of course, I can't see why you would deceptively label something without intending to injure customers somehow.
Well, deceptively understating would be deceptive (like saying a computer is adequate for email and light web browsing and pricing accordingly, when in fact it's a kill-em-dead gaming rig) but unharmful, particularly if priced like a email-and-web box instead of the blazing speed monster it is. In this case, deceptively giving more value than the customer paid for. Not injurious, probably, but of questionable fiscal sense.
The only sane explanation was that some marketer figured out they'd sell more of them with that extra claim.
Sort of. "Sell more of them" actually meant "Sell any of them, to corporate and organizational customers with brainless hard-and-fast Y2K compliance requirements."
Yes, I am a Y2K remediation survivor. I saw many companies, and many government agencies, implement no-exceptions, no-tailoring, mandatory, 100% applicable standards that looked like: "Any computer acquisition (hardware, software, or services) procured by purchase or lease must be certified Y2K compliant."
Is network cabling computer hardware? Yes? Then it has to be Y2K compliant.
Thankfully, that's easy to prove. Just point out the Y2K compliance certification from the manufacturer, and the "Y2K Compliant" sticker on the packaging.
What, no sticker? We can't buy that. Find it from a vendor which did put a sticker on their packaging.
And you, Mr. Computer Cable Marketer, lose a sale. Or lots of sales.
This is a bureaucratic response to a bureaucratic requirement. I hope you didn't lose much sleep or sanity over it.
And even if the pressurized tank of water is on the intake sled (the mini-boat the jetpack is tethered to), the weight would make the sled an anchor. Enjoy flying 15m above a stationary point. Or, if you can get the sled moving, enjoy being dragged to your death by the intake sled coasting into the path of
Well, the Internet isn't ARPANET. So arguments based on the fragility of the modern Internet completely misses the point. (CAR ANALOGY WARNING) That's like arguing that because computer engine controls make a modern car susceptible to weird engine failure modes, the century-old basic design of the internal combustion car engine was a failure.
The ARPANET had, at most, dozens of nodes. There were very few points of concentration, and those points of concentration had peering connections with nearly all the others.
In a Soviet pre-emptive strike, most primary command-and-control nodes would have died. However, not all IMPs were located anywhere near those first-strike targets, so the network may well have survived.
If the ARPANET had panned out the way it was probably envisioned, it would have replaced AUTODIN and you damn stinking hippie civilians would have stayed the hell away from it.
Damn, I wish I still had my ca. 1983 DDN TAC card. Good times, good times...
And, furthermore, weigh a crap-ton if they have a pressurized volume of reserve reaction mass adequate to soft-land the victim ^w user. Try towing that around.
No, it isn't, black is the new black, and whiten and black are not really mutually exclusive. And.... I made you look. Thanks for the pageviews, suckers!
Is that a given? Is it that simple? I think that statement assumes too much...
Nonsense. The Cloud has spoken. Blessed be the Puffies of the Cloud.
Last time I checked, the cloud was the epitome of vagary.
Which means you have no evidence to cast doubts and aspersions. Silence, Infidel! The Cloud has spoken! Blessed be!
OK, that was over the top.
Really, this is just another cycle of "$TECHNOLOGY_I_AM_SELLING is the GAME CHANGER that will SAVE THE WORLD!!!!!111one" I've been in IT 25 years. This repetitiveness is just boring now.
... your new Prius isn't designed for a nitrous injection kit.
Just 'cuz it's a car analogy doesn't mean it's a good analogy. A more accurate analogy is that Toyota wants to reserve the right to sue you because you fitted a properly-engineered nitrous kit to your personally-owned Prius.
If you like software and hardware transparency, DON'T USE AN IPHONE! It was never designed for geeks.
More to the point, if you ever aspire to use your property in the manner you see fit, don't buy it from Apple, because they operate under the bizarre belief that they still have some proprietary interest in your possessions.
What Apple is afraid of is that their normal demographic will start using jail-broken apps true find a new world of problems, and start blaming Apple Wrong. They're afraid they'll lose their master-slave relationship with their clientele. It's about control and market lock-in. Tech support is, at best, a trivial side-issue. More likely, it's a smokescreen.
Dr. Jones (the elder) did in fact properly attribute, but I'm sure Charelemagne never downed a BF-109 with seagulls. Implementation is as important as specification.
