dollars."
Or if your messages are so private and numerous to avoid detection, perhaps you could just work during business hours.
Yet she had no problem not reporting that she hadn't been billed for a year, then acted all surprised when they asked her to pay up. Honestly, as an ISP we'd eat the costs ourselves but the customer certainly isn't all rosy and clean in this case.
...and doesn't want people to be able to get the backdoor through brute-force then it's very easy to prevent backdoor attempts. After 3 incorrect attempts, require the correct password to be typed in 3 times in a row correctly (while giving the same access denied message the first 2 times) with 5 minute intervals between attempts required. Tada, brute-force rendered useless.
Having the user interface stall when you're receiving big mail messages is bad - if you want to look at something in your mailbox but somebody in marketing sent you a 5 MB Powerpoint that's trickling in over modem, it'll be a while before you can find out the phone number on that calendar entry you wished you could open.
:-)
That bug was fixed in Outlook 98, so it sounds like you're running Outlook 95? There have been a few new releases since then you might want to check out.
We're lucky that we don't get AOL marketing like this due to CD-use being illegal up North (I think it's because the silver coating freezes in the computers causing poisonous vapours?) but we occasionally still get the AOL floppies but not very often as it probably costs a lot of postage to deliver the 82 disks by sled to all 40,000 habitants, eh?
Except Verizon won't even check the user account (they "haven't involved the customer" and won't until they get a court document). If it was my customer I'd check it out, and if they were violating it I'd have no problem booting them on their ass, but I wouldn't give their information without court orders.
Ah, the American dream - sue, get rich.
I was really expecting to see something along the lines of the fact that Celine Dion can kill computers with her music. We knew it had the same effect on mice and other small rodents, but this is definite a step up for her.
CNN, a Time Warner AOL company, who happens to own Netscape, offering a strong anti-MS article. Really, wow, how facinating. I thought this was way news companies weren't supposed to own products.
What's next, the news company promoting fears of which they own remedies for?
Okay, I know this is slashdot so everyone wants everything both ways, but isn't this what people were asking for?
There was reference in an earlier article that said how when Bill Gates first starting selling software that there was a lot of piracy and how legal process was used to enforce copyright rather than technical means. Ie, let the law sort out the criminals instead of having all the devices treat us like ones. Now music is making the same inroads, and except for the whackjobs that think they should never pay for music (or heat, or rent or anything else I'm sure as those things don't cause unknown musicians to die either), the rest of us like to have our purchased music available for playing on several devices in several locations.
I think it's great that they proved that they can protect their copyrights through legal process (although the settlement seems a little excessive, setting an example perhaps), but it's one step backwards in being able to convince governments that technological methods are required instead.
Seems a little high - anyone have some stats on latency for the different packages available?
You have the ability to learn now I assume, pickup the flavour of the month programming book and educate yourself prior to interviews.
That is over simplistic, as in your example you cannot achieve any compression as there is no way to convert 2 bits to 1 and therefore 0% compression is the best we can achieve -- which we of course know is false. Compression works consideribly better on larger data sets.
I need a compression routine with more than a Zero Space Tuner(tm) and BitRate Accelerator(tm) and Fake Article Compounder(tm), I need one with Sub-Space Intergalactical Holographic Nucleoumical Redifferenciator Protocol(tm) support.
Two other points:
1) Businesses subsidize (sp?) residential service, same as telephone service.
2) Usage is typically greater for business customers, with the exception of those that like to run porn sharing software all day and night thinking somehow that their $40 pays for all the ISP's bandwidth.
I don't see the relation, the article is about Windows 95 and the lack of support for it.
Microsoft is trying to establish the idea that they can kill their products even when people still are using them.
They are hardly killing them or causing you to stop using them, but if you want to run latest software then yes you'll need to upgrade your OS. Same goes for any OS, I don't see a lot of complaints that no one has backported USB, LVM, etc, to Linux 1.3 (same age as Windows 95) Don't want to upgrade, fine, just don't plan on being able to use newer software on an older OS.
Average is 500MB per month. Also take into account fixed costs, equipment, line, billing, support, it's not a straight $ : MB ratio.
The cost of fully using 10MB/s is considerably more than $40 per month. The companies offer this high-speed service with the intent that a single individual does not use the entire amount of bandwidth all the time and therefore they can share that capacity with hundreds of others, making it affordable to all. If you start giving it away to other people and use up that capacity then they simply cannot afford to offer you six T1's for $40/month. I think most companies will start to adopt a pay-per-use model, where there is a $40 base fee for x GB of transfer, more than enough for even 'power users', but for those that share with everyone on their block and set up FTP servers, they'll get dinged for bandwidth used.
My only exception to stwilwebm's comment above is the phrase "quite possibly". IMNSHO, "not bloody likely" is the correct adverbial phrase.
I'm not usually a "word-freak", but "quite possibly" and "quite probably" are two very distinct things, people sometimes use "possibly" and "probably" interchangably which is incorrect. He is right in saying that it is "quite possible", but I'd agree that it's not very "probable".
Replying to retract my incorrect moderation.