It's called a PowerBook.
My 15"PB is ready to use in about 2 seconds and I just close the lid to shut it down. And mine isn't even the latest version.
Please tell me you know the difference between Standby and actual Powering Down. No computer with a disk-loaded OS boots from POST to Ready in 2 seconds.
If you ask people who drink bottled water, they think they are getting better quality water with a better taste than they can get from the tap (even though they aren't getting better quality, they think they are).
Offtopic, but you're off your rocker here. Maybe you live in New York City or some such place, where the tap water is actually decent, but it's not like that everywhere. Try the tap water in San Angelo, Texas, which has a nice rainbow oilslick sheen on top and tastes like petroleum. Or Iowa City, Iowa, where they the water tastes like agricultural chemical runoff. Or Los Angeles, where it smells like an algae pond half the year. Or any building with old, rusty galvanized steel water pipes, where the water comes out orange all the time and you ingest so much iron oxide your stool turns black from iron poisoning. Bottled water isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than the tap water in a lot of places, friend.
IMO, the limit is what kind of weapons would an individual infantryman be using in the army. That is everything up to and including machineguns. Maybe grenades and stuff too. The supreme court even said as much in Miller vs. US, which is often trumpeted as a ruling against the 2nd amendment, but in reality all it said was that short barreled shotguns were not considered to be a valid weapon for normal military usage..
An "individual infantryman" isn't limited to machine guns and grenades. We got TOWs, Stingers, mortars, howitzers--- all those can be used by one man, even though they're usually served by 2+. On the flip side, a sniper generally has a spotter working with him, making it effectively a crew-served weapon. Should bolt action rifles with huge scopes be prohibitted then?
Personally, I think the line should be drawn at nuclear weapons...
wasn't aware that you had set the definition for informative. Let me give Mr. Dictionary.com a call and see if he concurs with you:
informative (n-form-tv) adj.
Serving to inform; providing or disclosing information; instructive.
The OP informed us that his Cingular GSM phone worked. Whether that is relevant, on topic, or even true can be debated someplace else.
Relevance and veracity are not in question. By your quoted definition, the information does not meet the definition. The article to which it is attached already characterizes the failure as not total, thereby including the information that "some phones work". The poster above doesn't add anything to that. His geographic location would be additional information, albeit of little use. Merely stating "my phone works" is objectively uninformative.
As a matter of fact, about thirty seconds after loading this story I got a call on my Cingular GSM phone from one of my friends who also has a Cingular GSM phone.
All right, which one of you monkeys rated this "+1 informative"? The poster provides (unsubstantiated) information that TWO Cingular GSM phones, at an undisclosed location, were working at 2:30am. This does not meet the definition of "informative".
Neither are "misunderestimate", or "impactful". He's poking fun at the yahoo spokeswoman who used the word "preventative", when the actual word is "preventive" (though the former has been mis-used since the 1600's). In other words, IT'S A JOKE YOU DAFT BASTARD!
The goal of universal telephone service was so that *everyone* could have a telephone.
The purpose of NASA or the interstate highway system are to benefit large segments of the population, but not necessarily everyone.
(Yes, I realize that not everyone has a telephone, but that is the *goal*. It is not the *goal* for everyone to have an interstate highway in their neighborhood)
I don't disagree with what you say, but at the same time none of those things are rights, which is my point. To reiterate: Just because government provides money for (X), that does not elevate (X) to the level of a "basic human right". The concept of "human rights" is based upon the reasoning that each person, no matter who they are, deserves certain considerations from his or her fellow humans. The most basic of human rights are those which we all can enjoy without placing any burden on others (life and liberty, for example). Internet access clearly fails the test as it a) only applies to people who live somewhere where internet access is avaialable, and b) forces taxpayers to shoulder the burden of providing access to those who otherwise can't afford it. In short, exercising true rights doesn't cost anyone anything. I costs nothing for me to speak my political opinions in public. It costs nothing for me to walk down the street without being arrested. It costs nothing for me to not be killed by my neighbor.
And don't confuse the cost of protecting rights with the cost of exercising them. I know that police, etc. costs money; that's a separate issue. Basic human rights are something we're born with, not something granted to us by a "benevolent, magnanimous" government.
The u.S. government sees the telephone as a basic human right. So much so that there is STILL a tax on everyone's phone bill to pay for everybody out in a rural area to have phone service.
Hogwash. Government funding of something does not automagically elevate it to the level of a basic human right. I can't speak for anywhere else, but int the US, telephone service is no more considered a "human right" than the "right to watch expensive spacecraft explode and/or disintegrate" (NASA), or the "right to an interstate highway system".
