Er, sounds like you're describing Etherchannel or a Multi-Link Trunk with those 5 cables. Why would you want to make a new cable standard with 40 pairs in it instead of just running five separate runs using standard 8 pair cables?
Sounds good, except we always have two MDF's and run each IDF to both MDF's for redundancy, using diverse fiber paths. We only install in hospitals, so redundancy is pretty important so that when a switch burns up or someone cuts a fiber connection the people in admitting can still admit you to the ER, OR can still schedule surgeries, RX can still fill prescriptions, LAB can still test your pee, and RAD can still send images of your noggin over the net to a viewing station in a DR's office...
My two 800MHz Pentium III CPU's/w 1GB PC133 RAM and 1160GB of disk storage keeps up with Neverwinter Nights fine. However, if a virus scan is running at the same time it slows it down noticably...
I'd agree. He makes it sound so convincing, but he really doesn't know what he's talking about. Probably doesn't even know what DSSS and OFDM stand for.
That's because companies (even the vendors of the hardware) don't know what they are doing when installing a 802.11b network. The "trick" is to think of it as a 3D Star Trek type chess game. You CAN use adjacent channels, just not in AP's that are physically, or more importantly measured in "RF-distance", close to each other. Most installers are not intelligent enough to think in 3 dimensions, let alone the 4, yes 4, required for a proper facilities analysis. And the 4th would be... the physical makeup of the facility. Two AP's placed on opposite sides of a sheetrock wall are "closer" than two AP's that are placed on opposite sides of a concrete wall, which in turn are "closer" than two AP's placed on opposite sides of radiation shielded wall around a radiology department in a hospital. All WAY too much to think about for the average RF installer, and THAT's why they recommend only using 1, 6, and 11.
Not having mod points available at the time, I thought I'd quote a post by neocon:
I don't think anyone is `waiting for an excuse' at all. We have very good reasons to go into Iraq, we've said what they are, and we've said that we're going in, and staying in until Mr. Hussein is out.
What we are waiting for is planning, preparation, and restocking of supplies of ammunition and other goods depleted during the campaign in Afghanistan.
And so it's clear, what is your objection to Cheney going on `Meet the Press'? He's telling the American people what Bush thinks should be done, and judging by the current administration's approval ratings, the American people agree. If he were not on the air, you would be objecting to the lack of information coming from Washington...
I'd have to agree. I don't think that kicking out the weapons inspectors is an "excuse." There was an agreement. Hissein broke that agreement. Game over. That we waited all these years was only due to a corrupt presidency under Clinton (does anyone really think he would have been able to lead a war effort with Lewinsky going on? Really!) and common-sense preparation. Bush couldn't jump right in and order an invasion the minute he took office. Planning for things like that take time.
Personally, I don't know of any power grab that the Bush-Cheney gang have done that I don't agree with. Perhaps the most controversial, arresting and/or detaining ILLEGAL immigrants, is even acceptable. After all, that's what the government is SUPPOSED to do. If you ask me, they should step up the INS enforcement division and go after ALL illegal immigrants -- and either immediately kick them out of the country or detain them for up to two years if they have any interesting ties to fundamental islamic extreamist terrorists, which I believe is the legal length of time they can detain someone before kicking them out of the country (and was well before 9/11). I have nothing against LEGAL immigrants, and would have a problem if they started kicking out legal immigrants for no reason, but I believe even legal immigrants can be held for up to two years if there is some charge / belief that they may have broken the law and forfited their privelage of being a legal immigrant.
I would think that traditional methods of advertizing, such as TV commercials, are quite more expensive than making this game (I heard $7.5M somewhere). So, if you have your stack of cash and you are putting different advertizing methods into those two columns AND you took into account the return on investment you believe you will likely get, I'd think that these games would go in the NEEDS column and not the WANTS. In the WANTS column I could see nightly TV commercials on every cable channel playing concurrently (so that no matter what channel you turn to you can see the commercial), but I think that would be the "year's dumbest use of money."
Point 1 above (that SH used WMD on his own population) is a crime against humanity and is usually punishable by life in prison after a trial in the Hauge.
Point 2 above (that SH kicked out WMD inspectors that was part of a cease fire agreement) logically gives the coalition the right to pursue SH. SH broke the agreement, there is no agreement still in effect, logically.
