Perhaps by saying that at least 75% of someone's network capacity has to be used to deliver all packets and the extra 25% can be re-allocated to higher priority packets or something. I'm not sure how it works.
But in principle I'm okay with throttling traffic within reasonable limits. Unfortunately due to corporate greed it is obvious what will happen. Basically people will throttle packets so slow that people like Google will have to pay, basically extortion. But still throttling has some uses if done right. A VOIP packet needs to be a higher priority than say someone's bit torrent download because it is real time. In fact most real time apps would benefit from higher quality packet.
But you need something like the operating system does. Basically in an operating system, to protect against starvation, often lower priority processes get their priority bumped up over time so that eventually they are guaranteed to get a turn at the processor. Otherwise it is possible that higher priority processes come along and cause the low priority process to starve. The same principle would need to happen on the internet.
However if you are ATT and you want to extort google, you could just make everyone's packets but google's higher priority and then google would suffer starvation of many packets and would be force to pay if a significant amount of the traffic comes through google. Rather than that I'd rather have net neutrality. But I'd be open to some type of regulations that stop people from overly slowing down other traffic (for say extortion) but using maybe the top 25% or 10% of capacity to give some special packets higher priority than others. The problem is that I don't really know how to word it exactly. And also many ways of wording it will leave the area wide open to abuse. Also remember Comcast denied it was practicing traffic management for a long time. It outright lied to everyone until it got caught. Now it claims that the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate it (which maybe it doesn't, who knows). But if the company was so sure it was in the right, why lie until caught red handed? But anyway no matter what it thinks the law is, it tries to get around it. Either it thought the FCC had the authority and tried to avoid the issue and now is trying to challenge the authority to skirt the law. Or it was just keeping to itself for customer relations.
Anyway I wouldn't necessarily mind a throttled connection at my local ISP either, as long as it says it is throttled and all the conditions. If you lie to me that's ridiculous. And if you sell $60/month throttled connections, I think you'd lose customers as they jump ship. But a throttled connection selling at a discount to a non throttled connection would probably attract some people. I think the government should start going after companies for false advertising. If you sell an "unlimited" connection then it better damn well be unlimited. Without any type of secret caps. Some companies throttle you or even cut you off after you reach a certain cap. IF that cap is not advertised clearly and it is an "unlimited" connection they should be fined/thrown in jail. If they sell a connection that says UNLIMITED to 5 GB and then throttled to 128K then that is fine. But if you sell "unlimited" then don't come whining when people use it unlimited.
Still I'm not entirely convinced that it is all network problems and not trying to set things up. Bittorrent is right now used a lot for illegal files. But ultimately when Hollywood joins the 21st century, bittorrent could be a great cheap way for them to distribute movies. Then they just need to pay for hard disk space for a movie and seed it on bittorrent. Probably much cheaper than printing out DVDs and stuff. Ultimately they could distribute a lot of older movies that are out of production due to lack of popularity. And people would probably buy them. Even TV studios can use bittorrent to distribute tv show episodes while saving a ton on bandwidth costs. N
The place I work is still running IE 6. About 6 months ago they did a big effort to upgrade to IE 7, tested all their apps, and then decided that they weren't ready. There is currently no time table to upgrade to IE7 let alone 8.
A company I interned at had IE 4.0 for the longest time, even after 5 came out, and the latest versions of netscape....
I think what our friends at Microsoft don't realize is that big companies (especially big regulated companies) are really slow to move on things. Upgrade to IE 8 is not really a valid answer. A large regulated company will spend months testing, and in many cases it will take years to go upgrade. Now if IE didn't encourage people to violate web standards, then it wouldn't be that bad. But unfortunately it does and people do. So fixing things to work with IE7 or even IE8 after IE 6 is a pretty big deal.
So good luck with that. I know my company is going to be running IE 6 for at least another year, maybe more. They have to go slow because it is a financial company and they are subject to all sorts of SOX controls and regulations. Also upgrading browsers does not immediately generate revenue so it is not a high priority. They don't even use the right resources for testing so it drags out much longer than it should....
I worked at a Microsoft Fanboy company but even then it took a good 6 months to test all the apps with IE 7 and there the roll out wasn't company wide, just that division. There was also a project in Parallel to fix the issues and move all development projects to Visual Studio 2005. They properly staffed based on what they had, and it still took 6 months. And they were Microsoft Fanboys. I mean SQL SErver 2005 comes out, they need to upgrade within a year. SQL Server 2008 comes out, they put on a project to upgrade within a year. Windows Vista comes out, they need to upgrade.... And even there 6 months time is a lot of time to be exposed to a vulnerability. And they are the exception not the rule.
For many companies a security issue or browser upgrade does not generate revenue and is super low priority....
I'm just saying as a user I had a reasonable expectation of privacy to my searches and I started with the internet sometime in 1994 or so.
