It seems odd to concentrate only on what's actually happening, rather than what a detailed analysis suggests might happen, but shouldn't be allowed to.
It's valid to document the acutal problems instead of the potential problems, but not when it means ignoring the potential problems until they bite us (collectively) in the ass.
Part of a systemic analysis is the opportunity to fix the flaws before they're exploited.
User errors make up the majority of all computer problems, but most individual user errors have significantly lower potential impact than system flaws that could allow intentional mischief. It's valid to put this in context, but not to whitewash the severity of system problems by masking it with the predominance of user errors.
Let's see. An early Mac would be a Mac+ or even a MacSE, but definitely an all-in-one. You could call a Lisa an early Mac, but it's a Lisa. This is an Apple I. Not even vaguely related to a Mac, other than it came from the same company.
This is the first production model that Apple sold, and those were hand-assembled in Woz' garage. The "moron" is likely to get more than his asking price -- these are not only pieces of history, they're legitimate museum pieces.
Who's the moron -- the one who owns a piece of history and understands its value, or the one who does neither?
What can the Green Party, or any third party do to make their candidates more relevant at the national level? Unless/until the national polls put a third-party candidate beyond potential "spoiler" numbers, as happened with Anderson in 1980 and Perot in 1992, the national media provide scant coverage. I think this exposure is critical to achieving relevancy, let alone victory.
What can be done to coerce the media into covering third-party or independant candidates? Most people are unwilling to vote for a candidate they don't believe can win. Most identify canditates they haven't seen on the news as candidates that cannot win.
Short of spending 30 years building a national party infrastructure from scratch to rival the Democrats or Republicans, what can be done? Does relevancy require infrastructure?
The Electoral College is one of the "checks and balances" that governs the conduct and outcome of our elections. The principal purpose of the Electoral College is to ensure that the candidate who wins the most elections is the one who wins, not necessarily the one who wins the most votes. The point is to make it as difficult as possible for someone to rig a national election by minimizing the impact of any single rigged local election.
One of the biggest problems is at the state level, not national. Most states have a "winner-take-all" electoral vote system. These things are decided on a state-by-state basis. Some states apportion electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote or the number of precincts or districts carried. If more states abandoned "winner-take-all," more third-party candidates would receive electoral votes. The states maintain this system because it benefits the two dominant parties and shuts out independent voices. The lawmakers who would need to make the change do not see it in their interest to do so.
Abolishing the Electoral College would only make it easier to rig elections by removing one of the checks and balances. If the election is decided on only the national gross vote tally, smaller states (everything except major cities, actually) will be irrelevant. States have more power in an election with the Electoral College than without.
I am a member of the Libertarian Party. I am aware of what the party is doing at the local level, and the slow progress being made.
What can the Libertarian Party, or any third party do to make their candidates more relevant at the national level? Unless/until the national polls put a third-party candidate beyond potential "spoiler" numbers, as happened with Anderson in 1980 and Perot in 1992, the national media provide scant coverage. I think this exposure is critical to achieving relevancy, let alone victory.
What can be done to coerce the media into covering third-party or independant candidates? Most people are unwilling to vote for a candidate they don't believe can win. Most identify canditates they haven't seen on the news as candidates that cannot win.
Short of spending 30 years building a national party infrastructure from scratch to rival the Democrats or Republicans, what can be done? Does relevancy require infrastructure?
If you ask and receive approval, you can negotiate the royalty rate with the original author. If you don't ask, or they won't agree, you can still do it, using the published royalty schedule. HOWEVER, the published schedule is widely considered punitive, meaning that if I put out an album with a cover on it that I haven't received permission for, the original author will make more from the album sales than I do, maybe even more than my entire share -- meaning I'd lose money on every disc.
This was a change from the early days where you just got sued.
One of my favorite quotes from the World Bank protests was when a local TV reporter announced that "well organized bands of anarchists are roaming the streets of Washington."
If you are required to use it for work, it's a business expense that should be paid by your employer. If they won't pay, you may be able to deduct some of these expenses as unreimbursed business expenses at tax time. IANAL. IANATA. YMMV.
