Can someone here tell me what kind of drugs the Katamari Damacy soundtrack producer was on?
Who cares about the soundtrack? The entire fucking game is one huge mushroom/acid twofer.
I mean seriously, when you roll over a "meow cat" and sit there laughing hysterically, sober, meowing at the screen you know that you're stoned.
Land of the "Free"!
on
3D Face Cameras
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Mr. Duron adds, "At BlueBear Network, we are dedicated to helping law enforcement keep our neighborhoods safe by providing the best biometric identification and information sharing technology available in a way that is easily deployed, totally integrated to existing systems and affordable for all police services from small detachments to large metropolitan police forces."
"At RedBear Network, we are dedicated to helping law enforcement keep degrading personal privacy by providing the best and most intrusive biometric identification and database sharing technology available in a way that every government sector can integrate personal data tracking features into existing personal information database creation systems which is affordable for all taxpayers both in rural and metropolitan areas who are getting fucked by this under the guise of added benefit."
Thanks for continuing to support companies with free advertising on Slashdot by giving them exposure for stealing our rights to privacy.
Remember, just because you were arrested and your mugshot was taken does not mean that you should be kept in a 3D database linked to every other anti-terrorist database out there, especially if your *alleged* offense occurred with the boundaries of the USA where you used to be innocent until proven guilty.
Cool, not only could viruses switch what appears on your screen when you type you could also wake up and find a huge picture of goatse on your keyboard.
IT IS hard to know whether to be impressed, suspicious or amused.
Combine such evidence of frenzied activity with mysterious secretiveness, and the imagination is liberated. A Google web browser? A Google operating system? All the world's information? World domination? Buy, clearly.
What is so hard to understand? Google, in a relatively short time, has been able to come to market with some amazing pieces of software that are stable, useful, and free even in their "Beta" stages.
I can't say that for plenty of other companies out there with huge market value... Some of those companies released "final" products that were little more than "Alpha" quality software that we tested for them on our own dimes for 15+ years.
Google, secretive or not, is producing good software at an alarming rate (yes, alarming is the word to use here) and at this time should be invested in. While I don't write for the Economist, it's pretty obvious to me that it's not Google's "ambiguity" driving its value, it's Google's proven track record which is getting people interested.
What's a couple thousand dollar gamble for most people that might have missed Yahoo's rise to fame and fortune? Knowing what Yahoo was/is doing and how that compares to what Google is doing now shows that this might be a better bet and people are willing to sink that cash into it.
Sam Jadallah: There was definitely a buzz at Microsoft about the Internet--we were trying to understand why everybody was getting all hyped up. Certainly for us up in the Northwest, we didn't know what to make of it. It seemed pretty cool, pretty exciting, but really what were you going to do with it? How was it going to change your day-to-day work?
Gogling for DRM-free music files or e-book is a well known way for people to copy files.
So, are you saying that they are coming out of the gate with high-stakes to piss everyone off and create a stir and then they will re-write the bill completely to only go after DRM-free music files and e-books which aren't cached and thumbnailed?
So basically they would be coming up w/an entirely new bill that has nothing to do w/the current one?
I just find that hard to believe. If they wanted to do that they wouldn't have talked about Google caching material and making image thumbnails under "fair-use" and instead would have said that this was targeting music files and e-books available online that are pointed to by Google.
The bill defines information location tools as "any instrument through which one can locate information that is available by means of the Internet or any other digital network."
Would that mean that library networks that allow you to find copyrighted material are illegal too? All of the libraries I've been in recently have an online card catalogue which is usually accessable in-house and over the web... Granted they might not be caching materials and making thumbnails but who knows? Maybe the libraries even use site:library.org with Google to do searches.
But, cautions Mr. Knopf, Bill C-60 has received first reading only, and that "there"s a lot of time for them to take this out or to fix it."