Point 3 above (that SH launched attacks agains civilian populations) is also considered a war crime.
Now how, after reading and understanding that, do you come up with the "That's why we lock up murderers before the commit the crime, right?" comment? As the AC said, opposing opinions are welcome, but posting something like that shows either 1) a failure to comprehend anything the AC said, or 2) an obvious troll. All I can say is that if it was 2 then you obviously succeded.
Money isn't everything. Possibly the author was suggesting more of a moral / ethical / intellectual other thing.
Just because the Michael may have served in the U.S. armed forces does not make anything he says about them beyond reproach. Again, NO ONE is saying that Michael doesn't have a right to express his opinions, but don't try and stifle the opions of others by berating them for expressing them. Some of us can't understand how others fail to see the difference between expressing an opinion and attempting to stifle free speach. Michael wasn't expressing an opinion in the normal meaning of the word, he was making a few jokes. Some people commented that parts, or all, of that joke was offensive to them. What's wrong with that? Now if Michael wants to respond with either a clear and concise explaination of what his opinion is, or making clear that the jokes did not express his opinion, then I don't think anyone can rightly blame him for those comments.
Hmm, may be that explains why I'm quite different than the usual crowd on Slashdot, at least when it comes to the military and politics.
* My parents are going on 70, and are certainly not hippies * My Dad served in the Navy for 23 years, plus one of my five brothers, and one of my three sisters. None had shattering experiences. * Being one of nine children, I wasn't given anything and earned everything I now have, which is probably quite more than the "tech-elite teens and twenty-somethings" that were given everything.
Make them a group we "can't" make fun of? No, we can't do that. There's a little thing called the First Ammendment in the Constitution that the people in the Army swear to protect and defend. No one can, or is suggesting, that it be made illegal to make tasteless jokes. In fact, there's a USENET group just for that kind of thing. But it is perfectly acceptable to make them socially unacceptable outside of special groups like alt.tasteless.jokes.
Personally, I only found the last one tasteless. The other fictional titles were funny, but it's all a matter of personal taste. Instead of letting TheCabal express his/her opinion on the matter and leave it at that you have to berate him/her and basically flat-out try to stifle free speach by saying "just ignore them" [and don't say anything]. I don't think The Cabal was saying that michael didn't have the right to make tasteless jokes, just pointing out that one (or more depending on your personal view) was tasteless. If you give it more than five seconds of thought you'll see that there is quite a distinction between the two.
Oops, I thought you said the techs said the cap was at the high end, not the head end. Still, that's what my modem replies to via SNMP, and I stand by my other comments.
Use your favorite snmp tool, and with the DOCSIS-IF-MIB loaded do something like:
snmpget -m all 192.168.100.1 public docsIfQosProfMaxUpBandwidth.0
and
snmpget -m all 192.168.100.1 public docsIfQosProfMaxDownBandwidth.0
My modem is set for 256K up and 3M down. From what I've been hearing in the rest of the discussion this does seem on the high-end.
But Adelphia service still sucks. What I do is make sure that I call support and create a case every time the cable modem is down, and schedule to get someone out here. They typically say that it will take a WEEK to get someone out here, so I make them give me a week's worth of discont on my cable bill. I know that the problem is NOT on my end and that the cable modem will come up within a few hours to a day or two at the most, but it's not my fault if they can't figure out what is wrong with their Cisco 7200UBR routers or their headend equipment. Hell, I even offered to create a case with Cisco for them under my contract, but the people you get on the line are basically entry-level phone people and really don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and apparently are so stupid that they can't even transfer you to a level 2 or level 3 person. Believe me, the most frustrating thing is being an experienced network management specialist and having to deal with idiot ISP support people who simply read off a check list and schedule for an on-site visit if that doesn't work (i.e., no real analysis of what is going on)...
It's usually viewed as a good idea by most management in large companies because large companies almost always have at least 10% of their work force that they would out-right fire if they could easily. Think about it. Any company that is over say 10,000 is going to have slackers. It's easy to hide in such a large company. Do the minimal amount of work that isn't really enough to justify your salary, but knowing that the company can't easily fire you after a certain amount of time. By merging or buying out another company the combined company gets to lay off thousands of dead-beat people that they would otherwise face numerous lawsuits to try and get rid of. Now, this does not mean that some innocent and "non-deadbeat" employees will unfortunately get layed off, but from the larger picture it's worth it to upper management to cut out the accumulated fat in a company and run lean for quite a few years again. Now, I know nothing about HP or Compaq people, so I can't say what the actual percentage of slackers are in each company, but anyone who is honest with themselves has to admit that the percentage is over 0%...
