I don't think wireless can successfully replace copper, but coax and fiber most certainly can. I don't think the landline will go away completely, but there's not much reason to use unshielded twisted pairs that have been installed outdoors decades ago when we now have better technologies available.
Even the old line Baby Bells admit that twisted pair POTS is on the way out, that's exactly why they have heavy investments in cellular companies, and they're also working on Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) projects of their own.
What's very interesting is that nearly all recently constructed cable TV systems bring fiber to nodes at roughly the "neighborhood" level and only convert to coax for a "last mile" link. They're not to far from finishing off to being a pure fiber solution either.
The twisted pair phone line may be on the way out, but the landline is far from giving up the fight.:)
Can anybody find the HP press release that clearly has to be the primary source behind the report? Having nearly every paragraph's main body be a quote attributed to the same source is the tell-tale sign that the report was based on information from a single source...
Read the whole article...
The use of "Redmond" in that quote and throughout that artlce refers to "Tony Redmond, vice president and chief technology officer of HP"... not some nameless Microsoft employee in Redmond, WA.
From the article... Virus Throttler slows the spread of virus and worm attacks by limiting the network destinations that a virus-infected computer can attempt to connect to each second, according to HP.
Wait a second. This doesn't really protect internal networks as much as it protects the Internet from your-machine-gone-mad. That is to say, this product's operation assumes your anti-virus security measures have already failed you, and you've got a server making attack attempts outbound on the world at large. This would kick in and shut down that server's attempted attacks.
That'd be a great thing for all of us to be running to be good citizens of the Internet... but who'd buy such a thing? Afterall, you have to admit that your existing security products may occasionally fail you before you can even start to explain what this thing will do. And, after such a failure, you're already 0wned. So, you really have nothing internal left to protect at that point, and all there is to protect is the outside world. If your IT house is already on fire, it's sure nice to want to protect the neighborhood, but who's going to pay for that in advance?
Pointing to the fact that this would require some changes to Windows is a nice excuse, but anybody can get Microsoft to do anything when they come equipped with a truckload of money. I think the realization that people would run this if it was free, but no business in their right mind is going to buy it. I think HP realized that, and that's why they spiked this product. HP, afterall, is a business and can't afford to spend too much money on a research project that isn't going to lead to a profitable product.
I wonder if there are any academic groups working on similar projects who might be able to finish the work on this one...
Weird Al always asks for permission from the original artists before doing a parody of their hit. It's not required, but it's the way he operates.
One thing that's being overlooked is the right to perform/record/re-record a song out of a song book it a very cheap thing to aquire. The copyright owner on the song can't say "no", and the price is spelled out in law. That's what "mechanical royalties" are all about.
If you don't know what we're talking about here, it's definitely worth going to JibJab.com and clicking on the big link to the flash animation on the home page. It's well worth the long download time. It's very funny and equally attacks both candidates.
If it's unobtrusive or, even better, adds to the game then all well and good. If it jars or is too blatant then back goes the game to the store.
Uhm, you haven't noticed that all video game sellers are required to have a "no refunds on open boxes, only exchange is for same title" policy by law? I highly suggest you start renting your video games if you want to be able to take them back...
It's not a pyramid scheme as much as it's a "sell stuff to your friends without getting paid much" scheme. For it to be a true pyramid scheme, person X would have to get a royalty for the sales made by each of his five friends... that's not happening here.
A if this was a true scam scheme, it automatically colapses because at some point down the line the royalties due to all of the people up the chain start to approach 100% of the sale, meaning there's no money left over for an actual product. This is able to operate because your five friends participate in enough affiliate program offers to generate the $300 or so it takes to buy the iPod, and then have some left over for profit. In addition, the company gets to keep the money generated by anybody who makes one to four sales and never completes the fifth one to claim the prize.
It's scummy, sure. But it's not illegal. It might inspire desperate people to do illegal things to try to get their sales, but that's not really the company's problem, they'll just say that's against the rules and not give those people their iPods.