He warns that "we shouldn't cripple the Googles of the world by imposing copyright chill on the very basis of their architecture. In fact, they perform a very useful service to copyright owners by enabling easy detection of infringement. The owners should go after the actual infringer, rather than effectively shooting the messenger."
Then why even bother to draft it? This seems like an awful waste of time and energy if you know the bill could cripple the search engine industry and that's not what you want.
If you have to replace your TV, tough shit. There are plenty of people who have had to replace or upgrade equipment to meet evolving FCC requirements and they didn't get a nickel.
Then you support what I say. We shouldn't be subsidizng the converter boxes for the 15% of people that only receive OTA transmissions.
In other words, yes a switch costs money, but if properly used the new spectrum would create even more economic value.
To be held without use by the corporations that pay for it as the highest cost. Why aren't we using the money that was collected from other spectrum selloffs to pay for *everyone* to get new DTV converter boxes?
Oh that's right... They wasted the People's money that was collected from spectrum sales on shit that the People probably didn't want and was likely unrelated to the spectrum and the technological advances around it.
Without the helping hand of government, you wouldn't have been able to post your reply.
Yup, the Internet was partially funded by government research grants and pushes by the US Government to get it to the masses but... The Internet didn't exist prior to their pushes in a different format which required some sort of mandated hardware updates to use the "new and improved Internet" once they were done.
DTV is just regular TV over digital signals rather than analog. Yes, it opens up spectrum (which is a whole different issue) but we should not be required to buy additional hardware and then subsidize those that can't afford it.
I didn't see the US Government saying that "everyone has to be on the Internet2 by 2009. If you don't have the capability now you need to pay for the upgraded hardware to take advantage of it. If you can't afford the hardware then everyone else will pay for it for you."
You're right. HDTV isn't DTV. I was incorrectly using the term to appeal to the misunderstanding masses and I apologize.
My original post(s) still stand. We should not have been forced to move to a different format at our own expense and then have to subsidize others that can't afford the move!
What's going to happen when they open the spectrum up? Are they going to sell it at ENORMOUS COST to companies that will just hold it in check for safe keeping like they did with plenty of other parts of the spectrum?
Either way the spectrum, which is owned by the People, is being held hostage. I'd prefer that it be held hostage the way it is rather than by some corporation that has no plans to do anything with it except hold on to it to make sure no one else can have it.
A draft bill setting the deadline has bogged down in the House over whether the government should subsidize the purchase of $50 converter boxes for the 15% of households that get their TV signals via antennas. The boxes would convert digital signals to analog.
This is my favorite part of all of this. Not only are those of us that can afford digital TV being double-fucked for the creation of the HDTV standard and then having to pay for the tuner for something we just don't need, we now may have part of our tax dollars pay for someone else's digital tuner converter that can't afford HDTV! Absolutely unnecessary.
Let the market's consumers decide when it wants to adopt a technology. If only 5 million people have adopted the technology so far it's probably because it is infantile, unnecessary, and/or expensive. We do NOT need the government meddling in this and creating headaches, money issues, and horseshit for us. No matter what the pro-TV people say, HDTV is *not* something that the government needed to mandate. There are thousands of other far more important things they could have put time, effort, and dollars towards rather than making sure Friends and Seinfeld reruns, reality TV, and soaps come to you in crisp video.
I have posted on this same exact topic numerous times before but here's one of them.
Even though the wording of the last sentence in the blurb is misleading as it seems to mean that AMD's lawsuit was ruled illegal by the JFTC:
Bruce Sewell, vice president and general counsel for Intel, said: "One of the core principles of competition policy is the notion that such policies should be based on sound economics. There is a broad consensus that competition regulators should only intervene where there is evidence of harm to consumers. It is apparent the JFTC's Recommendation did not sufficiently weigh these important principles."
So, chips that *could* be faster (if companies were not using Intel compilers), less expensive, and have other better qualities (heat, size, etc), isn't good for consumers? Sorry to say Bruce, but obviously no one believes you.
