I can see you've never run a business. Why would I want to run 30%+ higher costs in the vulnerable startup phase when the current offering is superior to the competition?
Something like this would be very nice in an expansion phase (and thanks for the tip) but for a startup? Not in the first year as a wrong guess kills you quicker. Much better to oversubscribe and run cogent as a second provider.
First of all, you lose about a third of your bandwidth due to dialup overhead using 1 channel of a T-1 is faster than dialup because the error correction is out of band. Second of all a T-1 has 24 channels so even if they had similar overhead (remember they down't) the T-1 would still offer more bandwidth. Third, the number of times that everybody is going to be going out on the net flat out simultaneously is rather low. Most ISPs oversubscribe by a factor of at least 4-1, many go as high as 8-1 I'm thinking of going no higher than 2-1 since I'm not looking to make this my full time job and just want to provide very good service with low overhead, making my real money on consulting.
If business lines are still available flat rate (T1/E1) then it is possible to beat them. Wireless ISPs are the wave of the future because you generally don't need regulatory permission and you just rent your lines like any other business until you can lay your own copper out of your profits.
Actually the only babies getting sold in the US are aborted ones sold for parts, including stem cells. The right wing is much cooler with using your own stem cells which doesn't kill anybody and keeps you off the anti-rejection drugs making stem cell procedures a one-time cost instead of a lifetime expense.
Funny, those leftist pro-choicers want the stem cell variant that puts the maximum amount of money in the pockets of the drug companies. Who would have thought that?
Indirect competition is one of the most little understood features of capitalism. Most critics of capitalism just ignore it and that is what makes their critiques so silly. In this case running a WISP (Wireless Internet Service Provider) is likely your solution after the next price hike.
If you have a few social skills and good relations with your neighbors, throw up an 802.11b cloud, get a T-1 line and charge $60 a month for access. Get your customers first and then you'll end up having the same or more practical bandwidth, control over your own future (there's a lot more competition for T-1 lines) and you'll actually make a small profit you can bank in case you suddenly lose a lot of customers.
Indirect competition is what's going to kill the price hikes and quite soon. Big business has a lot of clout over T-1 pricing and past a certain point, it's just cheaper to get your own business quality line with SLA.
Lets see, a burstable T-1 costs $700 a month at my location (worldcom, lowest tier, a clean T-1 that isn't metered at all costs $900) with which I can share this with 20 of my closest neighbors @ $50/month for an income of $1000/month which pays for my time, the aironet hubs and the rest of the equipment to keep the 802.11b cloud humming and relatively secure. Compare that to the $50/month DSL charges and the T-1 price is the same, you get much higher local connection speeds for the LAN and best of all, you actually get a service level agreement so if your line drops for 8 or 12 hours, they have to pay you. Nobody offers SLAs for cablemodem or DSL internet access.
Any suburban subdivision with at least one technogeek in residence is better off getting T-1 than DSL or cablemodem.
The fanmail form goes to her management, not to her personally. If you think that her management didn't have anything to do with this, you're in need of your own clue.
Actually, it's not just Sony that would be hauled into court if they're distributing malware but all the record stores that stocked it after they were notified that it was malware. The distributors are key because if they won't buy it, Celine Dion and Sony make far less money and won't ever use Key2Audio again.
Actually, the Pentagon needs to talk to the NSA. --start quote--
Stenbit said that the debate is academic and that what matters is how secure a given piece of software is. To that end, the Defense Department is now prohibited from purchasing any software that has not undergone security testing by the NSA. Stenbit said he is unaware of any open-source software that has been tested. --end quote--
Apparently, the pentagon spokesman has never heard that the NSA actually puts out its own Linux variant. I doubt that this would have a problem passing NSA security testing...
My guess is that it's Netscape Communicator level bad, take it out back and shoot it bad. That's why they don't want to release it because they know their market position won't stand the gales of laughter from the wider programming community if it were made public.