If you calculations are correct then the answer is simple. The programmers need to get rid of all ads and charge much more for their programming. The only way this would work, of course, would be to go to a pay as you watch model, not even a pay per channel model. Say you want to watch Friends. It comes on a particular channel, but you're not necessarily interested in anything else on that channel. So, it would be unfair to charge you $10/month just for that channel (no ads), but it may be fair to charge you $2 for the few hours of original programming that you watch per month on that channel (figure four episodes a month, $0.50 per episode). So you have 100 million people watching Friends each week and they all are paying $0.50 per episode, so that's $50 million per episode. If they can't product one hour of programming for $50 million then there's something wrong (and it would have to be a full hour since there are no ads, not the 30 minutes or so that is actually in a one-hour program now-a-days).
I'd say it would be fair to pay 50 cents per hour of TV that you actually watch, if there was no ads at all. Figure you watch 3 hours of TV per day, so that's a buck 50 per day, or $10.50 per week, or $42 per month (avg). That would be fair, in my opinion. It would also tend to cost people who sit in front of the TV all day much more than those that watch a news program or two a day.
You're wrong of course. If that was the case then there would be no extra charge for extra programming with commercials. Most cable companies have a "basic cable" option where you get the basic channels, possibly 20-30 channels, all with commercials. Then they charge you EXTRA for additional channels (like CSPAN, FNC, etc) that ALSO HAVE COMMERCIALS. If your bogus excuse was true then all programming with commercials would be free and there would only be one basic fee for cable TV with extras only for premium programming with no commercials. In fact, as others mentioned, MOST channels do cost the cable company $$$ to provide to it's customers, and that money goes right to the producers of that programming. A much smaller percentage "give" their programming free to cable companies, and an even smaller percentage actually pay cable companies to run their programming. Either you are severely misinformed or you are being dishonest.
Good point, but even if Microsoft did make the computers they would still have no right to tie the purchase or use of some of their products into another of their products that just happens to be a monopoly product. Plain and simple, if GE made the ONLY fridges, or were one of only a select few, who happen to have less than 5% of the market share combined against GE's 95%, and was ruled to have a monopoly then it would CERTAINLY be illegal for them to forbid this type of product tieing. As it stands GE does NOT have a monopoly on the fridge market and there are PLENTY OF ALTERNATIVE vendors for this type of product, so they are free to do whatever they want with their ice makers.
Umm, well yes, GE should be forced to allow other companies to offer competitive options if there is a market for that. I may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that there was EXACTLY this type of ruling with one or more of the big-three auto makers in the US with regard to their car stereo systems. YES, they DO have to make the stereo an option and YES they do have to include an antenna with a standard connector if you don't get their stereo. IIRC they tried to anti-compete their way out of tying their sale of car stereos with the sale of their cars by saying that they would offer the option to NOT get their stereo but then they would completely yank out the antenna cable and the antenna itself. That basically would lock out all other vendors because replacing a whole antenna system on a car is MUCH more costly than just installing a different stereo. What you are advocating is to allow Microsoft to say that you can't run any other word-processor than Microsoft Word, any other diagraming tool than Microsoft Visio, any other spreadsheet than Excel, etc. That is anti-competitive and illegal.
Wondering what "the hard way" is... Either a tripped breaker or blown fuse, either way not that big of a deal. Any you CAN have your toaster, fridge, washing machine, and microwave on the same circuit. Just as long as you don't use your toaster, washing machine, or microwave in any combination concurrently you should be able to use any of these appliances together with a fridge without overloading a single circuit.
Um, isn't that the way that life works normally? I mean, I don't have the latest and greatest Lexus or Cadillac. Yet, features that were first used on much more expensive cars are now standard feature on run-of-the-mill cars, such as airbags. Most of the time companies will over-charge for new technologies or products because they have to recoup their R&D cost relatively quickly. Once that is done then they can realistically drop the price to make it available to the average consumer. Just wait, sooner or later those 21" LCD displays will be a few hundred instead of thousands. Welcome to reality...