Anticompetitive strongarming via financial kickbacks is probably only good for Intel's market position and the companies that are selling Intel-based machines regardless of what your and your company's spin is. Unless you can, without a shred of doubt or lies, prove otherwise, I really suggest you just shutup and comply.
Personally, I want to see Intel give back to consumers directly. Anyone who has purchased an Intel machine since AMD's introduction to the market should be given a large rebate and I'm not talking about settlements like $13.55 check or shipping mass quantities of unwanted product to schools. I don't want to see AMD get any money out of this as it will do little for the market's consumers who had to deal with the anti-competitive behavior just as much as AMD did (if not more).
Because it's an attempt by the distributor to protect the MPAA's property. Yes, everyone knows the DRM will be broken by some (I'm sure it's not even worth it as DVDs are easy and better quality).
As long as the majority of people out there aren't going to be able to do what they want w/the downloaded files it'll make the MPAA happy.
I really don't intend to go to that amusement park again though.
Got on the Saturday or Sunday before Labor Day. The park is nearly empty on the Saturday and only a little more crowded on the Sunday.
We would go every year on that weekend and not have any wait over 20 minutes.
Cedar Point, while being the best amusement park in the world, has ruined me for the rest of my life... I cannot go to any other amusement park and enjoy myself like I would at Cedar Point. I have been to several other Cedar Fair parks (Valleyfair, Dorney Park, Michigan's Adventure, etc) but none are even close.
I miss Cedar Point, lines or not. It's their ingenuity in rides that make it amazing. They don't worry about themes and characters and instead worry about thrilling you!
Terrorists have found ways to hijack planes for the last 30 years without in-flight broadband. This proposal will fix nothing.
Just like any of the other security measures put into place after the 9/11 attacks this will not solve anything. Those interested in inflicting damage on nations they disagree with will do so by exploiting flaws in the *current* system.
All that the US Government is doing is creating bandaids that do nothing but remove our freedoms. Yes, the terrorists hate "freedom" and because of this erosion of personal freedoms in newsmedia, personal life, airplanes, telephony, and Internet they have weakened us a lot more than when they took down the Towers.
I don't know if you guys know this, but Webroot's Spy Sweeper is also delisting obvious spyware.
This is why people should not be supporting commercial entities that are selling spyware detection/removal software.
This should all be free, open source, software that includes a community updated database of spyware junk. That way money and corruption stay out of the mix.
One of these apparent lapses occurred one day when an experimenter asked Alex "what color three?" Laid out before Alex were sets of two, three and six objects, each set differently colored. Alex insisted on responding: "five." This made no sense given that the answer was supposed to be a color.
After several tries the experimenter gave up and said: "OK, Alex, tell me: what color five?" "None," the bird replied. This was correct, in that there was no color that graced exactly five of the objects. The researchers went on to incorporate "none" into future trials, and Alex consistently used the word correctly, they said.
If the researcher's comments on the subject are true and they aren't suffering from "proud parrot syndrome", how do you explain that the parrot decided to "up the ante" and play a more difficult game?
It's apparent from their words that the parrot does understand that there was a group that did not exist and thus it isn't some silly trick.
I use Drupal on my own site and love it. The ability to run PHP code in their "blocks" and the challenge of integrating Gallery v1 support to my own site gave me something to do for a while.
While it has its annoyances it is probably one of the best CMS I have seen and certainly the easiest to setup and maintain.
I just donated 20 Euros ($24 and change USD) to the project.
It's possible for a product to improve while the "real cost" remains the same. Why should broadband connections be different than anything else?
They shouldn't but considering that broadband connections have gotten *slower* while costs have risen (i.e. AT&T@Home (up to 10mbit) -> ATTBI (1.5mbit)), people really shouldn't believe this round of hype.
BBR: While we're only starting to see DOCSIS 2.0 deployment, and the higher speeds it can bring (Adelphia & Cox 15Mbps), DOCSIS 3.0 should only be a few years behind. Do you see the cable industry having any trouble keeping up with these bell plans?