AOL's slip up releasing their search results a few years ago and google's careless attitude about the potential dangers of keeping all the search issues show that it is wrong. The Schmit's statements about "you can trust us" and well if you don't want the whole world to know what you are searching about, don't search for it just go on to highlight Google's careless attitude.
The problem is no one is protecting your privacy online. All the retailers were keeping your credit card numbers forever and then they had all these breaches where people would steal the card numbers and start ringing up charges. Your social security was used for everything (even as a Student ID at a college). Until people complained and congress passed laws no one cared about an SSN even though you can do a lot with it. Now I notice my university doesn't use SSN's for ID numbers anymore.
Whose going to tell Google to protect my information or be held liable. Also a lot of laws are written according to a reasonable expectation of privacy. if people let companies get away carelessly revealing our information, a lot of those same laws will allow authorities to get your information much easier.
Even on facebook, I don't use it but I would expect that there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to photos, and other content if someone is not my friend. And if facebook goes out giving my content to other people, it is violating that and should be held responsible.
Maybe if they execute someone based on data they stole from Google the company will start to take privacy more seriously and stop with vague statements about they are trustworthy with your data. The CEO was on some CNBC special and pretty much said if there's something you don't want people to know about, you shouldn't be doing it online. But anyway Google seems to keep stuff forever for "research" and this is how they get bit in the @$$....
A) It doesn't work on 3G with ATT, so this is a rip off for $500 if you aren't even going to get 3G service
B) the CDMA phone was mentioned to be another model coming soon for Verizon.
So basically the Nexus One is for T-Mobile only unless you want to spend $500 and only get 2G speeds. My guess is the Verizon model will be Verizon only (all we know now is that it will be a different phone model). So basically the carriers can give you a nice nexus one contract and then screw you when it expires. Or you can buy an unlocked version but if you ever change carriers you need a new phone....
They don't need to ban subsidizing. Just mark the subsidized portion on the Bill and if I bring my own hardware then don't charge me the subsidy. I think the average person might even start to think more of buying unlocked phones if they saw how much of their bill was a subsidy. But in reality there's nothing wrong with subsidizing phones, as long as you give me a discount for not taking your subsidized phone.
Except that the phone does not support the ATT 3G network. Sure you get the edge network but for $500 I'd rather have a phone that works on 3G between multiple carriers. Even better would be Verizon/ATT/T-Mobile/Sprint, it would force them to start competing.
Throughout the Google event they seemed to drone on about choice. But the reality is that there isn't much choice. Sprint/Verizon are on CDMA, Tmobile/ATT use different 3G frequencies. Right now your phone will work on t-mobile, that's it (with 3G). if you want to switch to AT&T, you don't get 3G speeds. So there's no choice there....
What about verizon? Google indicated a CDMA phone will be coming. If you want to go to t-mobile, guess what they don't use CDMA. Will they pull the same thing with CDMA and somehow make one model for Verizon only and when Sprint comes out, one for Sprint?
Basically Google is no better than the cell phone companies. To disrupt the market they really need a phone that works across carriers. Otherwise buying subsidized hardware is better since you'll need a new phone. If I could use the phone on verizon, t-mobile, att then I would go out and easily spend the $500 for that freedom. But you can't. In fact, t-mobile is the number 3 carrier and their network is more lacking than either ATT or Verizon. So if the phone worked on ATT and Verizon I would still go for it. I like T-mobile as a company. Their service plans/customer service/etc. seem more consumer friendly than ATT or Verizon, but when their network for voice doesn't support everywhere I go, then they are not a viable alternative.
Also, in Europe unlocked phones work because you get a discount if you bring your own hardware. If I pay $20 less per month then over two years I save $480 which almost entirely pays for the phone. But without a discount, it doesn't make sense. And with ATT/Verizon you don't get a discount for bringing your own hardware. In fact I'm surprised the DOJ doesn't investigate that..... Well not surprised but they should. In particular by not offering a discount to people bringing their own equipment, it ruins the value proposition for unlocked phones completely. Even if you didn't make up the full value of an unlocked phone (say subsidized cost + 480
Also ATT would have made the most sense since they don't have any android phones (and the rep seemed quite upset at me when I asked if he knew when they might have some, indicating ATT would never support android...which is probably false). I would think with ATT Google would not have been competing with any of their peers, while on T-Mobile they will compete with HTC and on Verizon they will compete with Motorola and eventually HTC. It's very curious. Also making a phone that supported T-Mobile and ATT would have enabled competition between ATT/T-Mobile. T-Mobile is already pretty good, but ATT could do well with more competition.
Also interesting is that in the transcript I saw, I didn't see a question about why not ATT. The press seems to obsess about "iPhone killers". And yet this phone is not even on AT&T, so it doesn't compete with the existing network of iPhone users. I am surprised no one asked why not ATT. Are the Google questions canned to provide the best possible "choice".