Get [perscription pill] online without seeing your doctor An online form is not enough of a relationship for which a doctor can write you a perscription pill. State boards of health are in charge of stopping that.
Hot stock tip! Buy [stock you never heard of] today! Classic pump-and-dump stock scam. The FTC and other stock market regulators are in charge of stopping that.
Cable TV filter lets you watch digital Pay Per View for free! Nice try. What the filter does is block the upbound transmission from a digital cable box so that when a purchase is authorized by the user it can't communicate back to the cable company billing system while still letting the inbound signals through so the box appears to be working fine. There's only one catch, after a couple months your box will it hasn't been able send anything to home base, and completely shut down. Connecting it to the system without the filter will allow all the PPVs to show up on your next bill, and turning your box in for a replacement will allow the cable company to discover what's still in the box's memory. If you claim the box is lost forever, you'll have to pay for losing it. There is no free lunch.
Get [brand name software] for [insane low price]! Pirated software, of course... if there is actually anything behind this offer at all. Try buying from a more trustworthy channel while the Microsoft/Symantec/etc. attack lawyers get ready to pounce on these guys.
Get Rich Quick! Clasic ponzi scheme translated to e-mail... FTC will be arresting the guy at the top long before you get your millions.
[Your Bank] needs your account information back When does a bank ever have an IT system without backing it up? Besides, if the username/password/account data table is lost, they'll build another by creating a new logon, not by asking you for the old one! These e-mails are simple wire fraud phishing.
Deposed leader [name you never heard of] needs your help to get [large sum of money out] of [someplace]. Please let him borrow your bank account. Scam from the start. Even more dangerous because your home country law can't really stop scammers in third world nations.
The US has much more liberal standards for what we allow advertisers to get away with. To get in trouble here, your ad has to contain "false" information, over there, it's a much weaker standard of being "misleading"... which is to say the information in the ad can be all true, but if an average reader will use your information to reach a false conclusion you're still in trouble there but not here.
Silly First Amendment coming back to bite us when in the hands of a megacorp again...:)
What the study results really show is that for a typical usage patern, the IBM Mainframe product running Linux is a complete waste of money because the typical user needs only a typical PC worth of resources on their server. The fact that the two machines being compared ran different operating systems was more or less incidential.
Clearly, when you compare the operating cost of a mainframe to the operating cost of a PC, it doesn't matter what OS you put on either system, the mainframe is going to cost more to own.
The research may have been conducted indepenently and fairly, but the conclusion it came to should have surprised nobody because the test they were running didn't put the two operating systems on a level playing field in the first place.
Try running both OSes on identical hardware and then see what kind of results you get...
I don't see that as requiring a cut in revenue. Take the assets that were being used in France and move them to a part of the world where your operations are welcome and get your revenue there instead.
Some businesses intentionally try to lose customers who cause more problems than their profit potential is worth...
They didn't surrender national sovereignty so much as they recognized that even the French have it too.
The 9th Circuit overturned a ruling saying that thhe US First Amendment made the French verdict invalid. That's not a proper ruling at all, you can't appeal French verdicts in the US courts.
However, if they want to collect on a French verdict here in the USA by using the help of the US legal system... that's when they've got to prove that they've French verdict doesn't contradict US public policy. No chance of that working, so there's really no need to get protection from the dumb French verdict from the US courts in the first place, thanks to our national sovereignty we won't accept that verdict here.
The US 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court said that Yahoo! cannot go running to the US courts to seek protection under the First Amendment from the ruling of a French court... go appeal your losses in France in France!
However, in the same breath they also warned the French that should they ever try to take their French verdict to a US court for help in getting collection, don't bother. You can't get protection from bad French verdicts from the US courts in part because, well, French verdicts don't work here in the first place! So long as Yahoo keeps all of its physical assets out of France, there wouldn't be much the French can do to them.
I think the most logical course of action should be for Yahoo! to withdraw its entire business from France by firewalling out all IP space known to be from France from all of their products. If France continues to enforce its policies against the American-aimed.com version of American-based sites (rather than their.fr spinoffs which were already Nazi-free-zones) such as Google, they'll eventually be left with a rather useless Internet...