DB: The "15 meg" speeds Cox is offering where they compete with Verizon fiber are mostly advertising. It's really 38 meg shared among 100 or so users, the same speed as the current services advertised at as 3 and 7 meg. That's too much oversubscription to deliver 15 meg most of the time, if even 5 or 10 people are downloading on the node. To regularly get past today's 5 meg or so, you need to bond more channels, which is what DOCSIS 3.0 offers.
DOCSIS 3.0 is real, mostly agreed, and the key vendors have the details and are making equipment for 2006. It's a shared 160/120 or higher, easily expandable to a shared gigabit. Real speeds to users will often be 20-50 megabits. It was developed to compete with higher speed DSL in Asia. Early in 2005, the U.S. cable companies realized Verizon was serious about fiber, and pushed CableLabs and suppliers (Cisco, Motorola, Arris, Broadcom) to get DOCSIS 3.0 ready for the U.S. ASAP, and 2006 is realistic with some pricey gear.
I will believe it when I see it. Depending on your home area, overselling of bandwidth can be a real problem. I have seen both DSL and Cable providers routinely claiming speeds "up to". 5mpbs but real speeds are usually in the 3mbps range. Of course, the cable/DSL providers claim that "few sites allow you to take full advantage of your maximum bandwidth", which is a pile of horseshit, plain and simple. 92% of their userbase will believe that while the 8% that don't the broadband companies don't want on their networks anyway.
While highspeed connections are great, I want to know where this backend bandwidth is coming from and who's paying for it? T3+ downstream speeds for only a tiny fraction of the real cost? I will be that 30+ megabits is nothing more than a pipe dream/marketing ploy. The real speeds we will be seeing are in the 10 to 15 range for "premium" members and will likely come with heavy "unadvertised". monthly caps. They want you to see webpages come up lightning fast (which happens at 1mbit) but they don't want you to actually see 10GB of torrents come in a day. They will still be catering to the 92% of their userbase that is the "mom and pop e-mail and CNN checkers". The people who would really be excited about paying higher fees and getting the advantages of the massive bandwidth will end up with ToS violation warnings and slower than expected speeds.
why does a city have to be 100% covered by 802.11a/b/g?
It doesn't but people like having Internet access all over their home area while only paying for it once.
I have GPRS, I have DSL, and I have wireless access via Panera and "nice neighbors". Guess what? The GPRS connection (and device) aren't cheap -- I pay $20/month on top of my cell phone plan for data service, luckily the phone was free. The DSL connection I have is ~$55/mo. The wireless connections I can take advantage of require a wireless LAN card and a device to take advantage of it (i.e. a laptop or PDA for practical use).
If I only had to have one device and I could use Internet all over my home area for $25/mo, I'd be a lot better off.
Please note: I'm not a fan of muni-wifi due to privacy implications.
All schools could save hundreds of dollars by using Linux instead of Windows, and it would give kids a better background.
A better background in what? Using OSS software instead of Microsoft software? In the real world (yes, there are some exceptions) people use Microsoft Office. HR drones and automated readers reviewing your resumes aren't going to understand that Open Office is like Microsoft Office. They want to see Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, and Microsoft Access on your resume, not their OSS counterparts.
Also, it might encourage the development of more OSS by the students.
Why? Because a machine that's running OSS will somehow be any less locked down by the admins than a similar Windows workstation? Give me a break.
Yes, Linux is less money and should be used in schools to give the taxpayers a break. It should not be thought of as anything other than a tool though. The students will use a web browser, an office suite, and e-mail. They aren't going to be using it any differently than if they were using Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Can someone here tell me what kind of drugs the Katamari Damacy soundtrack producer was on?
Who cares about the soundtrack? The entire fucking game is one huge mushroom/acid twofer.
I mean seriously, when you roll over a "meow cat" and sit there laughing hysterically, sober, meowing at the screen you know that you're stoned.