Anyway the holy grail of choice would be a phone that is $500 or less that support CDMA and GSM on Verizon/T-Mobile/ATT/Sprint. Then at the very least networks will have to compete when people's contracts are up (assuming the phone must be unlocked at the end of the term). Even more of a holy grail would be if providers were required to return the subsidized price of a phone to consumers who bring their own hardware, by indicating the part of the monthly bill used by the subsidy or something. Then even Joe the Plumber would start to get the idea that a subsidized phone is not free....
Are you for real? Most commercial database engines have a query optimizer which among other things, will recognize that your query is a join and apply a join. The choice of how to do the join (via N^2 nested loop, via hashing one of the tables, via O(n) merge) depends on the sizes of the tables and the indexes available which is all decided by the query optimizer. Not that it is perfect, sometimes it makes a bad decision and you need to drop a hint to override it. Any DBMS that cannot recognize that select.... from x, y where x.a=y.b is a join probably should not be seriously used.
NO offense, but you probably have no idea what you are talking about. MS-SQL is a relatively solid product. SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2005 are pretty stable and can easily handle rather large data sets (in the TB). Of all the Microsoft Products, personally Visual Studio and SQL Server are my favorites. I like PostgreSQL as well, so I'm not strictly a Microsoft Fan. But an awful lot of companies are realizing that MS SQL can manage their data much cheaper than Oracle can. Of course PostgreSQL can do it even cheaper...but many companies like to pay $$ to sleep better at night.
I would claim on a 32 bit processor integer operations with 32 bits will be more efficient. I would also claim that on a 64 bit processor/operating the size of int should be 64. similar to the way on windows 3.1 int was 16 bits and windows 95 int was 32 bit. The forced upgrade for 32 bit apps.... soon we'll probably have another forced upgrade to 64 bit apps.
The problem with fission is what happens when you run out of Uranium? It's almost like trading dependence on fossil fuel for dependence on uranium. Exactly how much uranium is there?
Free time is important for kids. I eventually had a computer class in school, but K-9th grade all programming was done on my own. Then I could finally take VB class. I taught myself C on my own as well, and school did not get a C++ class until 12th grade. By cutting into my private time, my ability to mess around with the computer and learn to program would have been greatly reduced...
Also my high school wasn't that great. The kids I knew who scored 1600 on the SATs did it by studying on their own. They got math textbooks and vocabulary books and worked through them on their own. Increasing school time would have reduced their ability to study.
Plus you gotta let kids be kids. Kids want to have fun!!! I liked hanging out with my friends and doing stupid stuff..... Why start the workplace stress that young.... Also what about older kids who have jobs (some to help their family in a tough time). If anything I would think more of the people who want to work would drop out since with the bigger demands of school there would be less time to work. Older kids want their cars, dates, video games, etc. and I'm sure more than one would be willing to drop out of school for a job.
Isn't this stupid? Many hackers (the good kind), programmers, and other IT people had access to unrestricted PCs as kids. They learned by tinkering, exploring software, changing software, etc... I'll bet the computers don't come with Linux on them. I'd be surprised if they have a full windows development environment either. What if a kid wants to play with Python, due to the machine's restrictions he/she can't. Kids need freedom to tinker. Especially older ones.
I'll admit you probably don't want them going around looking at XXX stuff. But that responsibility falls on parents to know what their kids are doing. Totally locking down the computer will limit them to doing activities that the person installing the original software thought of.
Around 2000 I had a 600 MHZ celeron which ran win 95/98/me/xp over the years at an okay speed. I think it would choke on vista. but an 800 MHZ pentium III beats that. it's enough for MS Office, Firefox, SNES Emulators, NES Emulators, various older games like Doom, etc... It also ran Slackware fine and GCC was reasonable. Still you wanted to set the kernel to compile over night.
Why don't people just boycot the music industry, stop going to shows, and wait until they come crawling back. The failure to buy CD's will hurt the record label and failure to go to shows will hurt the artists. At some point they'll have to come around to the consumer way of thinking. The movie industry isn't much better. I don't pirate movies, but I do rip DVDs to my laptop so that I can watch them off that (which is piracy according to the movie and music industry). I say a big screw you. I bought my DVDs/CD's and I will put them on whatever of my devices I darn well please.
Similarly, the internet existed before all this P2P. People always pirated software/music/whatever since it went mainstream via websites, but mostly now these industries think because of P2P services that everyone uses P2P and no one uses the internet for legitimate uses. Like I don't know downloading Linux distributions, porn movies that they paid for, free content (ie The Pirkening hahaha), data sets.
i say it's time to cut the movie and music industry out of the picture and start only consuming independent media that'll teach them to play ball or go out of business. I'm sure the actual creative guys will start jumping ship long before the **AA start going out of business.....
Also these industries have been trusts for a long time. Isn't it odd how most CD's were about $15, even from different labels. Even older music was still around $15. Cassette tapes used to be cheaper. But aren't CD's a cheaper media that is easier to press?