The Olympic restrictions equal what most leagues say to their players who sign a deal with a sponsor contrary to the league's sponsor. That player cannot display their sponsor's logo in any way at the league events, including consuming product in a labeled container. However, their sponsor contract says they can't be seen consuming the competitor's product in public which includes the arena. The result is that the player has to eat/drink from a label-covered container at the venue so it's not clear what brand the player's actually using.
Said machine would still require a connection to power in order to run the money-accepting process. Besides, your home refrigerator keeps having to recool because people open the door so often, a vending machine by extention would cost less to operate because it rarely has its door fully opened.
There's not not much to save there compared to the cost of the special cans...
For those who haven't figured out how a Thermos works... it tries as best it can to be an airtight device with walls thick enough to not let heat in orr out.
Therefore, with just a little loss due to small leaks, it's more-or-less a closed system. Whatever temperature the liquid was when you put it in, you can expect that to be the temperature it'll be when you take it out with only a sight movement towards the temperature of the room it was stored in. The Thermos doesn't do anything... it's job is to prevent anything heat-wise from happening between what's inside and what's outside as best it can.
You clearly don't buy your own beverage that comes in cans...
Nearly all canned products do not require refrigeration in transit, and can be stored at room temperature without any problem. They can be safely consumed at room temperature as well, but are more enjoyable if cooled. Therefore, only the end consumer needs to chill the can if the product is not being purchased for immediate use.
Which would mean that this product would more likely be marketed to the makers of beer rather than the makers of soft drinks... as most soft drinks are found exclusively in bottles in all sizes above 12 oz.
Besides, the increased cost would seem silly when attached to a soft drink can price, but would likely be more presentable for a "premium" beer brand not available any other way .
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think wireless can successfully replace copper, but coax and fiber most certainly can. I don't think the landline will go away completely, but there's not much reason to use unshielded twisted pairs that have been installed outdoors decades ago when we now have better technologies available.
Even the old line Baby Bells admit that twisted pair POTS is on the way out, that's exactly why they have heavy investments in cellular companies, and they're also working on Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) projects of their own.
:)
What's very interesting is that nearly all recently constructed cable TV systems bring fiber to nodes at roughly the "neighborhood" level and only convert to coax for a "last mile" link. They're not to far from finishing off to being a pure fiber solution either.
The twisted pair phone line may be on the way out, but the landline is far from giving up the fight.
That's nice... but what's gonna prevent viruses from chosing UDP to send their attacks with? :)
Can anybody find the HP press release that clearly has to be the primary source behind the report? Having nearly every paragraph's main body be a quote attributed to the same source is the tell-tale sign that the report was based on information from a single source...
Read the whole article... The use of "Redmond" in that quote and throughout that artlce refers to "Tony Redmond, vice president and chief technology officer of HP"... not some nameless Microsoft employee in Redmond, WA.
From the article...
Virus Throttler slows the spread of virus and worm attacks by limiting the network destinations that a virus-infected computer can attempt to connect to each second, according to HP.
Wait a second. This doesn't really protect internal networks as much as it protects the Internet from your-machine-gone-mad. That is to say, this product's operation assumes your anti-virus security measures have already failed you, and you've got a server making attack attempts outbound on the world at large. This would kick in and shut down that server's attempted attacks.
That'd be a great thing for all of us to be running to be good citizens of the Internet... but who'd buy such a thing? Afterall, you have to admit that your existing security products may occasionally fail you before you can even start to explain what this thing will do. And, after such a failure, you're already 0wned. So, you really have nothing internal left to protect at that point, and all there is to protect is the outside world. If your IT house is already on fire, it's sure nice to want to protect the neighborhood, but who's going to pay for that in advance?
Pointing to the fact that this would require some changes to Windows is a nice excuse, but anybody can get Microsoft to do anything when they come equipped with a truckload of money. I think the realization that people would run this if it was free, but no business in their right mind is going to buy it. I think HP realized that, and that's why they spiked this product. HP, afterall, is a business and can't afford to spend too much money on a research project that isn't going to lead to a profitable product.
