I have more and more emphaty for this company,
because they turn out to be
just like me...
Boss, this new program I'm writing will have ten million innovative features!
Did I say ten million?
What I really meant was ten thousand,
but they are really
great!
Those two hundred features I've
been talking about
are really awesome, you'll see when it's done!
For example, take a look at this
brilliant idea of mine!
I have hundreds more!
Ken Thompson?
Of course! I didn't say that this particular
idea was mine! I was only saying that my ideas
are at least equally brilliant!
It was only an example of innovative cutting edge idea!
In the seventies?
So you have to admit how innovative it must have been back then! Wow!
I only need some time and money...
To finish the whole thing, you know.
It will be ready tomorrow,
I promise!
No, not today, I said tomorrow!
Did I say it yesterday?
No, I would have remembered that...
It might be ready
the day after tomorrow.
I only
need more time to prepare an announcement of the features it's going to have.
Not yet, but Real Soon Now!
So, as I've said, I just have to love SCO,
because they are just like me.
In fact they are just like most of us
working here on Duke Nukem Forever.
We are working forever...
Fortunately, now with zlib, PNG and Ogg Vorbis, this is not an issue this time.
And, don't forget, with LAME. While LAME generates MP3 format-compatible files, it does not use any Frauenhoffer patented techniques to do it.
"Using the LAME encoding engine (or other mp3 encoding technology) in your software may require a patent license in some countries."
So no, I didn't forget about LAME.
It is just illegal to use as freely
as Vorbis.
LAME is free software using
patented algorithm.
For me, it might be proprietary software as well.
Not enough people in the mainstream consumer market are going to adopt Ogg because nobody will support it and they don't know to ask for it.
That, and because Ogg Vorbis is the worst fucking name of all time.
As opposed to MP3, which is the best fucking name of all time?
The name of the format is Vorbis.
It is much easier to pronounce than MP3
and for anyone being even remotely literate, it sounds instantly familiar.
I am sick of those
trolls in every story about Vorbis, Ogg,
Theora, Tarkin,
or anything
made by the
Xiphophorus Helleri Foundation in general.
Does this mean we have to use it? All my old MP3s will work just fine.
One word: patents. They can start enforcing them whenever they want. (See www.mp3licensing.com.) Remember Unisys patent on LZW compression? All my old GIFs was working just fine too, which didn't mean I could keep using them. Fortunately, now with zlib, PNG and Ogg Vorbis, this is not an issue this time.
Does anyone understand logic here? If you're lzw compressed gifs can't be displayed anymore, it's because no one thought it was worth paying the royalty.
Hi Ogg, nice to meet you, i just broke up with MP3, want to go out?
MP3? I know her. She is such a bitch!
Seriously though,
this news is
exactly why Ogg Vorbis was created
in the first place.
I was always asking my friends
to read
Why artists should be using Ogg Vorbis
by Daniel James.
For them this is not news,
this is not news at all,
it is just a boring, predictable
consequence of the stupid inertia
giving them momentum.
Nothing more.
Does this mean we have to use it? All my old MP3s will work just fine.
One word: patents.
They can start
enforcing them
whenever they want.
(See www.mp3licensing.com.)
Remember Unisys patent on LZW compression?
All my old GIFs was working just fine
too, which didn't mean I could keep using them.
Fortunately, now with zlib, PNG and Ogg Vorbis, this is not an issue this time.
I remember when once I was auditing a Windows
network
(it was few years ago)
which turned out to be
very
disruption-tolerant.
In fact, it was so tolerant,
that it was constantly being disrupted
one way or another.
Of course my advice was to remove Windows from the most critical servers and install Linux and *BSD.
Since then, it was disruption-intolerant.
Now, will you excuse me while I
register a domain
www.attention-this-site-may-contain-explicit- pictures-or-descriptions-of-or-advocate-one-
or-more-of-the-most-sinful-deviations-violating-
every-law-known-to-man-and-god.com
No jail time for me I guess...
I would like to help them so much...
I know!