In my previous job, I finally started refusing to pay for things that the company required me to have to do my job. You want me to have a pager, provide it. You want me to have a cell phone, provide it. You want me to have a home computer, provide it. You want me to have an Internet connection, provide it. My boss had a breakdown, and his boss was livid, but Human Resources came to my rescue and told them bluntly they had to pay for what I needed to do my job, and that I couldn't be disciplined for refusing to subsidize my employer.
If you love your job, talk to your personnel department and see if someone can talk sense into your bosses. Otherwise, I'd look for a job where they treat you fairly.
You should trot out the bullshit detector before posting something like this.
Yes, Linux has a broader potential hardware base than Windows because it runs on multiple platforms. However, Windows has much broader actual driver support on its platform.
Don't compare what is supportable with what's supported as if they were the same thing. They're not.
Does Linux have drivers for things that Windows doesn't? Of course! Are there more devices supported under Linux than Windows? Depends on what you mean by supported. Are there more drivers availble for Windows than Linux? Sadly so!
What should have been pointed out was that he's using brand new OEM integrated hardware. In a Windows architecture, that means they need Windows drivers before they can ship, and creating the drivers is the manufacturer's responsibility. With Linux, they likely don't plan on releasing drivers, and certainly wouldn't hold up the release because they'd see it as someone else's responsiblity anyway.
If he were to use Microsoft's standard arguments, he should be blaming the vendor for releasing unsupported hardware, rather than Linux for not supporting everything under the sun. Until the major hardware manufacturers support Linux at the same development level as Windows, this will continue to be a problem.
I'll bet OS/2 didn't have a driver for his sound card, either.
Software Assurance is a multi-year term. If you are under SA, you get all releases during your term for the price of media kits.
If you do not keep your product under SA, and you want to upgrade, you purchase new product. For corporate licensing customers, there are no longer such things as upgrades, only SA.
We evaluated SA with regard to our upgrade schedule, which is roughly annual, and Microsoft's, which is 18-24 months for Office and longer for Windows. We found that IF we were going to continue to support a Microsoft environment, AND we were going to upgrade versions more frequently than once every five years, it was more economical to stay under SA for the duration.
This made sense in our environment. Given their license and SA structure, it's not so much a matter of whether an upgrade is released during your SA term, but whether an upgrade is released before SA and renewals exceed the cost of new licenses. You can skip SA and buy new licenses every time you want to upgrade, or you can pay SA and get the upgrades (almost free) when they come along.
Let's not oversimplify the equation. If you pay SA and they don't release an update, you have at least purchased the option or renewing SA. If they release an update during the renewal, you're still further ahead than if you had skipped SA and had to buy new licenses.
BTW, in the agreement, they explicitly promise you nothing.
If you are comparing analog cable to digital satellite service, don't -- there isn't any comparison.
If it's digital cable, bet a complete channel map for the cable and satellite options, along with pricnig, and compare.
I compared my digital satellite (DirecTV) to my girlfriend's digital cable (Comcast) and found that she got about a dozen video and about 20 audio channels I don't get. On the other hand, I got about 20 video channels she didn't. Quality was about the same for both, but selection and pricing differed.
I seldom lose my DirecTV service due to weather. Torrential downpour with thunderstorms can knock me out for 5-15 minutes, usually less or not at all.
Also compare customer service. My cable company people are bastards. The DirecTV people are nice and easy to work with. YMMV.
Finally, look at the cost of equipment. Most of the satellite receivers are given to you cheap with a year-long subscription to almost everything, while the cable boxen are usually leased for a monthly fee. You have the option of buying your own satellite receiver to get the features you want.
If it's DirecTV you're considering, ask if HDTV and DVR matter to you. With DirecTV, you can get either, but not both, in one box right now. With cable, you can get both now.
I understand our software products (GFI Mail Essentials, Symantec Anti-Virus Corporate Edition, Symantec Anti-Virus and Filtering for Microsoft Exchange) all allow the bounces and NDRs to be modified or disabled.
Because these products register themselves with the SMTP transport or with Exchange as an event sink, they can alter the default behavior and allow you to do things that are not entirely consistent with the rfc. Which is exactly what everyone is on about.
Remember, this is a thread about the anti-virus software generated bounces and non-delivery reports, not about smtp at the rfc level. You are correct, but your point is irrelevant.
I don't understand why the anti-virus vendors get all the criticism for including features that notify senders. Why not criticize the admins who install the software with the default settings and never configure it?