Uh, I believe we already have a proven interface based on a larger scaler version of this....the ipod...
Proven how? One does not hold a mouse the same way one holds an iPod. The iPod proves the jog dial thingy wors with the thumb. This mouse design doesn't put it under the thumb.
DSL is just too unreliable. Think about it..there is a direct connection between your dsl modem and a dsl modem at the phone company. If the modem at the phone company dies, then you and just you are out of luck until they fix it.
It's not a DSL modem at their end, it's a rack-mounted DSLAM with from 16 to 64 (or more?) channels, each one serving a single DSL customer. First, single channels seldom die and leave the rest working. That'd usually only happen due to a manufacturing flaw. Failures usually involve an entire DSLAM crapping out, which generally results in many complaints. It's a fairly simple process to A) disconnect and remove bad DSLAM, and B) slide in new DSLAM and reconnect. Maintenance is fairly centralized at CO's, so response time to failures is pretty quick. Cable, on the other hand, has hundreds of amps and multiplexers stuffed in boxes by the side of the road and/or hanging off poles. Replacement of an amp on a pole is certainly no easier than sawapping out a DSLAM, plus you have to go out and find the right pole.
1. The community should purchase the network: all the last mile copper and rights of way should be owned by the commons and not monopolized by any private entity.
2. Any company (including the Baby Bells) can bid to rent the use of the network for the provision of any service (dialtone, DSL, etc.) to any customer. These rents should be for a term that allows for regular adjustment as the market changes.
In theory I'm with you 100%, but I can imagine some real nightmare situations. I live in a part of Los Angeles that's served by Verizon (formerly GTE) and getting them, a private company, to provide last-mile broadband in some areas has proved impossible. There are thousands of ridiculously wealthy people in the Brentwood/Pacific Palisades area that are willing to pay, but they're all stuck with dialup because the CO is too far and Verizon is too disorganized to do anything about it. A few pay for T1's, but they're rare. So despite immense market pressure, Verizon continues to leave these folks in the technological stone age. Can you imagine a city-run bureaucracy running this show?
Then again, that brings to mind the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Being a city-run "company" of sorts, it didn't get caught up in the whole stupid faux-deregulation power company shell game we had here (Enron et. al) and, in fact, was selling lots of surplus power. LA-DWP does make for a good argument for municipal control...
But the real question, as I see it, is how do you actually transfer the "last mile" from RBOCs like SBC and Verizon to the city? Basically, the RBOC's reason for existing is to install/maintain the "last mile". What part of it do you give to the city? Only the copper from the CO to the residences/businesses? Or do the cities get the CO's too? If they do, how do they implement seperate control of said CO when it's part of a multi-city distributed network? And if all the cities took over ownership of the local loop service, then what does that leave the RBOCs with, besides several thousand unemployed techs and a fleet of trucks they have no more use for? They'd essentially have to leave it all under RBOC maintenance and create another crappy FCC brokered deal with the RBOC where the city charges the RBOC to lease out line use, and the RBOC charges back for maintaining it. I suspect such a deal would be abused like any other. As much as I hate Verizon, I don't think a municipal takeover is the answer...
Slashdot Mirror
Please tell me you know the difference between Standby and actual Powering Down. No computer with a disk-loaded OS boots from POST to Ready in 2 seconds.
Offtopic, but you're off your rocker here. Maybe you live in New York City or some such place, where the tap water is actually decent, but it's not like that everywhere. Try the tap water in San Angelo, Texas, which has a nice rainbow oilslick sheen on top and tastes like petroleum. Or Iowa City, Iowa, where they the water tastes like agricultural chemical runoff. Or Los Angeles, where it smells like an algae pond half the year. Or any building with old, rusty galvanized steel water pipes, where the water comes out orange all the time and you ingest so much iron oxide your stool turns black from iron poisoning. Bottled water isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than the tap water in a lot of places, friend.
An "individual infantryman" isn't limited to machine guns and grenades. We got TOWs, Stingers, mortars, howitzers--- all those can be used by one man, even though they're usually served by 2+. On the flip side, a sniper generally has a spotter working with him, making it effectively a crew-served weapon. Should bolt action rifles with huge scopes be prohibitted then?
Personally, I think the line should be drawn at nuclear weapons...
informative (n-form-tv) adj.
Serving to inform; providing or disclosing information; instructive.
The OP informed us that his Cingular GSM phone worked. Whether that is relevant, on topic, or even true can be debated someplace else.
Relevance and veracity are not in question. By your quoted definition, the information does not meet the definition. The article to which it is attached already characterizes the failure as not total, thereby including the information that "some phones work". The poster above doesn't add anything to that. His geographic location would be additional information, albeit of little use. Merely stating "my phone works" is objectively uninformative.