ObDisclaimer: I just use the thing, and as a server OS, so I really can't judge suitability as a multimedia workstation OS. But CentOS 5.2 has been rockin' steady on the household server for months. (Starting with release 5.0.)
MS TCP/IP for WFW was included in the CLIENTS directory of the Windows NT 3.5 CD. That corresponds to the 2nd release of TCP4WFW and runs great for LAN connectivity to the internet. Even includes a winsock glue DLL, so all your winsock internet apps run just fine.
I just set up an ancient (486DX) laptop with a 16-bit PCMCIA NIC and WFW with TCP. Other than a flaky memory expansion (old hardware, meh), it runs old versions of Opera, etc., just fine for old-sk00l internet browsing.
You called it. ESPN's model is cable/satellite TV. They certainly like that model. It's worked brilliantly for years. And if they can wedge the internet into the same model, it's a win for them.
However, TV is not a dead business model. Dead to you, sure. Dead to Joe Sixpack and Sally Bag-o-donuts? No. Do you think your indignation counts for the masses of money-paying sheeples who have no problem with the cable model? No.
Scarily, this access licensing pattern can work, because it uses a mental model consumers of cable media are already familiar with: "Ask your provider to subscribe to ESPN.".
Net neutrality is important only if you think the internet is ifferent from other media. The people with the money consider the internet just another kind of tubes, like cable TV. And they want all the tubes to be treated the same way, from a content-control and access-control (money-control, really) perspective: a bunch of interchangeable tubes that allow the content producer to pipe the tripe into the brains of the content consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
No wireless. Less space than an SSD. Lame.
of course, I can't see why you would deceptively label something without intending to injure customers somehow.
Well, deceptively understating would be deceptive (like saying a computer is adequate for email and light web browsing and pricing accordingly, when in fact it's a kill-em-dead gaming rig) but unharmful, particularly if priced like a email-and-web box instead of the blazing speed monster it is. In this case, deceptively giving more value than the customer paid for. Not injurious, probably, but of questionable fiscal sense.
The only sane explanation was that some marketer figured out they'd sell more of them with that extra claim.
Sort of. "Sell more of them" actually meant "Sell any of them, to corporate and organizational customers with brainless hard-and-fast Y2K compliance requirements."
Yes, I am a Y2K remediation survivor. I saw many companies, and many government agencies, implement no-exceptions, no-tailoring, mandatory, 100% applicable standards that looked like: "Any computer acquisition (hardware, software, or services) procured by purchase or lease must be certified Y2K compliant."
Is network cabling computer hardware? Yes? Then it has to be Y2K compliant.
Thankfully, that's easy to prove. Just point out the Y2K compliance certification from the manufacturer, and the "Y2K Compliant" sticker on the packaging.
What, no sticker? We can't buy that. Find it from a vendor which did put a sticker on their packaging.
And you, Mr. Computer Cable Marketer, lose a sale. Or lots of sales.
This is a bureaucratic response to a bureaucratic requirement. I hope you didn't lose much sleep or sanity over it.
I'm guessing he's in Bettendorf. Although intentionally calling the Quad Cities "a small town" is a bit disingenuous. So I could be wrong.
It appears that their hamster hadn't been properly acclimatized to the POWER of BLAZEMONGER!
Power to the Forsaken Hamsters!
Well, apparently, with Apple you pay for a database server that'll hard-crash your fixed disk and irretrievably corrupt your database.
Thanks. No. I'll just buy a few more commodity-grade server boxes for the same money and implement a clustered solution.
That'd be gnus to me.
And even if the pressurized tank of water is on the intake sled (the mini-boat the jetpack is tethered to), the weight would make the sled an anchor. Enjoy flying 15m above a stationary point. Or, if you can get the sled moving, enjoy being dragged to your death by the intake sled coasting into the path of
Well, the Internet isn't ARPANET. So arguments based on the fragility of the modern Internet completely misses the point. (CAR ANALOGY WARNING) That's like arguing that because computer engine controls make a modern car susceptible to weird engine failure modes, the century-old basic design of the internal combustion car engine was a failure.
The ARPANET had, at most, dozens of nodes. There were very few points of concentration, and those points of concentration had peering connections with nearly all the others.
In a Soviet pre-emptive strike, most primary command-and-control nodes would have died. However, not all IMPs were located anywhere near those first-strike targets, so the network may well have survived.