No, according to another post which provides a quote from Intel it would be "on-cartridge" not "on-die." That could be a big difference, thinking a cartridge is like an old Pentium II slot1 cartiridge which is just a mini PCH board and hence the cache may as well be on the motherboard.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I think you're wrong. 100Mbit is sent over a copper cable at 125MHz, not 200MHz. I think the original poster was right.
Er, sounds like you're describing Etherchannel or a Multi-Link Trunk with those 5 cables. Why would you want to make a new cable standard with 40 pairs in it instead of just running five separate runs using standard 8 pair cables?
Sounds good, except we always have two MDF's and run each IDF to both MDF's for redundancy, using diverse fiber paths. We only install in hospitals, so redundancy is pretty important so that when a switch burns up or someone cuts a fiber connection the people in admitting can still admit you to the ER, OR can still schedule surgeries, RX can still fill prescriptions, LAB can still test your pee, and RAD can still send images of your noggin over the net to a viewing station in a DR's office...
My two 800MHz Pentium III CPU's /w 1GB PC133 RAM and 1160GB of disk storage keeps up with Neverwinter Nights fine. However, if a virus scan is running at the same time it slows it down noticably...
Perhaps if he read
IEEE 802.11, 1999 Edition
IEEE 802.11a-1999
IEEE 802.11b-1999
IEEE 802.11d-2001
he would be more informed...
That's because companies (even the vendors of the hardware) don't know what they are doing when installing a 802.11b network. The "trick" is to think of it as a 3D Star Trek type chess game. You CAN use adjacent channels, just not in AP's that are physically, or more importantly measured in "RF-distance", close to each other. Most installers are not intelligent enough to think in 3 dimensions, let alone the 4, yes 4, required for a proper facilities analysis. And the 4th would be... the physical makeup of the facility. Two AP's placed on opposite sides of a sheetrock wall are "closer" than two AP's that are placed on opposite sides of a concrete wall, which in turn are "closer" than two AP's placed on opposite sides of radiation shielded wall around a radiology department in a hospital. All WAY too much to think about for the average RF installer, and THAT's why they recommend only using 1, 6, and 11.
A little more info on the maple leaf pack toting Al-Qaeda terrorists please?
Personally, I don't know of any power grab that the Bush-Cheney gang have done that I don't agree with. Perhaps the most controversial, arresting and/or detaining ILLEGAL immigrants, is even acceptable. After all, that's what the government is SUPPOSED to do. If you ask me, they should step up the INS enforcement division and go after ALL illegal immigrants -- and either immediately kick them out of the country or detain them for up to two years if they have any interesting ties to fundamental islamic extreamist terrorists, which I believe is the legal length of time they can detain someone before kicking them out of the country (and was well before 9/11). I have nothing against LEGAL immigrants, and would have a problem if they started kicking out legal immigrants for no reason, but I believe even legal immigrants can be held for up to two years if there is some charge / belief that they may have broken the law and forfited their privelage of being a legal immigrant.
I would think that traditional methods of advertizing, such as TV commercials, are quite more expensive than making this game (I heard $7.5M somewhere). So, if you have your stack of cash and you are putting different advertizing methods into those two columns AND you took into account the return on investment you believe you will likely get, I'd think that these games would go in the NEEDS column and not the WANTS. In the WANTS column I could see nightly TV commercials on every cable channel playing concurrently (so that no matter what channel you turn to you can see the commercial), but I think that would be the "year's dumbest use of money."
Sigh...
Point 1 above (that SH used WMD on his own population) is a crime against humanity and is usually punishable by life in prison after a trial in the Hauge.
Point 2 above (that SH kicked out WMD inspectors that was part of a cease fire agreement) logically gives the coalition the right to pursue SH. SH broke the agreement, there is no agreement still in effect, logically.
Point 3 above (that SH launched attacks agains civilian populations) is also considered a war crime.
Now how, after reading and understanding that, do you come up with the "That's why we lock up murderers before the commit the crime, right?" comment? As the AC said, opposing opinions are welcome, but posting something like that shows either 1) a failure to comprehend anything the AC said, or 2) an obvious troll. All I can say is that if it was 2 then you obviously succeded.