Mr. Duron adds, "At BlueBear Network, we are dedicated to helping law enforcement keep our neighborhoods safe by providing the best biometric identification and information sharing technology available in a way that is easily deployed, totally integrated to existing systems and affordable for all police services from small detachments to large metropolitan police forces."
"At RedBear Network, we are dedicated to helping law enforcement keep degrading personal privacy by providing the best and most intrusive biometric identification and database sharing technology available in a way that every government sector can integrate personal data tracking features into existing personal information database creation systems which is affordable for all taxpayers both in rural and metropolitan areas who are getting fucked by this under the guise of added benefit."
Thanks for continuing to support companies with free advertising on Slashdot by giving them exposure for stealing our rights to privacy.
Remember, just because you were arrested and your mugshot was taken does not mean that you should be kept in a 3D database linked to every other anti-terrorist database out there, especially if your *alleged* offense occurred with the boundaries of the USA where you used to be innocent until proven guilty.
Cool, not only could viruses switch what appears on your screen when you type you could also wake up and find a huge picture of goatse on your keyboard.
IT IS hard to know whether to be impressed, suspicious or amused.
Combine such evidence of frenzied activity with mysterious secretiveness, and the imagination is liberated. A Google web browser? A Google operating system? All the world's information? World domination? Buy, clearly.
What is so hard to understand? Google, in a relatively short time, has been able to come to market with some amazing pieces of software that are stable, useful, and free even in their "Beta" stages.
I can't say that for plenty of other companies out there with huge market value... Some of those companies released "final" products that were little more than "Alpha" quality software that we tested for them on our own dimes for 15+ years.
Google, secretive or not, is producing good software at an alarming rate (yes, alarming is the word to use here) and at this time should be invested in. While I don't write for the Economist, it's pretty obvious to me that it's not Google's "ambiguity" driving its value, it's Google's proven track record which is getting people interested.
What's a couple thousand dollar gamble for most people that might have missed Yahoo's rise to fame and fortune? Knowing what Yahoo was/is doing and how that compares to what Google is doing now shows that this might be a better bet and people are willing to sink that cash into it.
Sam Jadallah: There was definitely a buzz at Microsoft about the Internet--we were trying to understand why everybody was getting all hyped up. Certainly for us up in the Northwest, we didn't know what to make of it. It seemed pretty cool, pretty exciting, but really what were you going to do with it? How was it going to change your day-to-day work?
:)
By doing this.
Gogling for DRM-free music files or e-book is a well known way for people to copy files.
So, are you saying that they are coming out of the gate with high-stakes to piss everyone off and create a stir and then they will re-write the bill completely to only go after DRM-free music files and e-books which aren't cached and thumbnailed?
So basically they would be coming up w/an entirely new bill that has nothing to do w/the current one?
I just find that hard to believe. If they wanted to do that they wouldn't have talked about Google caching material and making image thumbnails under "fair-use" and instead would have said that this was targeting music files and e-books available online that are pointed to by Google.
The bill defines information location tools as "any instrument through which one can locate information that is available by means of the Internet or any other digital network."
Would that mean that library networks that allow you to find copyrighted material are illegal too? All of the libraries I've been in recently have an online card catalogue which is usually accessable in-house and over the web... Granted they might not be caching materials and making thumbnails but who knows? Maybe the libraries even use site:library.org with Google to do searches.
But, cautions Mr. Knopf, Bill C-60 has received first reading only, and that "there"s a lot of time for them to take this out or to fix it."
He warns that "we shouldn't cripple the Googles of the world by imposing copyright chill on the very basis of their architecture. In fact, they perform a very useful service to copyright owners by enabling easy detection of infringement. The owners should go after the actual infringer, rather than effectively shooting the messenger."
Then why even bother to draft it? This seems like an awful waste of time and energy if you know the bill could cripple the search engine industry and that's not what you want.