1) They keep changing them and the wrong ones are really wrong. I never found one that works. One of them did nothing and the other one gave the ultimate "medicated" feeling. A humming in the head, a tight neck, I just felt medicated. And it cut me off from everything, it's like everything I experienced went through a filter.
2) Antidepressants mask the problem, they make you feel better, but depression seems like something that has a problem, you solve the problem and are no longer depressed. I'd rather cognitive behavioral therapy or something else to learn how to deal with my life without being depressed. However health insurance favors antidepressants to that.
Also thyroid issues cause depression. IF you mention to your doctor that you feel depressed, he will do a blood test to check that, then assuming it is negative he will recommend antidepressants...which are another issue...
Actually I think it does. Assuming the poster is talking about a client/server app I think s/he is in the clear. S/he makes one application that talks with the library, this application is GPL and the code must be released to comply with the GPL license. The poster's main application uses network calls to communicate with the sub application that is linked with the library. There is no linking on the library. It is in bad faith but I think only the mini app that is linked with the library is a derivative work.
That's also a misconception of a PC. They don't go quickly obsolete either. For computers running XP a Pentium 300 MHZ works fine. Unless you are doing computer gaming you don't need the latest/greatest PC. Also you can run a surprising amount of games on older hardware. It is only the latest/greatest games that push hardware (probably even some type of collusion between hardware makers and computer gaming studios).
For the average user who just checks e-mail and surfs he web a Pentium 90 is probably enough. That's why I laugh at these "underpowered" netbooks. The atom has over 1GHZ of processing power. From 1999-2004 I had a 600 MHZ celeron as my main PC and it worked fine. I could play doom/emulators/wolfeinstein/many other games. I only upgraded because I had spare money and got a good deal, I didn't have to. And even my latest upgrade to a Core 2 Quad wasn't required (and didn't really add that much value). Firefox still works within a reasonable amount of time on that old 600 celeron, so does xp/microsoft office. I could still use cygwin, python, perl, emacs, notepad, visual studio on that pc as well. I had fedora core 2 on it for a while too and it worked fine. And my pentium IV 2.4 GHZ from 2004 is still more than fine today and the pentium IV was a disaster in terms of the pipeline
Now a days often $200 gets you a better computer than many main pc's of the early 2000's. Also, at the time firefox came out it was way faster than Netscape 6 and Mozilla 1.0. Now I don't know how it compares because I no longer use Mozilla or Netscape, but I some of the later versions did add some bloat, but now it seems to be speeding up again. I don't know that it ever became as slow as Mozilla 1.0 and that ran fine on my celeron 600.
Still similar to the old mac situation, the computer is much faster with a newer processor. It runs at acceptable levels with the old processor. For example the old powermac g4's are fast, but the new core 2 duo macbook pro completely blows them away in speed. The old version is "good enough" but the new ones are quicker. So upgrading while not required is more a function of just wanting to do it. Also I'm sure the G4 won't play the latest edge pushing games.
I think the only upgrades for me that were significant were 386sx25 to 486dx4100 (the sheer mhz/ram difference was amazing) and the 486dx4 100 to the pentium 233 mhz (due to going from 24 MB of ram to over 100 mB). The rest of the upgrades were not so noticeable. If someone had a rendering farm or something I'm sure they'd notice, but not the typical average user.
Now to go to Vista you have to upgrade, but you can just stick with XP. Just like Mac OSX dropped some support for older hardware in a recent version (I forget which). But it still works fine with the older OS.
I would agree too, looking at the posts no one else seems to be focusing on the patenting issue. Why give Microsoft another piece of FUD to use against FOSS software. The ribbon is pretty unique to windows and I'm sure patentable. If they patent it, what is to stop them from suing open office out of existence, or suing non novel customers who use it?
Another thing to look out for is the power level in the relationship. There is only room for one full time captain on the ship. If you want to be the boss all the time and she wants to be the boss all the time it is hard. If one of you wants to be the boss and the other wants to be a follower then that is good. If you want to switch that is good too.
The other thing is some advice is "put your partner first" and "always do what she wants". That won't work all the time. On some level you have wants, things that you absolutely need. Failure to get those things will yield to you being miserable. The same goes for her. In the end you can put your partner first but you have to make sure you aren't neglecting your own needs. Ie if every time you go out to the movies you see what she wants to see and not what you want, you may feel resentful and bottle it up, then that resentment will explode in some other unrelated argument. Not that you should only go to movies you want or the reverse happens. You can even go to mostly movies that she wants. But occasionally you have to slip in your needs. In the end if she is incompatible with your needs, the relationship won't work. Just as you have to bow and help her with her needs she also has to do it for you to an extent.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps by saying that at least 75% of someone's network capacity has to be used to deliver all packets and the extra 25% can be re-allocated to higher priority packets or something. I'm not sure how it works.