Money isn't everything. Possibly the author was suggesting more of a moral / ethical / intellectual other thing.
Just because the Michael may have served in the U.S. armed forces does not make anything he says about them beyond reproach. Again, NO ONE is saying that Michael doesn't have a right to express his opinions, but don't try and stifle the opions of others by berating them for expressing them. Some of us can't understand how others fail to see the difference between expressing an opinion and attempting to stifle free speach. Michael wasn't expressing an opinion in the normal meaning of the word, he was making a few jokes. Some people commented that parts, or all, of that joke was offensive to them. What's wrong with that? Now if Michael wants to respond with either a clear and concise explaination of what his opinion is, or making clear that the jokes did not express his opinion, then I don't think anyone can rightly blame him for those comments.
Hmm, may be that explains why I'm quite different than the usual crowd on Slashdot, at least when it comes to the military and politics.
* My parents are going on 70, and are certainly not hippies
* My Dad served in the Navy for 23 years, plus one of my five brothers, and one of my three sisters. None had shattering experiences.
* Being one of nine children, I wasn't given anything and earned everything I now have, which is probably quite more than the "tech-elite teens and twenty-somethings" that were given everything.
Make them a group we "can't" make fun of? No, we can't do that. There's a little thing called the First Ammendment in the Constitution that the people in the Army swear to protect and defend. No one can, or is suggesting, that it be made illegal to make tasteless jokes. In fact, there's a USENET group just for that kind of thing. But it is perfectly acceptable to make them socially unacceptable outside of special groups like alt.tasteless.jokes.
Personally, I only found the last one tasteless. The other fictional titles were funny, but it's all a matter of personal taste. Instead of letting TheCabal express his/her opinion on the matter and leave it at that you have to berate him/her and basically flat-out try to stifle free speach by saying "just ignore them" [and don't say anything]. I don't think The Cabal was saying that michael didn't have the right to make tasteless jokes, just pointing out that one (or more depending on your personal view) was tasteless. If you give it more than five seconds of thought you'll see that there is quite a distinction between the two.
That would be a "trial baloon" for the US-centric audiance...
Oops, I thought you said the techs said the cap was at the high end, not the head end. Still, that's what my modem replies to via SNMP, and I stand by my other comments.
Yes,
Use your favorite snmp tool, and with the DOCSIS-IF-MIB loaded do something like:
snmpget -m all 192.168.100.1 public docsIfQosProfMaxUpBandwidth.0
and
snmpget -m all 192.168.100.1 public docsIfQosProfMaxDownBandwidth.0
My modem is set for 256K up and 3M down. From what I've been hearing in the rest of the discussion this does seem on the high-end.
But Adelphia service still sucks. What I do is make sure that I call support and create a case every time the cable modem is down, and schedule to get someone out here. They typically say that it will take a WEEK to get someone out here, so I make them give me a week's worth of discont on my cable bill. I know that the problem is NOT on my end and that the cable modem will come up within a few hours to a day or two at the most, but it's not my fault if they can't figure out what is wrong with their Cisco 7200UBR routers or their headend equipment. Hell, I even offered to create a case with Cisco for them under my contract, but the people you get on the line are basically entry-level phone people and really don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and apparently are so stupid that they can't even transfer you to a level 2 or level 3 person. Believe me, the most frustrating thing is being an experienced network management specialist and having to deal with idiot ISP support people who simply read off a check list and schedule for an on-site visit if that doesn't work (i.e., no real analysis of what is going on)...
It's usually viewed as a good idea by most management in large companies because large companies almost always have at least 10% of their work force that they would out-right fire if they could easily. Think about it. Any company that is over say 10,000 is going to have slackers. It's easy to hide in such a large company. Do the minimal amount of work that isn't really enough to justify your salary, but knowing that the company can't easily fire you after a certain amount of time. By merging or buying out another company the combined company gets to lay off thousands of dead-beat people that they would otherwise face numerous lawsuits to try and get rid of. Now, this does not mean that some innocent and "non-deadbeat" employees will unfortunately get layed off, but from the larger picture it's worth it to upper management to cut out the accumulated fat in a company and run lean for quite a few years again. Now, I know nothing about HP or Compaq people, so I can't say what the actual percentage of slackers are in each company, but anyone who is honest with themselves has to admit that the percentage is over 0%...