All the products we use allow you to modify or disable the non-delivery reports or bounce messages, and we do. We've seen that routing all the bounce messages during a spam or virus outbreak degrades our server performance more than the spam or viruses. We notify our local users when we munge their mail because it was infected, but otherwise, we just deal with it.
Blame the administrator for the way their system is configured, not the software companies for providing features many sites demand.
Are we reaching a point where every RFC should be submitted as a patent application, just to prevent others from doing it than suing everyone who follows a standard?
I worked in a pre-clinical drug development facility (read "drug lab") that did everything up through animal testing at my location. I was responsible for the system that collected data. Despite having contractors and program managers who were responsible for everything outside the data center, I was periodically forced to put on scrubs, gloves, booties, mask and boufant and trudge through animal rooms testing data ports.
Like I said, this was definitively someone else's job, and they were paid quite well for it, but I still got stuck with it. The worst came after a 24 hour system upgrade, where I finished my tasks and was then sent in for another four hours in the animal rooms. Hazardous environment, not my job, physically stressful, and adding several hours of physical labor to the end of an already 24-hour shift. Dogs, monkeys, mice, rabbits, and they made me dress funny, too.
I was already unhappy with my job and looking to leave. Finding out that they were willing to treat me worse than the lab animals motivated me, but wasn't a real surprise.
If SCO walked away, and IBM settled for trivial terms, everyone loses. IF SCO walks away (very doubtful), IBM should, possibly with Novell's help, liberate all involved IP from SCO's control and custody.
IBM should OWN them. Without buying them. Anything else would still reward fraud.
I'm not saying he isn't behind this, or that he wouldn't approve of your projected outcome, but subterfuge and finesse were never his strong points. His mind was also fogged long before he left Novell.
I have a problem. I always assume intent. More often, stupidity is a more correct reason. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Two things I saw when I was writing product reviews. First, it was very common for the manufacturer to test the review unit before shipping it. It was uncommon to get hardware that hadn't been opened and resealed. Second, preproduction units often had different specs than the production models. Usually, known differences were noted, though.
A lot of the manufacturer reps and pr reps I worked with would hand-select or pre-screen review units, but I never ran into any where I thought I was being given something better than what would ship just to get a better review.
First, make them tell you what they really want, not what they want you to do. Getting an accurate description of the goal, rather than the process as they envision it, will let you suggest alternate methods to achieve the goal.
Second, don't tell them "no", tell them what it will take (or cost) to meet their goal. Break it down in terms of cost and benefit. Find ways to say "yes".
If you tell them that what they want will cost $40K, require about 200 hours of overtime over 4 months, and cost $15K per year to maintain, they may change their minds about whether they really need it. If you can show them a way to get what they really need (or progress in that direction), they may be willing to accept alternatives.
I've seen people with advanced degrees not considered for entry-level positions. The premise was that these people wanted a career (and higher pay) than people with less education, who wanted a job and the experience it would provide.
I've seen people without degrees not considered for positions because it was the company's policy to require a degree.
More often, what I've seen is the experience evaluated first, then the educational background.
I do not have a degree. I have not been considered for some jobs because of this, particularly early in my career. At this point, 20+ years of experience seems to count for more than a degree would, and I very rarely find myself not being considered. Would I be considered equally with someone with the degree and the same experience? Probably not.
An advanced degree may be overkill for the entry-level positions, but shouldn't often be a hindrance if you aren't asking for more money because of it.
Later in your career, you'll probably get better value from the advanced degree, both personally and professionally. Amusingly, as your experience piles up, the degree will be less of a hiring decision, but you'll have a better chance to use what you've learned.
If this was your basement and you wanted to do something simple, that would be different. At work, and on something big like a distribution panel, don't even think about it -- call in a licensed electrician and get it cleaned up.
What's the worst that could happen? You kill yourself, burn your building down, and get your heirs sued for damages.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems odd to concentrate only on what's actually happening, rather than what a detailed analysis suggests might happen, but shouldn't be allowed to.
It's valid to document the acutal problems instead of the potential problems, but not when it means ignoring the potential problems until they bite us (collectively) in the ass.
Part of a systemic analysis is the opportunity to fix the flaws before they're exploited.