But in principle I'm okay with throttling traffic within reasonable limits. Unfortunately due to corporate greed it is obvious what will happen. Basically people will throttle packets so slow that people like Google will have to pay, basically extortion. But still throttling has some uses if done right. A VOIP packet needs to be a higher priority than say someone's bit torrent download because it is real time. In fact most real time apps would benefit from higher quality packet.
But you need something like the operating system does. Basically in an operating system, to protect against starvation, often lower priority processes get their priority bumped up over time so that eventually they are guaranteed to get a turn at the processor. Otherwise it is possible that higher priority processes come along and cause the low priority process to starve. The same principle would need to happen on the internet.
However if you are ATT and you want to extort google, you could just make everyone's packets but google's higher priority and then google would suffer starvation of many packets and would be force to pay if a significant amount of the traffic comes through google. Rather than that I'd rather have net neutrality. But I'd be open to some type of regulations that stop people from overly slowing down other traffic (for say extortion) but using maybe the top 25% or 10% of capacity to give some special packets higher priority than others. The problem is that I don't really know how to word it exactly. And also many ways of wording it will leave the area wide open to abuse. Also remember Comcast denied it was practicing traffic management for a long time. It outright lied to everyone until it got caught. Now it claims that the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate it (which maybe it doesn't, who knows). But if the company was so sure it was in the right, why lie until caught red handed? But anyway no matter what it thinks the law is, it tries to get around it. Either it thought the FCC had the authority and tried to avoid the issue and now is trying to challenge the authority to skirt the law. Or it was just keeping to itself for customer relations.
Anyway I wouldn't necessarily mind a throttled connection at my local ISP either, as long as it says it is throttled and all the conditions. If you lie to me that's ridiculous. And if you sell $60/month throttled connections, I think you'd lose customers as they jump ship. But a throttled connection selling at a discount to a non throttled connection would probably attract some people. I think the government should start going after companies for false advertising. If you sell an "unlimited" connection then it better damn well be unlimited. Without any type of secret caps. Some companies throttle you or even cut you off after you reach a certain cap. IF that cap is not advertised clearly and it is an "unlimited" connection they should be fined/thrown in jail. If they sell a connection that says UNLIMITED to 5 GB and then throttled to 128K then that is fine. But if you sell "unlimited" then don't come whining when people use it unlimited.
Still I'm not entirely convinced that it is all network problems and not trying to set things up. Bittorrent is right now used a lot for illegal files. But ultimately when Hollywood joins the 21st century, bittorrent could be a great cheap way for them to distribute movies. Then they just need to pay for hard disk space for a movie and seed it on bittorrent. Probably much cheaper than printing out DVDs and stuff. Ultimately they could distribute a lot of older movies that are out of production due to lack of popularity. And people would probably buy them. Even TV studios can use bittorrent to distribute tv show episodes while saving a ton on bandwidth costs. N
The place I work is still running IE 6. About 6 months ago they did a big effort to upgrade to IE 7, tested all their apps, and then decided that they weren't ready. There is currently no time table to upgrade to IE7 let alone 8.
A company I interned at had IE 4.0 for the longest time, even after 5 came out, and the latest versions of netscape....
I think what our friends at Microsoft don't realize is that big companies (especially big regulated companies) are really slow to move on things. Upgrade to IE 8 is not really a valid answer. A large regulated company will spend months testing, and in many cases it will take years to go upgrade. Now if IE didn't encourage people to violate web standards, then it wouldn't be that bad. But unfortunately it does and people do. So fixing things to work with IE7 or even IE8 after IE 6 is a pretty big deal.
So good luck with that. I know my company is going to be running IE 6 for at least another year, maybe more. They have to go slow because it is a financial company and they are subject to all sorts of SOX controls and regulations. Also upgrading browsers does not immediately generate revenue so it is not a high priority. They don't even use the right resources for testing so it drags out much longer than it should....
I worked at a Microsoft Fanboy company but even then it took a good 6 months to test all the apps with IE 7 and there the roll out wasn't company wide, just that division. There was also a project in Parallel to fix the issues and move all development projects to Visual Studio 2005. They properly staffed based on what they had, and it still took 6 months. And they were Microsoft Fanboys. I mean SQL SErver 2005 comes out, they need to upgrade within a year. SQL Server 2008 comes out, they put on a project to upgrade within a year. Windows Vista comes out, they need to upgrade.... And even there 6 months time is a lot of time to be exposed to a vulnerability. And they are the exception not the rule.
For many companies a security issue or browser upgrade does not generate revenue and is super low priority....
I'm just saying as a user I had a reasonable expectation of privacy to my searches and I started with the internet sometime in 1994 or so.
AOL's slip up releasing their search results a few years ago and google's careless attitude about the potential dangers of keeping all the search issues show that it is wrong. The Schmit's statements about "you can trust us" and well if you don't want the whole world to know what you are searching about, don't search for it just go on to highlight Google's careless attitude.