I will offer Amazon my legal advice,
free of charge, because I think they are great,
and I am such a nice guy,
despite being a lawyer.
Let me only click... Oh, no!
I would have to commit a crime
of one-clicking patent infringement
to even RTFA!
But I want to help them!
Must... resist...
Thou Shall Not Infringe...
Thou Shall Not Steal
Innovative Clicking Ideas...
But... I... must... help...
Only... clicking... would... help...
Must... not... click...
Help... Click... No... Cannot...
Oh dear God, my brain!
If Microsoft and Sendmail are working together on Spam Solution, then I guess we can all rest assured that whatever they build, it won't have any buffer overflow problems. I, for one, am looking forward to use 1.0.0 version on my production systems.
I personally think that Java VM
is a pretty nice architecture
(maybe not counting the
string immutability
and problems with
expressing dynamically typed
languages and multiple inheritance).
I believe that it would have been a
truly brilliant idea
to release Java VM under a copyleft license,
before the Parrot development had started.
As much as I would love to believe otherwise,
it could be too late right now.
But I am really looking forward, as
it might turn out to be a great
hobby project
and a powerful new tool
in the GNU system arsenal.
I am sure that IBM is
exactly the company who might
help Java the most.
Let us not forget that
it is crucially important to Sun
as well as IBM to undermine.Net and C# soon to be ambiguously
provided by Microsoft.
I am sure that as soon as
IBM joins Sun with that common goal,
Mac will follow not long after that.
This is great news for every one of us.
We will remember this day
for years.
You haven't RTFA, have you?
The quote in the Slashdot summary
is a little bit out of context,
but is a perfectly valid statement
of a well known historical fact nonetheless.
Please read it carefully:
The head of Microsoft's security business and technology unit states that Windows is never vulnerable until a patch appears, and that releasing patches is what causes exploits to be developed. Good quotes: "We have never had vulnerabilities exploited before the patch was known," and "[he] could only think of one instance when a vulnerability was exploited before a patch was available."
Does he say anywhere that the patch is a specific diff patching this particular vulnerability?
No. Of course not. It would be ridiculous.
Now, if I recall correctly,
Larry Wall made the patch available in
1984 and I honestly cannot remember
any Windows vulnerability
whatsoever before that time.
Please, people, just because it
was Microsoft Security Chief,
doesn't mean that what he said must not be true!
Please at least try
controlling your language.
I have to remind you that this is Slashdot.
I love the part where you make crap up, attribute it to me and then imagine that it somehow validates your completely illogical statements.
Are you serious?
Which part is that?
The only part when I even mention you is
the first paragraph where I literally
repeat words previously written by your friend
(which you had no problems with
whatsoever)
and only
point out that even if they are true
it still
does not imply
that my reasoning is incorrect.
Let me guess. You take medication. It's obvious. You might seriously consider talking to your doctor about an adjustment. I'm not saying this to be cruel, even though much of my previous postings have been. Seriously! Dude! Talk to your doctor. Seriously!
I guess you have guessed correctly,
I indeed take medication,
like in fact most of people I know,
but I fail to see your point
about the fact of taking medications
being somehow correlated with
the validity of my arguments or
the lack thereof.
I have to remind you that
argumentum ad hominem
is utterly fallacious.
First, let me say, you're either an idiot or new to/.
Which means that therefore, I guess, I somehow
lost the argument?
(Please take no offense but
I find your childish rhetoric hilariously amusing.)
No, it means you're either too dumb to understand
the moderation system or too new to know better
than to make statements, such as you made.
I was not
asking about the literal meaning of that sentence,
since it seems to be quite obvious, even if in a somewhat immature,
yet humourous way.
I was asking about its implication in the context of
our dispute---the very implication
which you wanted to discuss.
I am sorry if I had not been precise.
The fact that I have to spell out,
with such an obvious statement,
pretty squarely points the needle on the,
"you're an idiot",
rather than the, "you're new", indicator.
I have already disproven
the validity of this very argument in my
previous
post.
Replying to
"The fact that I have to point all this out,
is reason enough to acknowledge that you're either
new here or a complete idiot."