User errors make up the majority of all computer problems, but most individual user errors have significantly lower potential impact than system flaws that could allow intentional mischief. It's valid to put this in context, but not to whitewash the severity of system problems by masking it with the predominance of user errors.
Let's see. An early Mac would be a Mac+ or even a MacSE, but definitely an all-in-one. You could call a Lisa an early Mac, but it's a Lisa. This is an Apple I. Not even vaguely related to a Mac, other than it came from the same company.
This is the first production model that Apple sold, and those were hand-assembled in Woz' garage. The "moron" is likely to get more than his asking price -- these are not only pieces of history, they're legitimate museum pieces.
Who's the moron -- the one who owns a piece of history and understands its value, or the one who does neither?
What can the Green Party, or any third party do to make their candidates more relevant at the national level? Unless/until the national polls put a third-party candidate beyond potential "spoiler" numbers, as happened with Anderson in 1980 and Perot in 1992, the national media provide scant coverage. I think this exposure is critical to achieving relevancy, let alone victory.
What can be done to coerce the media into covering third-party or independant candidates? Most people are unwilling to vote for a candidate they don't believe can win. Most identify canditates they haven't seen on the news as candidates that cannot win.
Short of spending 30 years building a national party infrastructure from scratch to rival the Democrats or Republicans, what can be done? Does relevancy require infrastructure?
Start by understanding its purpose.
The Electoral College is one of the "checks and balances" that governs the conduct and outcome of our elections. The principal purpose of the Electoral College is to ensure that the candidate who wins the most elections is the one who wins, not necessarily the one who wins the most votes. The point is to make it as difficult as possible for someone to rig a national election by minimizing the impact of any single rigged local election.
One of the biggest problems is at the state level, not national. Most states have a "winner-take-all" electoral vote system. These things are decided on a state-by-state basis. Some states apportion electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote or the number of precincts or districts carried. If more states abandoned "winner-take-all," more third-party candidates would receive electoral votes. The states maintain this system because it benefits the two dominant parties and shuts out independent voices. The lawmakers who would need to make the change do not see it in their interest to do so.
Abolishing the Electoral College would only make it easier to rig elections by removing one of the checks and balances. If the election is decided on only the national gross vote tally, smaller states (everything except major cities, actually) will be irrelevant. States have more power in an election with the Electoral College than without.
I am a member of the Libertarian Party. I am aware of what the party is doing at the local level, and the slow progress being made.
What can the Libertarian Party, or any third party do to make their candidates more relevant at the national level? Unless/until the national polls put a third-party candidate beyond potential "spoiler" numbers, as happened with Anderson in 1980 and Perot in 1992, the national media provide scant coverage. I think this exposure is critical to achieving relevancy, let alone victory.
What can be done to coerce the media into covering third-party or independant candidates? Most people are unwilling to vote for a candidate they don't believe can win. Most identify canditates they haven't seen on the news as candidates that cannot win.
Short of spending 30 years building a national party infrastructure from scratch to rival the Democrats or Republicans, what can be done? Does relevancy require infrastructure?
You can ask or you can not ask.
If you ask and receive approval, you can negotiate the royalty rate with the original author. If you don't ask, or they won't agree, you can still do it, using the published royalty schedule. HOWEVER, the published schedule is widely considered punitive, meaning that if I put out an album with a cover on it that I haven't received permission for, the original author will make more from the album sales than I do, maybe even more than my entire share -- meaning I'd lose money on every disc.
This was a change from the early days where you just got sued.
One of my favorite quotes from the World Bank protests was when a local TV reporter announced that "well organized bands of anarchists are roaming the streets of Washington."
Me thinks they missed the nuances...
If you are required to use it for work, it's a business expense that should be paid by your employer. If they won't pay, you may be able to deduct some of these expenses as unreimbursed business expenses at tax time. IANAL. IANATA. YMMV.
In my previous job, I finally started refusing to pay for things that the company required me to have to do my job. You want me to have a pager, provide it. You want me to have a cell phone, provide it. You want me to have a home computer, provide it. You want me to have an Internet connection, provide it. My boss had a breakdown, and his boss was livid, but Human Resources came to my rescue and told them bluntly they had to pay for what I needed to do my job, and that I couldn't be disciplined for refusing to subsidize my employer.
If you love your job, talk to your personnel department and see if someone can talk sense into your bosses. Otherwise, I'd look for a job where they treat you fairly.