The problem is no one is protecting your privacy online. All the retailers were keeping your credit card numbers forever and then they had all these breaches where people would steal the card numbers and start ringing up charges. Your social security was used for everything (even as a Student ID at a college). Until people complained and congress passed laws no one cared about an SSN even though you can do a lot with it. Now I notice my university doesn't use SSN's for ID numbers anymore.
Whose going to tell Google to protect my information or be held liable. Also a lot of laws are written according to a reasonable expectation of privacy. if people let companies get away carelessly revealing our information, a lot of those same laws will allow authorities to get your information much easier.
Even on facebook, I don't use it but I would expect that there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to photos, and other content if someone is not my friend. And if facebook goes out giving my content to other people, it is violating that and should be held responsible.
Maybe if they execute someone based on data they stole from Google the company will start to take privacy more seriously and stop with vague statements about they are trustworthy with your data. The CEO was on some CNBC special and pretty much said if there's something you don't want people to know about, you shouldn't be doing it online. But anyway Google seems to keep stuff forever for "research" and this is how they get bit in the @$$....
A) It doesn't work on 3G with ATT, so this is a rip off for $500 if you aren't even going to get 3G service
B) the CDMA phone was mentioned to be another model coming soon for Verizon.
So basically the Nexus One is for T-Mobile only unless you want to spend $500 and only get 2G speeds. My guess is the Verizon model will be Verizon only (all we know now is that it will be a different phone model). So basically the carriers can give you a nice nexus one contract and then screw you when it expires. Or you can buy an unlocked version but if you ever change carriers you need a new phone....
They don't need to ban subsidizing. Just mark the subsidized portion on the Bill and if I bring my own hardware then don't charge me the subsidy. I think the average person might even start to think more of buying unlocked phones if they saw how much of their bill was a subsidy. But in reality there's nothing wrong with subsidizing phones, as long as you give me a discount for not taking your subsidized phone.
Except that the phone does not support the ATT 3G network. Sure you get the edge network but for $500 I'd rather have a phone that works on 3G between multiple carriers. Even better would be Verizon/ATT/T-Mobile/Sprint, it would force them to start competing.
Throughout the Google event they seemed to drone on about choice. But the reality is that there isn't much choice. Sprint/Verizon are on CDMA, Tmobile/ATT use different 3G frequencies. Right now your phone will work on t-mobile, that's it (with 3G). if you want to switch to AT&T, you don't get 3G speeds. So there's no choice there....
What about verizon? Google indicated a CDMA phone will be coming. If you want to go to t-mobile, guess what they don't use CDMA. Will they pull the same thing with CDMA and somehow make one model for Verizon only and when Sprint comes out, one for Sprint?
Basically Google is no better than the cell phone companies. To disrupt the market they really need a phone that works across carriers. Otherwise buying subsidized hardware is better since you'll need a new phone. If I could use the phone on verizon, t-mobile, att then I would go out and easily spend the $500 for that freedom. But you can't. In fact, t-mobile is the number 3 carrier and their network is more lacking than either ATT or Verizon. So if the phone worked on ATT and Verizon I would still go for it. I like T-mobile as a company. Their service plans/customer service/etc. seem more consumer friendly than ATT or Verizon, but when their network for voice doesn't support everywhere I go, then they are not a viable alternative.
Also, in Europe unlocked phones work because you get a discount if you bring your own hardware. If I pay $20 less per month then over two years I save $480 which almost entirely pays for the phone. But without a discount, it doesn't make sense. And with ATT/Verizon you don't get a discount for bringing your own hardware. In fact I'm surprised the DOJ doesn't investigate that..... Well not surprised but they should. In particular by not offering a discount to people bringing their own equipment, it ruins the value proposition for unlocked phones completely. Even if you didn't make up the full value of an unlocked phone (say subsidized cost + 480
Also ATT would have made the most sense since they don't have any android phones (and the rep seemed quite upset at me when I asked if he knew when they might have some, indicating ATT would never support android...which is probably false). I would think with ATT Google would not have been competing with any of their peers, while on T-Mobile they will compete with HTC and on Verizon they will compete with Motorola and eventually HTC. It's very curious. Also making a phone that supported T-Mobile and ATT would have enabled competition between ATT/T-Mobile. T-Mobile is already pretty good, but ATT could do well with more competition.
Also interesting is that in the transcript I saw, I didn't see a question about why not ATT. The press seems to obsess about "iPhone killers". And yet this phone is not even on AT&T, so it doesn't compete with the existing network of iPhone users. I am surprised no one asked why not ATT. Are the Google questions canned to provide the best possible "choice".