If you have to replace your TV, tough shit. There are plenty of people who have had to replace or upgrade equipment to meet evolving FCC requirements and they didn't get a nickel.
;)
Then you support what I say. We shouldn't be subsidizng the converter boxes for the 15% of people that only receive OTA transmissions.
At least someone understands
In other words, yes a switch costs money, but if properly used the new spectrum would create even more economic value.
To be held without use by the corporations that pay for it as the highest cost. Why aren't we using the money that was collected from other spectrum selloffs to pay for *everyone* to get new DTV converter boxes?
Oh that's right... They wasted the People's money that was collected from spectrum sales on shit that the People probably didn't want and was likely unrelated to the spectrum and the technological advances around it.
Without the helping hand of government, you wouldn't have been able to post your reply.
Yup, the Internet was partially funded by government research grants and pushes by the US Government to get it to the masses but... The Internet didn't exist prior to their pushes in a different format which required some sort of mandated hardware updates to use the "new and improved Internet" once they were done.
DTV is just regular TV over digital signals rather than analog. Yes, it opens up spectrum (which is a whole different issue) but we should not be required to buy additional hardware and then subsidize those that can't afford it.
I didn't see the US Government saying that "everyone has to be on the Internet2 by 2009. If you don't have the capability now you need to pay for the upgraded hardware to take advantage of it. If you can't afford the hardware then everyone else will pay for it for you."
Apples and oranges I'm afraid.
You're right. HDTV isn't DTV. I was incorrectly using the term to appeal to the misunderstanding masses and I apologize.
My original post(s) still stand. We should not have been forced to move to a different format at our own expense and then have to subsidize others that can't afford the move!
What's going to happen when they open the spectrum up? Are they going to sell it at ENORMOUS COST to companies that will just hold it in check for safe keeping like they did with plenty of other parts of the spectrum?
Either way the spectrum, which is owned by the People, is being held hostage. I'd prefer that it be held hostage the way it is rather than by some corporation that has no plans to do anything with it except hold on to it to make sure no one else can have it.
A draft bill setting the deadline has bogged down in the House over whether the government should subsidize the purchase of $50 converter boxes for the 15% of households that get their TV signals via antennas. The boxes would convert digital signals to analog.
This is my favorite part of all of this. Not only are those of us that can afford digital TV being double-fucked for the creation of the HDTV standard and then having to pay for the tuner for something we just don't need, we now may have part of our tax dollars pay for someone else's digital tuner converter that can't afford HDTV! Absolutely unnecessary.
Let the market's consumers decide when it wants to adopt a technology. If only 5 million people have adopted the technology so far it's probably because it is infantile, unnecessary, and/or expensive. We do NOT need the government meddling in this and creating headaches, money issues, and horseshit for us. No matter what the pro-TV people say, HDTV is *not* something that the government needed to mandate. There are thousands of other far more important things they could have put time, effort, and dollars towards rather than making sure Friends and Seinfeld reruns, reality TV, and soaps come to you in crisp video.
I have posted on this same exact topic numerous times before but here's one of them.
Even though the wording of the last sentence in the blurb is misleading as it seems to mean that AMD's lawsuit was ruled illegal by the JFTC:
Bruce Sewell, vice president and general counsel for Intel, said: "One of the core principles of competition policy is the notion that such policies should be based on sound economics. There is a broad consensus that competition regulators should only intervene where there is evidence of harm to consumers. It is apparent the JFTC's Recommendation did not sufficiently weigh these important principles."
So, chips that *could* be faster (if companies were not using Intel compilers), less expensive, and have other better qualities (heat, size, etc), isn't good for consumers? Sorry to say Bruce, but obviously no one believes you.
Anticompetitive strongarming via financial kickbacks is probably only good for Intel's market position and the companies that are selling Intel-based machines regardless of what your and your company's spin is. Unless you can, without a shred of doubt or lies, prove otherwise, I really suggest you just shutup and comply.