I wonder if there are any academic groups working on similar projects who might be able to finish the work on this one...
Weird Al always asks for permission from the original artists before doing a parody of their hit. It's not required, but it's the way he operates.
One thing that's being overlooked is the right to perform/record/re-record a song out of a song book it a very cheap thing to aquire. The copyright owner on the song can't say "no", and the price is spelled out in law. That's what "mechanical royalties" are all about.
If you don't know what we're talking about here, it's definitely worth going to JibJab.com and clicking on the big link to the flash animation on the home page. It's well worth the long download time. It's very funny and equally attacks both candidates.
If it's unobtrusive or, even better, adds to the game then all well and good. If it jars or is too blatant then back goes the game to the store.
Uhm, you haven't noticed that all video game sellers are required to have a "no refunds on open boxes, only exchange is for same title" policy by law? I highly suggest you start renting your video games if you want to be able to take them back...
Funny, I don't see you posting with the "subscriber star" in your header. Guess you don't consider this Slashdot game very good at all... :)
Or... the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles NES game which had ads for Pizza Hut displayed on signs in the first level...
Or... Yo Noid! A video game based completely around the "Avoid the Noid" ad campaign from Domino's Pizza.
It's not a pyramid scheme as much as it's a "sell stuff to your friends without getting paid much" scheme. For it to be a true pyramid scheme, person X would have to get a royalty for the sales made by each of his five friends... that's not happening here.
A if this was a true scam scheme, it automatically colapses because at some point down the line the royalties due to all of the people up the chain start to approach 100% of the sale, meaning there's no money left over for an actual product. This is able to operate because your five friends participate in enough affiliate program offers to generate the $300 or so it takes to buy the iPod, and then have some left over for profit. In addition, the company gets to keep the money generated by anybody who makes one to four sales and never completes the fifth one to claim the prize.
It's scummy, sure. But it's not illegal. It might inspire desperate people to do illegal things to try to get their sales, but that's not really the company's problem, they'll just say that's against the rules and not give those people their iPods.
Get [perscription pill] online without seeing your doctor
An online form is not enough of a relationship for which a doctor can write you a perscription pill. State boards of health are in charge of stopping that.
Hot stock tip! Buy [stock you never heard of] today!
Classic pump-and-dump stock scam. The FTC and other stock market regulators are in charge of stopping that.
Cable TV filter lets you watch digital Pay Per View for free!
Nice try. What the filter does is block the upbound transmission from a digital cable box so that when a purchase is authorized by the user it can't communicate back to the cable company billing system while still letting the inbound signals through so the box appears to be working fine. There's only one catch, after a couple months your box will it hasn't been able send anything to home base, and completely shut down. Connecting it to the system without the filter will allow all the PPVs to show up on your next bill, and turning your box in for a replacement will allow the cable company to discover what's still in the box's memory. If you claim the box is lost forever, you'll have to pay for losing it. There is no free lunch.
Get [brand name software] for [insane low price]!
Pirated software, of course... if there is actually anything behind this offer at all. Try buying from a more trustworthy channel while the Microsoft/Symantec/etc. attack lawyers get ready to pounce on these guys.
Get Rich Quick!
Clasic ponzi scheme translated to e-mail... FTC will be arresting the guy at the top long before you get your millions.
[Your Bank] needs your account information back
When does a bank ever have an IT system without backing it up? Besides, if the username/password/account data table is lost, they'll build another by creating a new logon, not by asking you for the old one! These e-mails are simple wire fraud phishing.
Deposed leader [name you never heard of] needs your help to get [large sum of money out] of [someplace]. Please let him borrow your bank account.
Scam from the start. Even more dangerous because your home country law can't really stop scammers in third world nations.
The US has much more liberal standards for what we allow advertisers to get away with. To get in trouble here, your ad has to contain "false" information, over there, it's a much weaker standard of being "misleading"... which is to say the information in the ad can be all true, but if an average reader will use your information to reach a false conclusion you're still in trouble there but not here.