Anyway the holy grail of choice would be a phone that is $500 or less that support CDMA and GSM on Verizon/T-Mobile/ATT/Sprint. Then at the very least networks will have to compete when people's contracts are up (assuming the phone must be unlocked at the end of the term). Even more of a holy grail would be if providers were required to return the subsidized price of a phone to consumers who bring their own hardware, by indicating the part of the monthly bill used by the subsidy or something. Then even Joe the Plumber would start to get the idea that a subsidized phone is not free....
Are you for real? Most commercial database engines have a query optimizer which among other things, will recognize that your query is a join and apply a join. The choice of how to do the join (via N^2 nested loop, via hashing one of the tables, via O(n) merge) depends on the sizes of the tables and the indexes available which is all decided by the query optimizer. Not that it is perfect, sometimes it makes a bad decision and you need to drop a hint to override it. Any DBMS that cannot recognize that select .... from x, y where x.a=y.b is a join probably should not be seriously used.
NO offense, but you probably have no idea what you are talking about. MS-SQL is a relatively solid product. SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2005 are pretty stable and can easily handle rather large data sets (in the TB). Of all the Microsoft Products, personally Visual Studio and SQL Server are my favorites. I like PostgreSQL as well, so I'm not strictly a Microsoft Fan. But an awful lot of companies are realizing that MS SQL can manage their data much cheaper than Oracle can. Of course PostgreSQL can do it even cheaper...but many companies like to pay $$ to sleep better at night.
Example: "Have you stopped beating your wife?
Hell no, I just bought a horsehair flogger to have even more fun doing it.
I would claim on a 32 bit processor integer operations with 32 bits will be more efficient. I would also claim that on a 64 bit processor/operating the size of int should be 64. similar to the way on windows 3.1 int was 16 bits and windows 95 int was 32 bit. The forced upgrade for 32 bit apps.... soon we'll probably have another forced upgrade to 64 bit apps.
Unfortunately due to political conditions since the 1970's recycling spent nuclear fuel is a no no. So basically this is a short term patch at best.
The advantage of algae or plants is that you can just grow more.
The problem with fission is what happens when you run out of Uranium? It's almost like trading dependence on fossil fuel for dependence on uranium. Exactly how much uranium is there?
Free time is important for kids. I eventually had a computer class in school, but K-9th grade all programming was done on my own. Then I could finally take VB class. I taught myself C on my own as well, and school did not get a C++ class until 12th grade. By cutting into my private time, my ability to mess around with the computer and learn to program would have been greatly reduced...
Also my high school wasn't that great. The kids I knew who scored 1600 on the SATs did it by studying on their own. They got math textbooks and vocabulary books and worked through them on their own. Increasing school time would have reduced their ability to study.
Plus you gotta let kids be kids. Kids want to have fun!!! I liked hanging out with my friends and doing stupid stuff..... Why start the workplace stress that young.... Also what about older kids who have jobs (some to help their family in a tough time). If anything I would think more of the people who want to work would drop out since with the bigger demands of school there would be less time to work. Older kids want their cars, dates, video games, etc. and I'm sure more than one would be willing to drop out of school for a job.
Isn't this stupid? Many hackers (the good kind), programmers, and other IT people had access to unrestricted PCs as kids. They learned by tinkering, exploring software, changing software, etc... I'll bet the computers don't come with Linux on them. I'd be surprised if they have a full windows development environment either. What if a kid wants to play with Python, due to the machine's restrictions he/she can't. Kids need freedom to tinker. Especially older ones.
I'll admit you probably don't want them going around looking at XXX stuff. But that responsibility falls on parents to know what their kids are doing. Totally locking down the computer will limit them to doing activities that the person installing the original software thought of.
Around 2000 I had a 600 MHZ celeron which ran win 95/98/me/xp over the years at an okay speed. I think it would choke on vista. but an 800 MHZ pentium III beats that. it's enough for MS Office, Firefox, SNES Emulators, NES Emulators, various older games like Doom, etc... It also ran Slackware fine and GCC was reasonable. Still you wanted to set the kernel to compile over night.
Why don't people just boycot the music industry, stop going to shows, and wait until they come crawling back. The failure to buy CD's will hurt the record label and failure to go to shows will hurt the artists. At some point they'll have to come around to the consumer way of thinking. The movie industry isn't much better. I don't pirate movies, but I do rip DVDs to my laptop so that I can watch them off that (which is piracy according to the movie and music industry). I say a big screw you. I bought my DVDs/CD's and I will put them on whatever of my devices I darn well please.
Similarly, the internet existed before all this P2P. People always pirated software/music/whatever since it went mainstream via websites, but mostly now these industries think because of P2P services that everyone uses P2P and no one uses the internet for legitimate uses. Like I don't know downloading Linux distributions, porn movies that they paid for, free content (ie The Pirkening hahaha), data sets.
i say it's time to cut the movie and music industry out of the picture and start only consuming independent media that'll teach them to play ball or go out of business. I'm sure the actual creative guys will start jumping ship long before the **AA start going out of business.....
