You realize that the only reason that the wires are "inherently monopolistic" is because of governmental interference, right?
Well, you're ignoring half the picture. If there were no regulations at all, then anyone with the money to do so would be building poles or digging up right-of-way through our main thoroughfares, breaking other companies' connections all along the way and interrupting your daily commute to work.
The only thing that would limit this would be the money factor, which is actually the main reason that natural monopolies exist. It takes a lot of money to build a railroad, to build a phone network, to build gas or electric pipelines. And it'd be wasteful right down the line, all the way to the consumer for everyone to build redundant infrastructure. Once services like this become ubiquitous, the best thing to happen is for the government to take over the infrastructure and consolidate it.
Private companies did a great job building hundreds of independent subway lines in Manhattan. Until the state took it over, though,it did not become the great urban network that it is today.
So you think that, until Congress gets around to approving net neutrality laws, that instead of being regulated by the body designed to do just that, the corporations which provide the service should be able to control what you have access on the net? It seems to me that if you're concerned about civil rights, your argument hands your nose over to Comcast, just to spite your face.
I like your post, and while I think your preferred definition is on the right track, it's a bit too narrow for me.
To me, one of the best current examples of cloud infrastructure is Google's AppEngine. Not only do I know nothing about the underlying hardware, I also know nothing about virtualization, operating system or anything else. All I know is that I've got an API that defines how I can access it externally, how I can program it (Python or Java) and how I can store data. I don't have to worry about anything; it just works.
My application is immediately available throughout the Google infrastructure, and as long as I'm willing to pay for it, it doesn't matter whether I get one hit an hour or 10 million.
"Cloud" could certainly encompass virtualization farms as you've described, but I see it as even one layer more abstract.
and this domain would not stop many of the porn sites from using the domains that they already have
Not under current rules, but once there's an official adult-site TLD, then they could consider phasing in rules regarding the use of other domains. Even something as simple as requiring a redirect from existing domains to the.xxx version before any content is visible would be a welcome change for parents who are trying to foster independence in their children while not letting them be exposed to every crazy thing under the sun.
If there's an easy way for me to allow my son to browse the net with little supervision, while minimizing the chances that he doesn't mistakenly happen upon 2g1c one day, I'd be thrilled.
It may not be in the article, but Google have posted articles in the past indicating that they're experimenting with all sorts of alternative energy sources, including solar, wind and even wave/tide power generators.
I'm not saying that it's likely they're going to become a net producer any time soon, but it's not impossible.
I remember a friend of mine--a math PhD--told me about how he had proudly memorized the first thousand digits of pi as a kid, since he loved math. Then as he got older, he realized how ridiculous that was, because the accuracy was well beyond what anyone would need.
What he said, roughly, was this: 3.14 is good enough for most math problems you'll get through your undergraduate career. 3.1416 is good enough to calculate the circumference of the earth to within a few inches. 3.141593 is good enough to calculate the circumference of the Milky Way to within a few meters. 3.1415926535 is good enough to calculate the circumference of the known universe to within a few kilometers.
Granted, this may have been hyperbole, but the point is, there's accuracy and there's accuracy, and if you don't really know what you need, you're wasting a lot of time chasing perfection.
No, FP handles really small numbers just fine. It's the really large numbers that get rounding errors.
Re:don't mock the Notepad++
on
Zen Coding
·
· Score: 1
I heart that program. Only thing I don't like about it is its updater. It sometimes complains taht there's a new version, and when I say, "OK, do the update", it doesn't work. I end up just icing the old one and downloading and installing the new one manually.
And some subset of users of Apple iProducts 'jailbreak" them. Sounds like they have freedom, too. And Apple has the freedom not to support that activity. Everyone's free. Free not to buy a company's products, free to modify them if they don't need vendor support. Free Free Free!
The difference I see is this: If you depend on an app that's written in Flash, you'll depend on Adobe for as long as you're dependent on that app. If you're dependent on an HTML5 compliant web-app, you'll be able to move from iPhone to Android to WinMob7 to anything and still access it.
Yes, Apple is a walled garden, but it's only walled for Apple users. Adobe wants to plant their seeds in everyone's garden.
I don't know if Jobs presented a false argument, really. He just presented the Apple viewpoint. It's as if Adobe were saying, "I Like Bananas," and Jobs responded, "We do bananas better, and we let you have oranges and kiwifruit as well!"
The EFF has come in and said, "Look, people, there's 50000 varieties of edible fruits, vegetables and animals. Make yourself a slingshot a net and a spear and you can have any of them!"
I didn't see anything in Jobs' statement that indicated that there weren't other ways to skin the cat as well; he simply indicated why Flash wasn't going to be supported. Supporting Flash wouldn't have made the EFF any happier.
he knows absolutely NOTHING about how to DESIGN them
Are you sure about this? I can't contradict you, but when you've done as many movies under as many conditions as JC has, you probably have had to do some modifications to cameras that might actually make you an expert in the hardware.