I wrote, I quote:
"Even if having to point it out
would somehow prove that I am indeed either new here
or a complete idiot (which it does not),
you would still have to prove that you
had to point it out in the first place,
for that sentence to make any sense whatsoever,
even if only as a a rhetorical figure, and still
quite poor at that."
The point is that you
take your ad hoc, unproven,
question-begging premiss for granted
("The fact that I have
to spell out")
and furthermore construct an argument
which in itself could hardly be considered valid.
If the argument is invalid
(even having true premiss)
or the premiss is false
(even if the argument is otherwise perfectly valid),
your argument fails to prove your conclusion
that I am an idiot or new here.
This is not to say, though, that
invalidity of your argument means validity of counterargument,
id est that I am neither an idiot nor new here,
which---needless to say---would be a classical example of
argumentum ad logicam, no more, no less.
Therefore I assert that the sentence
"Mr. Pan T. Hose, PhD, is either an idiot or new on Slashdot weblog"
has yet to be proven.
I see.
Sadly, you don't, or I wouldn't be here typing again. What a dolt.
You have quoted me completely out of context.
It should be:
[Second, let me say, it is fairly common to idiots
to have moderation points and thusly,
you have articles modded up,
which only make sense to other idiots.
This is exactly why meta-moderation exists...and
even then meta-moderation is only partially effective.]
I see.
[It is fairly common to idiots to have moderation points
and my comment has been moderated as high as it could possible have,
therefore it must be wrong and
I must be an idiot, must I not?
Have you learned your logic from
The Fallacy Files by any chance?]
Sadly, you don't [see],
or I wouldn't be here typing again. What a dolt.
As you can clearly see now
whithout the contextomy distorting my intended meaning
of that sentence,
you failed to disprove
the invalidity of your argument which I pointed out
previously.
Furthermore,
calling me a "dolt," whatever that was supposed to mean,
does not make your reasoning sound any more valid,
to say the very least.
You might consider avoiding such invectives
for your arguments to be sound at least,
even if not valid.
The guy was right -- having a high moderation score doesn't say anything about whether or not you're correct. If you believe otherwise, you really are either new here, or just not very smart.
No. The guy was wrong.
Even if having a high moderation score does not mean the moderated post has to be correct
(I consciously avoid the term "doesn't say anything" because it does)
it does not mean
that having said hight moderation score means
the post is incorrect.
This is a fallacious argument,
violating the most basic rules of
propositional logic.
I also have to agree that he's right about your post being offtopic. BPL is interesting because powerlines go to every single residence -- something which is not true of any other form of broadband connectivity.
That's it. That's the whole reason BPL is interesting to everyone.
And your point is?
If I had not found this very subject
intresting then I believe I
would not have written about it, now would I?
If you had read my (apparently boring)
riposte
carefully, you would have known that
using power grid for data transfer
making sense only in places lacking
any better medium was
exactly my point to begin with
and the very reason
of talking about Media Fusion scam in the first place.
What you posted is like saying the federal interstate system should be scrapped because somebody claimed to have invented a water-powered engine, and was subsequently exposed as a fraud.
I am sure you realize
that it is a very weak analogy.
If you insist
on using a good analogy,
this one would be much stronger:
saying that the federal interstate system
should not waste money on
trying to implement
a car powered by engine burning iron ore,
which while certainly possible is
utterly stupid and the only reason
people started to think about it
in any place not lacking much better and widely
used energy sources like oil,
was because of
some scam artist many years ago, who promised that he can build a car which would use one gram of iron per billion kilometers.
I belive it would make
perfect sense to point out how that farce has started in any discussion involving arguments on why burning iron ore is not very practical when compared to gasoline.
That and a lot more signals can simultaneously use the same fiber, forgot the number, but I think its around a thousand per optic fiber and less than a hundred for copper...
That is interesting that we can use
photons of different energy
(i.e. light of different colour)
causing hardly as much interference as
with superposition of electromagnetic
signals of different frequency
even in the best hyperconductive wire.