If the ARPANET had panned out the way it was probably envisioned, it would have replaced AUTODIN and you damn stinking hippie civilians would have stayed the hell away from it.
Damn, I wish I still had my ca. 1983 DDN TAC card. Good times, good times...
And, furthermore, weigh a crap-ton if they have a pressurized volume of reserve reaction mass adequate to soft-land the victim ^w user. Try towing that around.
First SUSE, then you.
I hope this doesn't botch CEntOS.
Is white the new black?
No, it isn't, black is the new black, and whiten and black are not really mutually exclusive. And.... I made you look. Thanks for the pageviews, suckers!
Is that a given? Is it that simple? I think that statement assumes too much...
Nonsense. The Cloud has spoken. Blessed be the Puffies of the Cloud.
Last time I checked, the cloud was the epitome of vagary.
Which means you have no evidence to cast doubts and aspersions. Silence, Infidel! The Cloud has spoken! Blessed be!
OK, that was over the top.
Really, this is just another cycle of "$TECHNOLOGY_I_AM_SELLING is the GAME CHANGER that will SAVE THE WORLD!!!!!111one" I've been in IT 25 years. This repetitiveness is just boring now.
Just 'cuz it's a car analogy doesn't mean it's a good analogy. A more accurate analogy is that Toyota wants to reserve the right to sue you because you fitted a properly-engineered nitrous kit to your personally-owned Prius.
If you like software and hardware transparency, DON'T USE AN IPHONE! It was never designed for geeks.
More to the point, if you ever aspire to use your property in the manner you see fit, don't buy it from Apple, because they operate under the bizarre belief that they still have some proprietary interest in your possessions.
What Apple is afraid of is that their normal demographic will start using jail-broken apps
true
find a new world of problems, and start blaming Apple
Wrong. They're afraid they'll lose their master-slave relationship with their clientele. It's about control and market lock-in. Tech support is, at best, a trivial side-issue. More likely, it's a smokescreen.
When marketing and Reality Distortion (tm) fails, call in the jackbooted thugs and sue the dissidents into submission.
This, more than anything, is why Apple will never get one coin from my wallet.
I think they still have some standards.
"tiny hamster jacket"
Seriously, that phrase would almost win a googlewhack except for the actual occurance in /.
Dr. Jones (the elder) did in fact properly attribute, but I'm sure Charelemagne never downed a BF-109 with seagulls. Implementation is as important as specification.
of extreme copyright. I'll file this idea right along side "Not watching advertisements on broadcast TV is theft".
True but the development costs today should be significantly less thanks to far better computer modeling.
You might think so, but again, it's no silver bullet. Ask Airbus about how advanced computer modeling "helped" the schedule and development costs of the A380: http://management.cadalyst.com/cadman/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=390124
No need, here you go.
ObDisclaimer: I just use the thing, and as a server OS, so I really can't judge suitability as a multimedia workstation OS. But CentOS 5.2 has been rockin' steady on the household server for months. (Starting with release 5.0.)
MS TCP/IP for WFW was included in the CLIENTS directory of the Windows NT 3.5 CD. That corresponds to the 2nd release of TCP4WFW and runs great for LAN connectivity to the internet. Even includes a winsock glue DLL, so all your winsock internet apps run just fine.
I just set up an ancient (486DX) laptop with a 16-bit PCMCIA NIC and WFW with TCP. Other than a flaky memory expansion (old hardware, meh), it runs old versions of Opera, etc., just fine for old-sk00l internet browsing.
Let's hear it for the Marsupial Insurgency and ROFLCopter simulations!
You called it. ESPN's model is cable/satellite TV. They certainly like that model. It's worked brilliantly for years. And if they can wedge the internet into the same model, it's a win for them.
However, TV is not a dead business model. Dead to you, sure. Dead to Joe Sixpack and Sally Bag-o-donuts? No. Do you think your indignation counts for the masses of money-paying sheeples who have no problem with the cable model? No.
Scarily, this access licensing pattern can work, because it uses a mental model consumers of cable media are already familiar with: "Ask your provider to subscribe to ESPN.".
Net neutrality is important only if you think the internet is ifferent from other media. The people with the money consider the internet just another kind of tubes, like cable TV. And they want all the tubes to be treated the same way, from a content-control and access-control (money-control, really) perspective: a bunch of interchangeable tubes that allow the content producer to pipe the tripe into the brains of the content consumer.