:)
Silly First Amendment coming back to bite us when in the hands of a megacorp again...
What the study results really show is that for a typical usage patern, the IBM Mainframe product running Linux is a complete waste of money because the typical user needs only a typical PC worth of resources on their server. The fact that the two machines being compared ran different operating systems was more or less incidential.
Clearly, when you compare the operating cost of a mainframe to the operating cost of a PC, it doesn't matter what OS you put on either system, the mainframe is going to cost more to own.
The research may have been conducted indepenently and fairly, but the conclusion it came to should have surprised nobody because the test they were running didn't put the two operating systems on a level playing field in the first place.
Try running both OSes on identical hardware and then see what kind of results you get...
I don't see that as requiring a cut in revenue. Take the assets that were being used in France and move them to a part of the world where your operations are welcome and get your revenue there instead.
Some businesses intentionally try to lose customers who cause more problems than their profit potential is worth...
They didn't surrender national sovereignty so much as they recognized that even the French have it too.
The 9th Circuit overturned a ruling saying that thhe US First Amendment made the French verdict invalid. That's not a proper ruling at all, you can't appeal French verdicts in the US courts.
However, if they want to collect on a French verdict here in the USA by using the help of the US legal system... that's when they've got to prove that they've French verdict doesn't contradict US public policy. No chance of that working, so there's really no need to get protection from the dumb French verdict from the US courts in the first place, thanks to our national sovereignty we won't accept that verdict here.
Let's put this ruling in the proper context...
The US 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court said that Yahoo! cannot go running to the US courts to seek protection under the First Amendment from the ruling of a French court... go appeal your losses in France in France!
However, in the same breath they also warned the French that should they ever try to take their French verdict to a US court for help in getting collection, don't bother. You can't get protection from bad French verdicts from the US courts in part because, well, French verdicts don't work here in the first place! So long as Yahoo keeps all of its physical assets out of France, there wouldn't be much the French can do to them.
I think the most logical course of action should be for Yahoo! to withdraw its entire business from France by firewalling out all IP space known to be from France from all of their products. If France continues to enforce its policies against the American-aimed .com version of American-based sites (rather than their .fr spinoffs which were already Nazi-free-zones) such as Google, they'll eventually be left with a rather useless Internet...
The Olympic restrictions equal what most leagues say to their players who sign a deal with a sponsor contrary to the league's sponsor. That player cannot display their sponsor's logo in any way at the league events, including consuming product in a labeled container. However, their sponsor contract says they can't be seen consuming the competitor's product in public which includes the arena. The result is that the player has to eat/drink from a label-covered container at the venue so it's not clear what brand the player's actually using.
Said machine would still require a connection to power in order to run the money-accepting process. Besides, your home refrigerator keeps having to recool because people open the door so often, a vending machine by extention would cost less to operate because it rarely has its door fully opened.
There's not not much to save there compared to the cost of the special cans...
For those who haven't figured out how a Thermos works... it tries as best it can to be an airtight device with walls thick enough to not let heat in orr out.
Therefore, with just a little loss due to small leaks, it's more-or-less a closed system. Whatever temperature the liquid was when you put it in, you can expect that to be the temperature it'll be when you take it out with only a sight movement towards the temperature of the room it was stored in. The Thermos doesn't do anything... it's job is to prevent anything heat-wise from happening between what's inside and what's outside as best it can.
You clearly don't buy your own beverage that comes in cans...
Nearly all canned products do not require refrigeration in transit, and can be stored at room temperature without any problem. They can be safely consumed at room temperature as well, but are more enjoyable if cooled. Therefore, only the end consumer needs to chill the can if the product is not being purchased for immediate use.
Which would mean that this product would more likely be marketed to the makers of beer rather than the makers of soft drinks... as most soft drinks are found exclusively in bottles in all sizes above 12 oz.
Besides, the increased cost would seem silly when attached to a soft drink can price, but would likely be more presentable for a "premium" beer brand not available any other way .