All right, which one of you monkeys rated this "+1 informative"? The poster provides (unsubstantiated) information that TWO Cingular GSM phones, at an undisclosed location, were working at 2:30am. This does not meet the definition of "informative".
irregardless IS NOT A WORD
Neither are "misunderestimate", or "impactful". He's poking fun at the yahoo spokeswoman who used the word "preventative", when the actual word is "preventive" (though the former has been mis-used since the 1600's). In other words, IT'S A JOKE YOU DAFT BASTARD!
I don't disagree with what you say, but at the same time none of those things are rights, which is my point. To reiterate: Just because government provides money for (X), that does not elevate (X) to the level of a "basic human right". The concept of "human rights" is based upon the reasoning that each person, no matter who they are, deserves certain considerations from his or her fellow humans. The most basic of human rights are those which we all can enjoy without placing any burden on others (life and liberty, for example). Internet access clearly fails the test as it a) only applies to people who live somewhere where internet access is avaialable, and b) forces taxpayers to shoulder the burden of providing access to those who otherwise can't afford it. In short, exercising true rights doesn't cost anyone anything. I costs nothing for me to speak my political opinions in public. It costs nothing for me to walk down the street without being arrested. It costs nothing for me to not be killed by my neighbor.
And don't confuse the cost of protecting rights with the cost of exercising them. I know that police, etc. costs money; that's a separate issue. Basic human rights are something we're born with, not something granted to us by a "benevolent, magnanimous" government.
Hogwash. Government funding of something does not automagically elevate it to the level of a basic human right. I can't speak for anywhere else, but int the US, telephone service is no more considered a "human right" than the "right to watch expensive spacecraft explode and/or disintegrate" (NASA), or the "right to an interstate highway system".
Proven how? One does not hold a mouse the same way one holds an iPod. The iPod proves the jog dial thingy wors with the thumb. This mouse design doesn't put it under the thumb.
It's not a DSL modem at their end, it's a rack-mounted DSLAM with from 16 to 64 (or more?) channels, each one serving a single DSL customer. First, single channels seldom die and leave the rest working. That'd usually only happen due to a manufacturing flaw. Failures usually involve an entire DSLAM crapping out, which generally results in many complaints. It's a fairly simple process to A) disconnect and remove bad DSLAM, and B) slide in new DSLAM and reconnect. Maintenance is fairly centralized at CO's, so response time to failures is pretty quick. Cable, on the other hand, has hundreds of amps and multiplexers stuffed in boxes by the side of the road and/or hanging off poles. Replacement of an amp on a pole is certainly no easier than sawapping out a DSLAM, plus you have to go out and find the right pole.
2. Any company (including the Baby Bells) can bid to rent the use of the network for the provision of any service (dialtone, DSL, etc.) to any customer. These rents should be for a term that allows for regular adjustment as the market changes.
In theory I'm with you 100%, but I can imagine some real nightmare situations. I live in a part of Los Angeles that's served by Verizon (formerly GTE) and getting them, a private company, to provide last-mile broadband in some areas has proved impossible. There are thousands of ridiculously wealthy people in the Brentwood/Pacific Palisades area that are willing to pay, but they're all stuck with dialup because the CO is too far and Verizon is too disorganized to do anything about it. A few pay for T1's, but they're rare. So despite immense market pressure, Verizon continues to leave these folks in the technological stone age. Can you imagine a city-run bureaucracy running this show?
Then again, that brings to mind the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Being a city-run "company" of sorts, it didn't get caught up in the whole stupid faux-deregulation power company shell game we had here (Enron et. al) and, in fact, was selling lots of surplus power. LA-DWP does make for a good argument for municipal control...
But the real question, as I see it, is how do you actually transfer the "last mile" from RBOCs like SBC and Verizon to the city? Basically, the RBOC's reason for existing is to install/maintain the "last mile". What part of it do you give to the city? Only the copper from the CO to the residences/businesses? Or do the cities get the CO's too? If they do, how do they implement seperate control of said CO when it's part of a multi-city distributed network? And if all the cities took over ownership of the local loop service, then what does that leave the RBOCs with, besides several thousand unemployed techs and a fleet of trucks they have no more use for? They'd essentially have to leave it all under RBOC maintenance and create another crappy FCC brokered deal with the RBOC where the city charges the RBOC to lease out line use, and the RBOC charges back for maintaining it. I suspect such a deal would be abused like any other. As much as I hate Verizon, I don't think a municipal takeover is the answer...