If you ever saw the making of The Abyss, they did some pretty crazy stuff, and I'll bet he had a hand in modifying the cameras to do what he wanted.
You know what else we all know? If someone burned down Apple's offices, it would totally cut into Apple's bottom line. I heard Steve Jobs is going to write an open letter asking people not to burn down their offices. What a greedy bastard! It's all in the name of the bottom line!
No, you're wrong. iAd is a tool they're offering to developers. Those same developers are free to continue using the same ad networks they want in place of iAd, or to not put any ads at all in their apps.
There's a big difference between offering a new tool to generate a new revenue stream and forcing everyone to use it. People might end up using it if it's easier, better, more profitable for them. If not, they won't. Apple has not made a single indication that they will limit developers' access to other networks.
Do you think that, at 400 MPH, if there were anything smaller than a mega-flock in your trajectory, that you could easily and safely swerve around them? I don't think that, when you're going over 600 feet per second visual contact is going to help much.
Average salaries for airline pilots in the US are not exactly "enormous". They mostly do it because they love flying, not because the money is there. Many of them have second jobs to make ends meet.
Well, we and potentially, many, most or all other living things on the planet. The question is, do we care whether we leave this place a smoldering hulk or a rich, life-sustaining environment? And if we do care, then the next question is, how can we best ensure our aims, whether they be at either of those extremes or somewhere in the middle?
There are indeed people who want to hasten the destruction of the planet, from the perspective of human habitability. Some of these folks are Christian extremists, and some have been in very powerful positions in government. James Watt, Reagan's secretary of the interior, was one of them. He and his ilk are of the firm belief that if we hasten the destruction of this world, we also hasten the (re-?) arrival of the messiah. Clear-cutting forests, mega-expansion of drilling, huge escalations in nuclear power and weaponry deployments were all done in the name of the Lord.
Well, I remember seeing a stand at a street fair for an organization which was pushing people to promise not to have children. I tried to find the name for this post, but when I searched for "organization which promotes having no children" on Google, the first link that came up was for NAMBLA, so I gave up in disgust.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize that the only reason that the wires are "inherently monopolistic" is because of governmental interference, right?
Well, you're ignoring half the picture. If there were no regulations at all, then anyone with the money to do so would be building poles or digging up right-of-way through our main thoroughfares, breaking other companies' connections all along the way and interrupting your daily commute to work.
The only thing that would limit this would be the money factor, which is actually the main reason that natural monopolies exist. It takes a lot of money to build a railroad, to build a phone network, to build gas or electric pipelines. And it'd be wasteful right down the line, all the way to the consumer for everyone to build redundant infrastructure. Once services like this become ubiquitous, the best thing to happen is for the government to take over the infrastructure and consolidate it.
Private companies did a great job building hundreds of independent subway lines in Manhattan. Until the state took it over, though,it did not become the great urban network that it is today.
So you think that, until Congress gets around to approving net neutrality laws, that instead of being regulated by the body designed to do just that, the corporations which provide the service should be able to control what you have access on the net? It seems to me that if you're concerned about civil rights, your argument hands your nose over to Comcast, just to spite your face.
I like your post, and while I think your preferred definition is on the right track, it's a bit too narrow for me.
To me, one of the best current examples of cloud infrastructure is Google's AppEngine. Not only do I know nothing about the underlying hardware, I also know nothing about virtualization, operating system or anything else. All I know is that I've got an API that defines how I can access it externally, how I can program it (Python or Java) and how I can store data. I don't have to worry about anything; it just works.
My application is immediately available throughout the Google infrastructure, and as long as I'm willing to pay for it, it doesn't matter whether I get one hit an hour or 10 million.
"Cloud" could certainly encompass virtualization farms as you've described, but I see it as even one layer more abstract.
Sea computing! It's a new paradigm! Instead of threads, we'll have fish!
Isn't 'xxx' what they put on bottles of moonshine in cartoons? I wonder how quickly 'moonshine.xxx' will be registered.
and this domain would not stop many of the porn sites from using the domains that they already have
Not under current rules, but once there's an official adult-site TLD, then they could consider phasing in rules regarding the use of other domains. Even something as simple as requiring a redirect from existing domains to the .xxx version before any content is visible would be a welcome change for parents who are trying to foster independence in their children while not letting them be exposed to every crazy thing under the sun.
If there's an easy way for me to allow my son to browse the net with little supervision, while minimizing the chances that he doesn't mistakenly happen upon 2g1c one day, I'd be thrilled.
It may not be in the article, but Google have posted articles in the past indicating that they're experimenting with all sorts of alternative energy sources, including solar, wind and even wave/tide power generators.