I won't even mention completely new
applications which are only
starting to get developed.
First, let me say, you're either an idiot or new to/.
Which means that therefore, I guess,
I somehow lost the argument?
(Please take no offense but
I find your childish rhetoric
hilariously amusing.)
Having a score of 5, indicates that people will blindly buy into the information that it provided without thinking if it even applied.
No. It might indicate it
only if
the said information did not
apply indeed,
which you have failed to prove so far.
Thusly, pay attention now, this is where my comment comes in.
Great! I could hardly wait.
That is, again, pay attention,
the article is about a guy that rips people off by using physics which don't exists and hides that fact by mumbling about quantum attributes of magnetic fields that simply don't work they way he indicates.
Really? I would have never guessed it myself!
Good thing I was paying attention,
like you kindly asked me, because
otherwise I would have no idea
what I was linking to and talking about
all the time.
I am truly grateful for
the enlightment.
Second, let me say, it is fairly common to idiots to have moderation points and thusly, you have articles modded up, which only make sense to other idiots. This is exactly why meta-moderation exists...and even then meta-moderation is only partially effective.
I see.
It is fairly common to idiots to have moderation points and
my
comment has been moderated as high as it
could possible have,
therefore
it must be wrong and
I must be an idiot, must I not?
Have you learned your logic from
The Fallacy Files by any chance?
The fact that I have to point all this out, is reason enough to acknowledge that you're either new here or a complete idiot.
Again, not quite correct.
Even if having to point it out
would somehow prove that I am indeed
either new here or a complete idiot
(which it does not),
you would still
have to prove that you had to point
it out in the first place,
for that sentence to make any sense whatsoever,
even if only as a a rhetorical figure,
and still quite poor at that.
See: Basic Logic 101.
So, unless the current research is going to be applied toward developing quantum devices to make this happen, the long article is completely off topic.
Literally tons of
pointless research has been
applied toward developing devices to make this happen (the same one could say about e.g.
lossless random data compression,
reusable key one time pad
cryptography,
homeopathy,
perpetuum mobile, and any other snake oil)
with the
unsurprising result that
it in fact cannot be built,
the only logical consequence of which would be to forget about the whole idea, because
as I have already said
countless times,
everything
one could do with power line, one could also do with copper which is just like power line only without the high voltage 60 or 50 Hz signal interfering, without the need to pass transformators and amplifiers both ways and with much better physical properties of the medium,
while the only advantage the power lines
were supposed to have was billion gigabits per second.
Besides, AFAIK, broadband over powerlines have long sense been a desire before that scam artists got involved with it. The article in question even mentions this.
But only the ridiculously
high bandwidth would justify
the higher cost of deployment and
all of the problems inherent to
power grid being used as a data transfer medium. Remember that y
The coolest FUD in that artice is "than whats possible with Fiber" They completely forgot to use the proper wording "than whats currently possible"... we have only begun to tap the bandwidth available over fiber networks... We are starting to fool around with changing the state of photons for cripe sake... the bandwidth potential is nearly unlimited..
I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly.
Everything one could do with power line,
one could also do with copper
which is just like power lines
only without the high voltage
60 or 50 Hz signal interferring,
without the need to pass transformators
and amplifiers both ways and
with much better physical properties
of the medium.
The fiber networks on the other hand,
are the real future for data transfers, where
we could
obtain almost limitless speeds of transmission,
thousands of times faster than what's possible with copper,
using the very photons,
the quants of light itself,
instead of the electricity.
Does the article say that they are trying to use quantum theory and/or devices to make this work? If the answer is no, then your response is completely offtopic at best and karma whoring at worst.
You are clearly wrong, as it is
scored as Score:5, Insightful and not Score:-1, Offtopic as you imply. That having been said,
all of the childish whining about the
"karma" aside,
the point is that if it were not for the billions gigabits per second no one would ever invest in that scam and use power lines for broadband in any place where copper lines are available, because power lines have no advantages over copper lines other than the bullshit from Media Fusion scam.
Please read the article,
it is not about some third world country where there is no copper.