Personally, I want to see Intel give back to consumers directly. Anyone who has purchased an Intel machine since AMD's introduction to the market should be given a large rebate and I'm not talking about settlements like $13.55 check or shipping mass quantities of unwanted product to schools. I don't want to see AMD get any money out of this as it will do little for the market's consumers who had to deal with the anti-competitive behavior just as much as AMD did (if not more).
So what's the point of DRMing it anyway ?
Because it's an attempt by the distributor to protect the MPAA's property. Yes, everyone knows the DRM will be broken by some (I'm sure it's not even worth it as DVDs are easy and better quality).
As long as the majority of people out there aren't going to be able to do what they want w/the downloaded files it'll make the MPAA happy.
I really don't intend to go to that amusement park again though.
Got on the Saturday or Sunday before Labor Day. The park is nearly empty on the Saturday and only a little more crowded on the Sunday.
We would go every year on that weekend and not have any wait over 20 minutes.
Cedar Point, while being the best amusement park in the world, has ruined me for the rest of my life... I cannot go to any other amusement park and enjoy myself like I would at Cedar Point. I have been to several other Cedar Fair parks (Valleyfair, Dorney Park, Michigan's Adventure, etc) but none are even close.
I miss Cedar Point, lines or not. It's their ingenuity in rides that make it amazing. They don't worry about themes and characters and instead worry about thrilling you!
They just needed a "reichtag excuse" to implement it, and terrorists unfortunately give them plenty of opportunities these days...
That should have read, "The People give them plenty of opportunities these days." The terrorists just give them an excuse.
Terrorists have found ways to hijack planes for the last 30 years without in-flight broadband. This proposal will fix nothing.
Just like any of the other security measures put into place after the 9/11 attacks this will not solve anything. Those interested in inflicting damage on nations they disagree with will do so by exploiting flaws in the *current* system.
All that the US Government is doing is creating bandaids that do nothing but remove our freedoms. Yes, the terrorists hate "freedom" and because of this erosion of personal freedoms in newsmedia, personal life, airplanes, telephony, and Internet they have weakened us a lot more than when they took down the Towers.
I don't know if you guys know this, but Webroot's Spy Sweeper is also delisting obvious spyware.
This is why people should not be supporting commercial entities that are selling spyware detection/removal software.
This should all be free, open source, software that includes a community updated database of spyware junk. That way money and corruption stay out of the mix.
One of these apparent lapses occurred one day when an experimenter asked Alex "what color three?" Laid out before Alex were sets of two, three and six objects, each set differently colored. Alex insisted on responding: "five." This made no sense given that the answer was supposed to be a color.
After several tries the experimenter gave up and said: "OK, Alex, tell me: what color five?" "None," the bird replied. This was correct, in that there was no color that graced exactly five of the objects. The researchers went on to incorporate "none" into future trials, and Alex consistently used the word correctly, they said.
If the researcher's comments on the subject are true and they aren't suffering from "proud parrot syndrome", how do you explain that the parrot decided to "up the ante" and play a more difficult game?
It's apparent from their words that the parrot does understand that there was a group that did not exist and thus it isn't some silly trick.
I use Drupal on my own site and love it. The ability to run PHP code in their "blocks" and the challenge of integrating Gallery v1 support to my own site gave me something to do for a while.
While it has its annoyances it is probably one of the best CMS I have seen and certainly the easiest to setup and maintain.
I just donated 20 Euros ($24 and change USD) to the project.
It's possible for a product to improve while the "real cost" remains the same. Why should broadband connections be different than anything else?
They shouldn't but considering that broadband connections have gotten *slower* while costs have risen (i.e. AT&T@Home (up to 10mbit) -> ATTBI (1.5mbit)), people really shouldn't believe this round of hype.
BBR: While we're only starting to see DOCSIS 2.0 deployment, and the higher speeds it can bring (Adelphia & Cox 15Mbps), DOCSIS 3.0 should only be a few years behind. Do you see the cable industry having any trouble keeping up with these bell plans?