You should trot out the bullshit detector before posting something like this.
Yes, Linux has a broader potential hardware base than Windows because it runs on multiple platforms. However, Windows has much broader actual driver support on its platform.
Don't compare what is supportable with what's supported as if they were the same thing. They're not.
Does Linux have drivers for things that Windows doesn't? Of course! Are there more devices supported under Linux than Windows? Depends on what you mean by supported. Are there more drivers availble for Windows than Linux? Sadly so!
What should have been pointed out was that he's using brand new OEM integrated hardware. In a Windows architecture, that means they need Windows drivers before they can ship, and creating the drivers is the manufacturer's responsibility. With Linux, they likely don't plan on releasing drivers, and certainly wouldn't hold up the release because they'd see it as someone else's responsiblity anyway.
If he were to use Microsoft's standard arguments, he should be blaming the vendor for releasing unsupported hardware, rather than Linux for not supporting everything under the sun. Until the major hardware manufacturers support Linux at the same development level as Windows, this will continue to be a problem.
I'll bet OS/2 didn't have a driver for his sound card, either.
identical, down to title and job description.
a dd r=1736+n+quebec+st&zip=22207&search=Search+by+Loca tion
Christine M. Schabacker, 2515 N. Lincoln St.
http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php?type=loc&
Even better, she's a government counselor.
I thought the personal contribution limit was $2000. I ran my address, and one of my neighbors made two $2000 contributions to GWB.
Is this anything to worry about since the site runs on data that's already been publicly reported?
Software Assurance is a multi-year term. If you are under SA, you get all releases during your term for the price of media kits.
If you do not keep your product under SA, and you want to upgrade, you purchase new product. For corporate licensing customers, there are no longer such things as upgrades, only SA.
We evaluated SA with regard to our upgrade schedule, which is roughly annual, and Microsoft's, which is 18-24 months for Office and longer for Windows. We found that IF we were going to continue to support a Microsoft environment, AND we were going to upgrade versions more frequently than once every five years, it was more economical to stay under SA for the duration.
This made sense in our environment. Given their license and SA structure, it's not so much a matter of whether an upgrade is released during your SA term, but whether an upgrade is released before SA and renewals exceed the cost of new licenses. You can skip SA and buy new licenses every time you want to upgrade, or you can pay SA and get the upgrades (almost free) when they come along.
Let's not oversimplify the equation. If you pay SA and they don't release an update, you have at least purchased the option or renewing SA. If they release an update during the renewal, you're still further ahead than if you had skipped SA and had to buy new licenses.
BTW, in the agreement, they explicitly promise you nothing.
If you are comparing analog cable to digital satellite service, don't -- there isn't any comparison.
If it's digital cable, bet a complete channel map for the cable and satellite options, along with pricnig, and compare.
I compared my digital satellite (DirecTV) to my girlfriend's digital cable (Comcast) and found that she got about a dozen video and about 20 audio channels I don't get. On the other hand, I got about 20 video channels she didn't. Quality was about the same for both, but selection and pricing differed.
I seldom lose my DirecTV service due to weather. Torrential downpour with thunderstorms can knock me out for 5-15 minutes, usually less or not at all.
Also compare customer service. My cable company people are bastards. The DirecTV people are nice and easy to work with. YMMV.
Finally, look at the cost of equipment. Most of the satellite receivers are given to you cheap with a year-long subscription to almost everything, while the cable boxen are usually leased for a monthly fee. You have the option of buying your own satellite receiver to get the features you want.
If it's DirecTV you're considering, ask if HDTV and DVR matter to you. With DirecTV, you can get either, but not both, in one box right now. With cable, you can get both now.
I understand the RFC requires a bounce or ndr.
I understand our software products (GFI Mail Essentials, Symantec Anti-Virus Corporate Edition, Symantec Anti-Virus and Filtering for Microsoft Exchange) all allow the bounces and NDRs to be modified or disabled.
Because these products register themselves with the SMTP transport or with Exchange as an event sink, they can alter the default behavior and allow you to do things that are not entirely consistent with the rfc. Which is exactly what everyone is on about.
Remember, this is a thread about the anti-virus software generated bounces and non-delivery reports, not about smtp at the rfc level. You are correct, but your point is irrelevant.