"Could cable and DSL face a new competitor in the broadband market in the near future?"
The proper answer to this very question is:
"Of course not! Are you nuts?!"
Why? Exactly because of the very
(off-topic in your opinion) things
I dared to write about.
If Microsoft and Sendmail
are working together on Spam Solution,
then I guess
we can all rest assured
that
whatever they build,
it won't have any buffer overflow problems.
I, for one, am looking forward to
use 1.0.0 version on my production systems.
Is it that time of the year already? Wow, I guess it as been awhile since our last BPL-to-the-masses announcement. Maybe this year it will dethrone DNF for the #1 vaporware spot.
Slashdot Mirror
I have more and more emphaty for this company, because they turn out to be just like me...
So, as I've said, I just have to love SCO, because they are just like me. In fact they are just like most of us working here on Duke Nukem Forever. We are working forever...
"Using the LAME encoding engine (or other mp3 encoding technology) in your software may require a patent license in some countries." So no, I didn't forget about LAME. It is just illegal to use as freely as Vorbis. LAME is free software using patented algorithm. For me, it might be proprietary software as well.
I think I have already heard it somewhere...
As opposed to MP3, which is the best fucking name of all time? The name of the format is Vorbis. It is much easier to pronounce than MP3 and for anyone being even remotely literate, it sounds instantly familiar. I am sick of those trolls in every story about Vorbis, Ogg, Theora, Tarkin, or anything made by the Xiphophorus Helleri Foundation in general.
Does anyone understand logic here? If you're lzw compressed gifs can't be displayed anymore, it's because no one thought it was worth paying the royalty.
Two words: free software.
Nine words: You haven't read this and this, have you?
MP3? I know her. She is such a bitch!
Seriously though, this news is exactly why Ogg Vorbis was created in the first place. I was always asking my friends to read Why artists should be using Ogg Vorbis by Daniel James. For them this is not news, this is not news at all, it is just a boring, predictable consequence of the stupid inertia giving them momentum. Nothing more.
One word: patents. They can start enforcing them whenever they want. (See www.mp3licensing.com.) Remember Unisys patent on LZW compression? All my old GIFs was working just fine too, which didn't mean I could keep using them. Fortunately, now with zlib, PNG and Ogg Vorbis, this is not an issue this time.
I remember when once I was auditing a Windows network (it was few years ago) which turned out to be very disruption-tolerant. In fact, it was so tolerant, that it was constantly being disrupted one way or another. Of course my advice was to remove Windows from the most critical servers and install Linux and *BSD. Since then, it was disruption-intolerant.
Then how could I possibly make it not misleading?! Oh, well... I hope jail isn't that bad...
Now, will you excuse me while I register a domain www.attention-this-site-may-contain-explicit- pictures-or-descriptions-of-or-advocate-one- or-more-of-the-most-sinful-deviations-violating- every-law-known-to-man-and-god.com No jail time for me I guess...
...who after reading the article thinks that it might not work with Freenet very well?
I would like to help them so much... I know! I will offer Amazon my legal advice, free of charge, because I think they are great, and I am such a nice guy, despite being a lawyer. Let me only click... Oh, no! I would have to commit a crime of one-clicking patent infringement to even RTFA! But I want to help them! Must... resist... Thou Shall Not Infringe... Thou Shall Not Steal Innovative Clicking Ideas... But... I ... must... help...
Only... clicking... would... help...
Must... not... click...
Help... Click... No... Cannot...
Oh dear God, my brain!
If Microsoft and Sendmail are working together on Spam Solution, then I guess we can all rest assured that whatever they build, it won't have any buffer overflow problems. I, for one, am looking forward to use 1.0.0 version on my production systems.
I personally think that Java VM is a pretty nice architecture (maybe not counting the string immutability and problems with expressing dynamically typed languages and multiple inheritance). I believe that it would have been a truly brilliant idea to release Java VM under a copyleft license, before the Parrot development had started. As much as I would love to believe otherwise, it could be too late right now. But I am really looking forward, as it might turn out to be a great hobby project and a powerful new tool in the GNU system arsenal. I am sure that IBM is exactly the company who might help Java the most. Let us not forget that it is crucially important to Sun as well as IBM to undermine .Net and C# soon to be ambiguously
provided by Microsoft.