DB: The "15 meg" speeds Cox is offering where they compete with Verizon fiber are mostly advertising. It's really 38 meg shared among 100 or so users, the same speed as the current services advertised at as 3 and 7 meg. That's too much oversubscription to deliver 15 meg most of the time, if even 5 or 10 people are downloading on the node. To regularly get past today's 5 meg or so, you need to bond more channels, which is what DOCSIS 3.0 offers.
DOCSIS 3.0 is real, mostly agreed, and the key vendors have the details and are making equipment for 2006. It's a shared 160/120 or higher, easily expandable to a shared gigabit. Real speeds to users will often be 20-50 megabits. It was developed to compete with higher speed DSL in Asia. Early in 2005, the U.S. cable companies realized Verizon was serious about
fiber, and pushed CableLabs and suppliers (Cisco, Motorola, Arris, Broadcom) to get DOCSIS 3.0 ready for the U.S. ASAP, and 2006 is realistic
with some pricey gear.
I will believe it when I see it. Depending on your home area, overselling of bandwidth can be a real problem. I have seen both DSL and Cable
providers routinely claiming speeds "up to". 5mpbs but real speeds are usually in the 3mbps range. Of course, the cable/DSL providers claim that "few sites allow you to take full advantage of your maximum bandwidth", which is a pile of horseshit, plain and simple. 92% of their userbase will believe that while the 8% that don't the broadband companies don't
want on their networks anyway.
While highspeed connections are great, I want to know where this backend bandwidth is coming from and who's paying for it? T3+ downstream speeds for only a tiny fraction of the real cost? I will be that 30+ megabits is nothing more than a pipe dream/marketing ploy. The real speeds we will be seeing are in the 10 to 15 range for "premium" members and will likely come with heavy "unadvertised". monthly caps. They want you to see webpages come up lightning fast (which happens at 1mbit) but they don't want you to actually see 10GB of torrents come in a day. They will still be catering to the 92% of their userbase that is the "mom and pop e-mail
and CNN checkers". The people who would really be excited about paying higher fees and getting the advantages of the massive bandwidth will end up with ToS violation warnings and slower than expected speeds.
Install a WiFi Max mobile station at each WalMart and you have close to an instant cell network not to mention ISP, and Cable TV replacement.
Walmart would likely disallow what it deems to be "inappropriate" traffic to flow over its network.
why does a city have to be 100% covered by 802.11a/b/g?
It doesn't but people like having Internet access all over their home area while only paying for it once.
I have GPRS, I have DSL, and I have wireless access via Panera and "nice neighbors". Guess what? The GPRS connection (and device) aren't cheap -- I pay $20/month on top of my cell phone plan for data service, luckily the phone was free. The DSL connection I have is ~$55/mo. The wireless connections I can take advantage of require a wireless LAN card and a device to take advantage of it (i.e. a laptop or PDA for practical use).
If I only had to have one device and I could use Internet all over my home area for $25/mo, I'd be a lot better off.
Please note: I'm not a fan of muni-wifi due to privacy implications.
All schools could save hundreds of dollars by using Linux instead of Windows, and it would give kids a better background.
A better background in what? Using OSS software instead of Microsoft software? In the real world (yes, there are some exceptions) people use Microsoft Office. HR drones and automated readers reviewing your resumes aren't going to understand that Open Office is like Microsoft Office. They want to see Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, and Microsoft Access on your resume, not their OSS counterparts.
Also, it might encourage the development of more OSS by the students.
Why? Because a machine that's running OSS will somehow be any less locked down by the admins than a similar Windows workstation? Give me a break.
Yes, Linux is less money and should be used in schools to give the taxpayers a break. It should not be thought of as anything other than a tool though. The students will use a web browser, an office suite, and e-mail. They aren't going to be using it any differently than if they were using Windows.