I'm not saying that it's likely they're going to become a net producer any time soon, but it's not impossible.
thAt i5 th3 pR0blm wltH t3h kIdZ Th3z dAYz. grAmmAr, PuNCtUaTioN and C4pitalizaSHUN r all ARBITRARY.
I remember a friend of mine--a math PhD--told me about how he had proudly memorized the first thousand digits of pi as a kid, since he loved math. Then as he got older, he realized how ridiculous that was, because the accuracy was well beyond what anyone would need.
What he said, roughly, was this: 3.14 is good enough for most math problems you'll get through your undergraduate career. 3.1416 is good enough to calculate the circumference of the earth to within a few inches. 3.141593 is good enough to calculate the circumference of the Milky Way to within a few meters. 3.1415926535 is good enough to calculate the circumference of the known universe to within a few kilometers.
Granted, this may have been hyperbole, but the point is, there's accuracy and there's accuracy, and if you don't really know what you need, you're wasting a lot of time chasing perfection.
No, FP handles really small numbers just fine. It's the really large numbers that get rounding errors.
I heart that program. Only thing I don't like about it is its updater. It sometimes complains taht there's a new version, and when I say, "OK, do the update", it doesn't work. I end up just icing the old one and downloading and installing the new one manually.
Did I tell you about this belt, and the onion I used to wear on it...
Yes, I understand it was the style at the time. I was reading those CYOA books in 1981, if it helps at all. :)
Yes. This is a much more accurate description of the events. Mod parent up insightful.
And some subset of users of Apple iProducts 'jailbreak" them. Sounds like they have freedom, too. And Apple has the freedom not to support that activity. Everyone's free. Free not to buy a company's products, free to modify them if they don't need vendor support. Free Free Free!
The difference I see is this: If you depend on an app that's written in Flash, you'll depend on Adobe for as long as you're dependent on that app. If you're dependent on an HTML5 compliant web-app, you'll be able to move from iPhone to Android to WinMob7 to anything and still access it.
Yes, Apple is a walled garden, but it's only walled for Apple users. Adobe wants to plant their seeds in everyone's garden.
I don't know if Jobs presented a false argument, really. He just presented the Apple viewpoint. It's as if Adobe were saying, "I Like Bananas," and Jobs responded, "We do bananas better, and we let you have oranges and kiwifruit as well!"
The EFF has come in and said, "Look, people, there's 50000 varieties of edible fruits, vegetables and animals. Make yourself a slingshot a net and a spear and you can have any of them!"
I didn't see anything in Jobs' statement that indicated that there weren't other ways to skin the cat as well; he simply indicated why Flash wasn't going to be supported. Supporting Flash wouldn't have made the EFF any happier.
Who modded this insightful? YouTube now supports direct H.264 video without the Flash wrapper. It works fine!
he knows absolutely NOTHING about how to DESIGN them
Are you sure about this? I can't contradict you, but when you've done as many movies under as many conditions as JC has, you probably have had to do some modifications to cameras that might actually make you an expert in the hardware.
If you ever saw the making of The Abyss, they did some pretty crazy stuff, and I'll bet he had a hand in modifying the cameras to do what he wanted.
In case you've been under a rock for a month, here's a fine example.
You know what else we all know? If someone burned down Apple's offices, it would totally cut into Apple's bottom line. I heard Steve Jobs is going to write an open letter asking people not to burn down their offices. What a greedy bastard! It's all in the name of the bottom line!
No, you're wrong. iAd is a tool they're offering to developers. Those same developers are free to continue using the same ad networks they want in place of iAd, or to not put any ads at all in their apps.
There's a big difference between offering a new tool to generate a new revenue stream and forcing everyone to use it. People might end up using it if it's easier, better, more profitable for them. If not, they won't. Apple has not made a single indication that they will limit developers' access to other networks.
Oh, and if you don't believe me on item #2, listen to Captain Sully.
Well, we and potentially, many, most or all other living things on the planet. The question is, do we care whether we leave this place a smoldering hulk or a rich, life-sustaining environment? And if we do care, then the next question is, how can we best ensure our aims, whether they be at either of those extremes or somewhere in the middle?
There are indeed people who want to hasten the destruction of the planet, from the perspective of human habitability. Some of these folks are Christian extremists, and some have been in very powerful positions in government. James Watt, Reagan's secretary of the interior, was one of them. He and his ilk are of the firm belief that if we hasten the destruction of this world, we also hasten the (re-?) arrival of the messiah. Clear-cutting forests, mega-expansion of drilling, huge escalations in nuclear power and weaponry deployments were all done in the name of the Lord.
Well, I remember seeing a stand at a street fair for an organization which was pushing people to promise not to have children. I tried to find the name for this post, but when I searched for "organization which promotes having no children" on Google, the first link that came up was for NAMBLA, so I gave up in disgust.