I am sure that as soon as
IBM joins Sun with that common goal,
Mac will follow not long after that.
This is great news for every one of us.
We will remember this day
for years.
You haven't RTFA, have you? The quote in the Slashdot summary is a little bit out of context, but is a perfectly valid statement of a well known historical fact nonetheless. Please read it carefully:
The head of Microsoft's security business and technology unit states that Windows is never vulnerable until a patch appears, and that releasing patches is what causes exploits to be developed. Good quotes: "We have never had vulnerabilities exploited before the patch was known," and "[he] could only think of one instance when a vulnerability was exploited before a patch was available."
Does he say anywhere that the patch is a specific diff patching this particular vulnerability? No. Of course not. It would be ridiculous.
Now, if I recall correctly, Larry Wall made the patch available in 1984 and I honestly cannot remember any Windows vulnerability whatsoever before that time.
Please, people, just because it was Microsoft Security Chief, doesn't mean that what he said must not be true!
Please at least try controlling your language. I have to remind you that this is Slashdot.
Are you serious? Which part is that?
The only part when I even mention you is the first paragraph where I literally repeat words previously written by your friend (which you had no problems with whatsoever) and only point out that even if they are true it still does not imply that my reasoning is incorrect.
I guess you have guessed correctly, I indeed take medication, like in fact most of people I know, but I fail to see your point about the fact of taking medications being somehow correlated with the validity of my arguments or the lack thereof. I have to remind you that argumentum ad hominem is utterly fallacious.
No, it means you're either too dumb to understand the moderation system or too new to know better than to make statements, such as you made.
I was not asking about the literal meaning of that sentence, since it seems to be quite obvious, even if in a somewhat immature, yet humourous way. I was asking about its implication in the context of our dispute---the very implication which you wanted to discuss. I am sorry if I had not been precise.
I have already disproven the validity of this very argument in my previous post. Replying to "The fact that I have to point all this out, is reason enough to acknowledge that you're either new here or a complete idiot." I wrote, I quote: "Even if having to point it out would somehow prove that I am indeed either new here or a complete idiot (which it does not), you would still have to prove that you had to point it out in the first place, for that sentence to make any sense whatsoever, even if only as a a rhetorical figure, and still quite poor at that."
The point is that you take your ad hoc, unproven, question-begging premiss for granted ("The fact that I have to spell out") and furthermore construct an argument which in itself could hardly be considered valid.
If the argument is invalid (even having true premiss) or the premiss is false (even if the argument is otherwise perfectly valid), your argument fails to prove your conclusion that I am an idiot or new here. This is not to say, though, that invalidity of your argument means validity of counterargument, id est that I am neither an idiot nor new here, which---needless to say---would be a classical example of argumentum ad logicam, no more, no less.
Therefore I assert that the sentence "Mr. Pan T. Hose, PhD, is either an idiot or new on Slashdot weblog" has yet to be proven.
You have quoted me completely out of context. It should be:
Sadly, you don't [see], or I wouldn't be here typing again. What a dolt.
As you can clearly see now whithout the contextomy distorting my intended meaning of that sentence, you failed to disprove the invalidity of your argument which I pointed out previously. Furthermore, calling me a "dolt," whatever that was supposed to mean, does not make your reasoning sound any more valid, to say the very least. You might consider avoiding such invectives for your arguments to be sound at least, even if not valid.
No. The guy was wrong. Even if having a high moderation score does not mean the moderated post has to be correct (I consciously avoid the term "doesn't say anything" because it does) it does not mean that having said hight moderation score means the post is incorrect. This is a fallacious argument, violating the most basic rules of propositional logic.
And your point is? If I had not found this very subject intresting then I believe I would not have written about it, now would I?