Also these industries have been trusts for a long time. Isn't it odd how most CD's were about $15, even from different labels. Even older music was still around $15. Cassette tapes used to be cheaper. But aren't CD's a cheaper media that is easier to press?
My issues with antidepressants are 2:
1) They keep changing them and the wrong ones are really wrong. I never found one that works. One of them did nothing and the other one gave the ultimate "medicated" feeling. A humming in the head, a tight neck, I just felt medicated. And it cut me off from everything, it's like everything I experienced went through a filter.
2) Antidepressants mask the problem, they make you feel better, but depression seems like something that has a problem, you solve the problem and are no longer depressed. I'd rather cognitive behavioral therapy or something else to learn how to deal with my life without being depressed. However health insurance favors antidepressants to that.
Also thyroid issues cause depression. IF you mention to your doctor that you feel depressed, he will do a blood test to check that, then assuming it is negative he will recommend antidepressants...which are another issue...
Actually I think it does. Assuming the poster is talking about a client/server app I think s/he is in the clear. S/he makes one application that talks with the library, this application is GPL and the code must be released to comply with the GPL license. The poster's main application uses network calls to communicate with the sub application that is linked with the library. There is no linking on the library. It is in bad faith but I think only the mini app that is linked with the library is a derivative work.
That's also a misconception of a PC. They don't go quickly obsolete either. For computers running XP a Pentium 300 MHZ works fine. Unless you are doing computer gaming you don't need the latest/greatest PC. Also you can run a surprising amount of games on older hardware. It is only the latest/greatest games that push hardware (probably even some type of collusion between hardware makers and computer gaming studios).
For the average user who just checks e-mail and surfs he web a Pentium 90 is probably enough. That's why I laugh at these "underpowered" netbooks. The atom has over 1GHZ of processing power. From 1999-2004 I had a 600 MHZ celeron as my main PC and it worked fine. I could play doom/emulators/wolfeinstein/many other games. I only upgraded because I had spare money and got a good deal, I didn't have to. And even my latest upgrade to a Core 2 Quad wasn't required (and didn't really add that much value). Firefox still works within a reasonable amount of time on that old 600 celeron, so does xp/microsoft office. I could still use cygwin, python, perl, emacs, notepad, visual studio on that pc as well. I had fedora core 2 on it for a while too and it worked fine. And my pentium IV 2.4 GHZ from 2004 is still more than fine today and the pentium IV was a disaster in terms of the pipeline
Now a days often $200 gets you a better computer than many main pc's of the early 2000's. Also, at the time firefox came out it was way faster than Netscape 6 and Mozilla 1.0. Now I don't know how it compares because I no longer use Mozilla or Netscape, but I some of the later versions did add some bloat, but now it seems to be speeding up again. I don't know that it ever became as slow as Mozilla 1.0 and that ran fine on my celeron 600.
Still similar to the old mac situation, the computer is much faster with a newer processor. It runs at acceptable levels with the old processor. For example the old powermac g4's are fast, but the new core 2 duo macbook pro completely blows them away in speed. The old version is "good enough" but the new ones are quicker. So upgrading while not required is more a function of just wanting to do it. Also I'm sure the G4 won't play the latest edge pushing games.
I think the only upgrades for me that were significant were 386sx25 to 486dx4100 (the sheer mhz/ram difference was amazing) and the 486dx4 100 to the pentium 233 mhz (due to going from 24 MB of ram to over 100 mB). The rest of the upgrades were not so noticeable. If someone had a rendering farm or something I'm sure they'd notice, but not the typical average user.
Now to go to Vista you have to upgrade, but you can just stick with XP. Just like Mac OSX dropped some support for older hardware in a recent version (I forget which). But it still works fine with the older OS.
eek should read Novell
I would agree too, looking at the posts no one else seems to be focusing on the patenting issue. Why give Microsoft another piece of FUD to use against FOSS software. The ribbon is pretty unique to windows and I'm sure patentable. If they patent it, what is to stop them from suing open office out of existence, or suing non novel customers who use it?
Another thing to look out for is the power level in the relationship. There is only room for one full time captain on the ship. If you want to be the boss all the time and she wants to be the boss all the time it is hard. If one of you wants to be the boss and the other wants to be a follower then that is good. If you want to switch that is good too.
The other thing is some advice is "put your partner first" and "always do what she wants". That won't work all the time. On some level you have wants, things that you absolutely need. Failure to get those things will yield to you being miserable. The same goes for her. In the end you can put your partner first but you have to make sure you aren't neglecting your own needs. Ie if every time you go out to the movies you see what she wants to see and not what you want, you may feel resentful and bottle it up, then that resentment will explode in some other unrelated argument. Not that you should only go to movies you want or the reverse happens. You can even go to mostly movies that she wants. But occasionally you have to slip in your needs. In the end if she is incompatible with your needs, the relationship won't work. Just as you have to bow and help her with her needs she also has to do it for you to an extent.