If you calculations are correct then the answer is simple. The programmers need to get rid of all ads and charge much more for their programming. The only way this would work, of course, would be to go to a pay as you watch model, not even a pay per channel model. Say you want to watch Friends. It comes on a particular channel, but you're not necessarily interested in anything else on that channel. So, it would be unfair to charge you $10/month just for that channel (no ads), but it may be fair to charge you $2 for the few hours of original programming that you watch per month on that channel (figure four episodes a month, $0.50 per episode). So you have 100 million people watching Friends each week and they all are paying $0.50 per episode, so that's $50 million per episode. If they can't product one hour of programming for $50 million then there's something wrong (and it would have to be a full hour since there are no ads, not the 30 minutes or so that is actually in a one-hour program now-a-days).
I'd say it would be fair to pay 50 cents per hour of TV that you actually watch, if there was no ads at all. Figure you watch 3 hours of TV per day, so that's a buck 50 per day, or $10.50 per week, or $42 per month (avg). That would be fair, in my opinion. It would also tend to cost people who sit in front of the TV all day much more than those that watch a news program or two a day.
You're wrong of course. If that was the case then there would be no extra charge for extra programming with commercials. Most cable companies have a "basic cable" option where you get the basic channels, possibly 20-30 channels, all with commercials. Then they charge you EXTRA for additional channels (like CSPAN, FNC, etc) that ALSO HAVE COMMERCIALS. If your bogus excuse was true then all programming with commercials would be free and there would only be one basic fee for cable TV with extras only for premium programming with no commercials. In fact, as others mentioned, MOST channels do cost the cable company $$$ to provide to it's customers, and that money goes right to the producers of that programming. A much smaller percentage "give" their programming free to cable companies, and an even smaller percentage actually pay cable companies to run their programming. Either you are severely misinformed or you are being dishonest.
Good point, but even if Microsoft did make the computers they would still have no right to tie the purchase or use of some of their products into another of their products that just happens to be a monopoly product. Plain and simple, if GE made the ONLY fridges, or were one of only a select few, who happen to have less than 5% of the market share combined against GE's 95%, and was ruled to have a monopoly then it would CERTAINLY be illegal for them to forbid this type of product tieing. As it stands GE does NOT have a monopoly on the fridge market and there are PLENTY OF ALTERNATIVE vendors for this type of product, so they are free to do whatever they want with their ice makers.
Umm, well yes, GE should be forced to allow other companies to offer competitive options if there is a market for that. I may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that there was EXACTLY this type of ruling with one or more of the big-three auto makers in the US with regard to their car stereo systems. YES, they DO have to make the stereo an option and YES they do have to include an antenna with a standard connector if you don't get their stereo. IIRC they tried to anti-compete their way out of tying their sale of car stereos with the sale of their cars by saying that they would offer the option to NOT get their stereo but then they would completely yank out the antenna cable and the antenna itself. That basically would lock out all other vendors because replacing a whole antenna system on a car is MUCH more costly than just installing a different stereo. What you are advocating is to allow Microsoft to say that you can't run any other word-processor than Microsoft Word, any other diagraming tool than Microsoft Visio, any other spreadsheet than Excel, etc. That is anti-competitive and illegal.
Wondering what "the hard way" is... Either a tripped breaker or blown fuse, either way not that big of a deal. Any you CAN have your toaster, fridge, washing machine, and microwave on the same circuit. Just as long as you don't use your toaster, washing machine, or microwave in any combination concurrently you should be able to use any of these appliances together with a fridge without overloading a single circuit.
Um, isn't that the way that life works normally? I mean, I don't have the latest and greatest Lexus or Cadillac. Yet, features that were first used on much more expensive cars are now standard feature on run-of-the-mill cars, such as airbags. Most of the time companies will over-charge for new technologies or products because they have to recoup their R&D cost relatively quickly. Once that is done then they can realistically drop the price to make it available to the average consumer. Just wait, sooner or later those 21" LCD displays will be a few hundred instead of thousands. Welcome to reality...
No, according to another post which provides a quote from Intel it would be "on-cartridge" not "on-die." That could be a big difference, thinking a cartridge is like an old Pentium II slot1 cartiridge which is just a mini PCH board and hence the cache may as well be on the motherboard.