If you had read my (apparently boring) riposte carefully, you would have known that using power grid for data transfer making sense only in places lacking any better medium was exactly my point to begin with and the very reason of talking about Media Fusion scam in the first place.
I am sure you realize that it is a very weak analogy. If you insist on using a good analogy, this one would be much stronger: saying that the federal interstate system should not waste money on trying to implement a car powered by engine burning iron ore, which while certainly possible is utterly stupid and the only reason people started to think about it in any place not lacking much better and widely used energy sources like oil, was because of some scam artist many years ago, who promised that he can build a car which would use one gram of iron per billion kilometers.
I belive it would make perfect sense to point out how that farce has started in any discussion involving arguments on why burning iron ore is not very practical when compared to gasoline.
That is interesting that we can use photons of different energy (i.e. light of different colour) causing hardly as much interference as with superposition of electromagnetic signals of different frequency even in the best hyperconductive wire. I won't even mention completely new applications which are only starting to get developed.
Which means that therefore, I guess, I somehow lost the argument? (Please take no offense but I find your childish rhetoric hilariously amusing.)
No. It might indicate it only if the said information did not apply indeed, which you have failed to prove so far.
Great! I could hardly wait.
Really? I would have never guessed it myself! Good thing I was paying attention, like you kindly asked me, because otherwise I would have no idea what I was linking to and talking about all the time. I am truly grateful for the enlightment.
I see. It is fairly common to idiots to have moderation points and my comment has been moderated as high as it could possible have, therefore it must be wrong and I must be an idiot, must I not? Have you learned your logic from The Fallacy Files by any chance?
Again, not quite correct. Even if having to point it out would somehow prove that I am indeed either new here or a complete idiot (which it does not), you would still have to prove that you had to point it out in the first place, for that sentence to make any sense whatsoever, even if only as a a rhetorical figure, and still quite poor at that. See: Basic Logic 101.
Literally tons of pointless research has been applied toward developing devices to make this happen (the same one could say about e.g. lossless random data compression, reusable key one time pad cryptography, homeopathy, perpetuum mobile, and any other snake oil) with the unsurprising result that it in fact cannot be built, the only logical consequence of which would be to forget about the whole idea, because as I have already said countless times, everything one could do with power line, one could also do with copper which is just like power line only without the high voltage 60 or 50 Hz signal interfering, without the need to pass transformators and amplifiers both ways and with much better physical properties of the medium, while the only advantage the power lines were supposed to have was billion gigabits per second.
But only the ridiculously high bandwidth would justify the higher cost of deployment and all of the problems inherent to power grid being used as a data transfer medium. Remember that y
I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly. Everything one could do with power line, one could also do with copper which is just like power lines only without the high voltage 60 or 50 Hz signal interferring, without the need to pass transformators and amplifiers both ways and with much better physical properties of the medium. The fiber networks on the other hand, are the real future for data transfers, where we could obtain almost limitless speeds of transmission, thousands of times faster than what's possible with copper, using the very photons, the quants of light itself, instead of the electricity.
You are clearly wrong, as it is scored as Score:5, Insightful and not Score:-1, Offtopic as you imply. That having been said, all of the childish whining about the "karma" aside, the point is that if it were not for the billions gigabits per second no one would ever invest in that scam and use power lines for broadband in any place where copper lines are available, because power lines have no advantages over copper lines other than the bullshit from Media Fusion scam. Please read the article, it is not about some third world country where there is no copper. "Could cable and DSL face a new competitor in the broadband market in the near future?" The proper answer to this very question is: "Of course not! Are you nuts?!" Why? Exactly because of the very (off-topic in your opinion) things I dared to write about.
I am really glad they finally adopted Open Source Software. That seems to be the most reasonable thing the Australian Tux Office could do.
If Microsoft and Sendmail are working together on Spam Solution, then I guess we can all rest assured that whatever they build, it won't have any buffer overflow problems. I, for one, am looking forward to use 1.0.0 version on my production systems.
Well, apparently, as Evan Ratliff once said in 2001, Luke Stewart -- self-proclaimed national treasure -- carries on...