It seems you've confused the unqualified presence of life with intelligence. Humans represent on the tiniest fraction of the planet's biomass. The overwhelming majority of Earth's inhabitants are incapable of emitting radio in any organized manner. While intelligence might not be as fecund as we would like, don't confuse those chances with the probability of there being an unpopulated universe altogether.
"It comes down to who owns your capacity to communicate."
With a moniker like ebusinessmedia, I bet you're used to spewing this sort of pablum aren't ya?
I agree with you on this point. B has been rolled into a much larger number of devices and so has the built in advantage of a large user base and in as far as interoperable devices goes this is key. What I take issue with is the concept that G in said form is much of an improvement over B. Sounds like they could have just standardized the proprietary extensions to the B protocol and called it a day. I understand that technical capability varies from the actual throughput. What that doesn't excuse though is the fact that even prior to this latest round of retooling, it looked like A speeds were kicking the tar out of G. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and A doesn't seem to suffer as heavily from these perceived vs. real world disparities. You can spin the news any way you like but I still say it's lousy.
Riight cause we all know that its the theoretical throughput that really counts here. Doesn't matter that your QoS devices are choking to death, cause we got imagination!
I'd hardly call running G at B speeds "backwards compatibility". They could have just ratified the 802.11b turbo as a standard. This is some really lousy news.
Rules beg exceptions, but I think it's fair to say that joe average who loves computers is more likely to A)try to understand a system rather than use it by rote B)have more of an impetus to see that things work C)expand their skill than would joe average looking for a way to while away time and make a buck. We could just as easily say positive things about goal-orientation, aggresiveness etc., but I think its fair to say that love of computers is an advantage to the IT employer in many circumstances.
Re:HERE HE IS, the bastard
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Wouldn't spamming a spammer defeat the purpose of defeating spam?"
Its called poetic justice. While some will tell you that prison is "corrective", there is the underlying accepted premise in Western culture of the punishment should fit the crime.
" A correct program does not allow a user to enter erroneous data."
Name me one program that will keep a user from using the CD tray from acting as a coffee holder.
Have you ever met a user? They will rip out IDE cables while an OS is being loaded. They're savage, man! They're beasts and there's no proper defense!
Re:Piracy sometimes HELPS economic development
on
RIAA vs The Economy
·
· Score: 1
>
Right. The difference is that the corporations at least nominally own the content. They can do what they want with it. Your logic follows the same conspicuous bent as does mob "protection" money. How bout this? You wear a name tag around and I'll try and pickpocket you. But hey don't worry about it. I'll give it back to you in a couple of years with a 5% interest rate....maybe. You should be grateful.
Your cynicism sounds rather like the once critics of "flying machines". When the impediments are largely technical and admittedly possible, do you really want to bet against human ingenuity making them simple and extremely plausible. There's 2 ingredients to this cake, money and time.
Re:so, in other words....
on
World of Ends
·
· Score: 1
I'd imagine that the author would allow that IPv6 is an actual improvement to the internet because it still maintains the internet's desired "stupidity". So long as the improvements are focused on the generic transfer of data, it still obeys that primary tenet.
Maybe we should cease the production of lincoln logs. After all, teething children will just grind them into toothpicks. The fear that a poorly executed program will go awry is a waste of time and a disservice to what people might achieve. The same applies to stem cell research, wars on foriegn soil and most modern controversies.
That there is potential for failure in any given endeavor takes very little intelligence to realise. It takes only slightly more to point out that the solution is a solid plan and careful consideration of consequences. Surpisingly, though the latter observation is in great deficiency.
Anyone remember Kennedy's "we do them because they are hard" line?
It amuses me how so many people speak of this as if water and electricity were some sort of undeniable right. Now if the telegraph started arbitrarily refusing service, you might have something reasonable to complain about. But electricity? No way, pardner.
Circa 1920
Slashdot Mirror
It seems you've confused the unqualified presence of life with intelligence. Humans represent on the tiniest fraction of the planet's biomass. The overwhelming majority of Earth's inhabitants are incapable of emitting radio in any organized manner. While intelligence might not be as fecund as we would like, don't confuse those chances with the probability of there being an unpopulated universe altogether.
"It comes down to who owns your capacity to communicate." With a moniker like ebusinessmedia, I bet you're used to spewing this sort of pablum aren't ya?
Courage as well as bravery eh? Thanks for lending us that incredible insight.
I agree with you on this point. B has been rolled into a much larger number of devices and so has the built in advantage of a large user base and in as far as interoperable devices goes this is key. What I take issue with is the concept that G in said form is much of an improvement over B. Sounds like they could have just standardized the proprietary extensions to the B protocol and called it a day. I understand that technical capability varies from the actual throughput. What that doesn't excuse though is the fact that even prior to this latest round of retooling, it looked like A speeds were kicking the tar out of G. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and A doesn't seem to suffer as heavily from these perceived vs. real world disparities. You can spin the news any way you like but I still say it's lousy.
Riight cause we all know that its the theoretical throughput that really counts here. Doesn't matter that your QoS devices are choking to death, cause we got imagination!
802.11bluetooth
I'd hardly call running G at B speeds "backwards compatibility". They could have just ratified the 802.11b turbo as a standard. This is some really lousy news.
Just forge your headers :P
Or you can just show up at two interviews for the same company, but one with a fake mustache and a different part to your hair.
Rules beg exceptions, but I think it's fair to say that joe average who loves computers is more likely to A)try to understand a system rather than use it by rote B)have more of an impetus to see that things work C)expand their skill than would joe average looking for a way to while away time and make a buck. We could just as easily say positive things about goal-orientation, aggresiveness etc., but I think its fair to say that love of computers is an advantage to the IT employer in many circumstances.
"Wouldn't spamming a spammer defeat the purpose of defeating spam?"
Its called poetic justice. While some will tell you that prison is "corrective", there is the underlying accepted premise in Western culture of the punishment should fit the crime.
" A correct program does not allow a user to enter erroneous data." Name me one program that will keep a user from using the CD tray from acting as a coffee holder.
>
Have you ever met a user? They will rip out IDE cables while an OS is being loaded. They're savage, man! They're beasts and there's no proper defense!
>
Right. The difference is that the corporations at least nominally own the content. They can do what they want with it. Your logic follows the same conspicuous bent as does mob "protection" money. How bout this? You wear a name tag around and I'll try and pickpocket you. But hey don't worry about it. I'll give it back to you in a couple of years with a 5% interest rate....maybe. You should be grateful.
Your cynicism sounds rather like the once critics of "flying machines". When the impediments are largely technical and admittedly possible, do you really want to bet against human ingenuity making them simple and extremely plausible. There's 2 ingredients to this cake, money and time.
I'd imagine that the author would allow that IPv6 is an actual improvement to the internet because it still maintains the internet's desired "stupidity". So long as the improvements are focused on the generic transfer of data, it still obeys that primary tenet.
That there is potential for failure in any given endeavor takes very little intelligence to realise. It takes only slightly more to point out that the solution is a solid plan and careful consideration of consequences. Surpisingly, though the latter observation is in great deficiency. Anyone remember Kennedy's "we do them because they are hard" line?
It amuses me how so many people speak of this as if water and electricity were some sort of undeniable right. Now if the telegraph started arbitrarily refusing service, you might have something reasonable to complain about. But electricity? No way, pardner. Circa 1920