I don't understand why the anti-virus vendors get all the criticism for including features that notify senders. Why not criticize the admins who install the software with the default settings and never configure it?
All the products we use allow you to modify or disable the non-delivery reports or bounce messages, and we do. We've seen that routing all the bounce messages during a spam or virus outbreak degrades our server performance more than the spam or viruses. We notify our local users when we munge their mail because it was infected, but otherwise, we just deal with it.
Blame the administrator for the way their system is configured, not the software companies for providing features many sites demand.
Are we reaching a point where every RFC should be submitted as a patent application, just to prevent others from doing it than suing everyone who follows a standard?
Several years ago, I had the job from hell.
I worked in a pre-clinical drug development facility (read "drug lab") that did everything up through animal testing at my location. I was responsible for the system that collected data. Despite having contractors and program managers who were responsible for everything outside the data center, I was periodically forced to put on scrubs, gloves, booties, mask and boufant and trudge through animal rooms testing data ports.
Like I said, this was definitively someone else's job, and they were paid quite well for it, but I still got stuck with it. The worst came after a 24 hour system upgrade, where I finished my tasks and was then sent in for another four hours in the animal rooms. Hazardous environment, not my job, physically stressful, and adding several hours of physical labor to the end of an already 24-hour shift. Dogs, monkeys, mice, rabbits, and they made me dress funny, too.
I was already unhappy with my job and looking to leave. Finding out that they were willing to treat me worse than the lab animals motivated me, but wasn't a real surprise.
Fuck it, kill 'em dead.
If SCO walked away, and IBM settled for trivial terms, everyone loses. IF SCO walks away (very doubtful), IBM should, possibly with Novell's help, liberate all involved IP from SCO's control and custody.
IBM should OWN them. Without buying them. Anything else would still reward fraud.
don't look here, look over there. there's nothing happening here.
I think you give Ray way too much credit.
I'm not saying he isn't behind this, or that he wouldn't approve of your projected outcome, but subterfuge and finesse were never his strong points. His mind was also fogged long before he left Novell.
I have a problem. I always assume intent. More often, stupidity is a more correct reason. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Two things I saw when I was writing product reviews. First, it was very common for the manufacturer to test the review unit before shipping it. It was uncommon to get hardware that hadn't been opened and resealed. Second, preproduction units often had different specs than the production models. Usually, known differences were noted, though.
A lot of the manufacturer reps and pr reps I worked with would hand-select or pre-screen review units, but I never ran into any where I thought I was being given something better than what would ship just to get a better review.
First, make them tell you what they really want, not what they want you to do. Getting an accurate description of the goal, rather than the process as they envision it, will let you suggest alternate methods to achieve the goal.
Second, don't tell them "no", tell them what it will take (or cost) to meet their goal. Break it down in terms of cost and benefit. Find ways to say "yes".
If you tell them that what they want will cost $40K, require about 200 hours of overtime over 4 months, and cost $15K per year to maintain, they may change their minds about whether they really need it. If you can show them a way to get what they really need (or progress in that direction), they may be willing to accept alternatives.
I've seen people with advanced degrees not considered for entry-level positions. The premise was that these people wanted a career (and higher pay) than people with less education, who wanted a job and the experience it would provide.
I've seen people without degrees not considered for positions because it was the company's policy to require a degree.
More often, what I've seen is the experience evaluated first, then the educational background.
I do not have a degree. I have not been considered for some jobs because of this, particularly early in my career. At this point, 20+ years of experience seems to count for more than a degree would, and I very rarely find myself not being considered. Would I be considered equally with someone with the degree and the same experience? Probably not.
An advanced degree may be overkill for the entry-level positions, but shouldn't often be a hindrance if you aren't asking for more money because of it.
Later in your career, you'll probably get better value from the advanced degree, both personally and professionally. Amusingly, as your experience piles up, the degree will be less of a hiring decision, but you'll have a better chance to use what you've learned.
If this was your basement and you wanted to do something simple, that would be different. At work, and on something big like a distribution panel, don't even think about it -- call in a licensed electrician and get it cleaned up.
What's the worst that could happen? You kill yourself, burn your building down, and get your heirs sued for damages.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of the Concorde filled with CD-ROMs (now DVDs) flying at full speed. Now, go calculate the latency...