It's been pretty clear for some time that Microsoft has backed away from its prior statements that the entire Win32 API is actually documented in those SDKs and that an ISV actually has a level playing field coding against internal MS programmers. Years ago they used to claim that there was a 'chinese wall' between the OS programmers and the App programmers and that there were no secret APIs, everything was in those $3k Universal Subscription mailings and the little guy had an even shot.
They don't do that anymore because people have reverse engineered enough of Windows and the MS apps that run on it to demonstrate conclusively that you've been fed a big fat lie. You don't have a level playing field and you never did.
This is a multi-billion dollar fraud and in large part it's what made Microsoft the uber-monopoly it is today (this was the grounds that the DoJ should have used to go after MS). The fact that you don't know that you've been shafted years after BillG and SteveB have admitted this in interviews leaves me speechless.
Basic research is why we have a NSF. NASA is supposed to be about the stuff we haven't figured out how to do already. I don't think you get it. A moonbase isn't being launched by private companies for one and only one reason, there's no incentive where there's no ownership and we've signed a treaty that says you can't have private property outside of Earth.
I don't have a problem with funding basic research right now, at least until we have enough enlightened millionaires who fund massive research programs because they think that's the best use for their dollars.
What I do have is a problem with the attitude that space is automatically a govenment domain and we shouldn't even consider private action in a major societal initiative. That's bogus. What are the X Prize people doing it for anyway...
Actually it's not workable. This has an obvious solution for MS, just don't fix the code and it stays secret. Why would they fix anything at that point?
The question is can they legally do security work for MS on the taxpayers dime. I bet that the legal department ruled no. Open source is different because the general public has access to their work so a technique to secure Linux or BSD can be adopted in other operating systems and thus more closely fits the character of computer security work that is in the government's charter. NSA fix MS code? Only if MS pays for it, and richly. And even then, you run into the problem of undercutting private sector code shops so the NSA still gets whacked.
No, it isn't happening for well established legal reasons. The short version is we're not a bunch of communists.
You have the entirely naive attitude that government contracts in aerospace and moonbase construction will not end up lining the pockets of corrupt politicians. At least when you have a corrupt private corporation in a year or five the company goes down the tubes taking their corrupt accountants with them. Government contractors and their corrupt politician partners stick around for decades.
The entire colonial push into the New World was largely a profit making enterprise and it worked out splendidly for the colonial empires for hundreds of years. We've advanced quite a bit since that time but I don't see anything wrong with creating a profitable moonbase if we can. You get all the same technological progress but the money is raised from among the farsighted and the profits distributed accordingly.
National pride can be had from our citizens private achievements. Doesn't Lindbergh's flight across the Atlantic, the domination of Hollywood in world film culture, the invention of the transistor, the PC and countless other private innovations reflect in our national pride too?
What's the benefit of making a moonbase a public endeavor anyway other than putting pressure on enlarging government?
As I recall he wanted to raid the DoD for the money instead of privately financing it. The DoD provides lots of return, like killing people who want to enslave us and breaking their things. Along the way the provide lots of R&D and civilian spinoffs itself. I would like us to do the cool stuff as a society but if something can be made profitable, we should have a preference for funding it privately.
The point is that with a large enough stone, you don't need explosive power when you are throwing it down a gravity well. A monopoly on moon bases would put the PRC in the position to do that and to issue subsequent ultimatums to the rest of the world.
Not a nice scenario, given the kind of government they are.
I don't know about vital but there was a documented case where somebody (they never figured out whether it was Russia or just routed through Russia) was pulling jobs off of Pentagon print queues (Windows printing), printing them and putting the jobs back in the queues. I don't know if they ever patched that particular hole...
Sure, let's just forget about the rest of Defense
on
China Plans Moonbase
·
· Score: 2
The DoD has a lot of responsibilities and is not geared up properly to handle them. They have to go through a 10-15 year retooling process to handle the small war threat and then turn right around and fire up the next generation of weapons systems because our 20 year technical advantage will have been mostly eaten up at that point. Also, there's a war on so I think that such a relatively long term threat is best handled by abrogating or renegotiating the space treaty that kills the free enterprise system outside of earth (no property ownership allowed) and encourage aerospace companies to team with manufacturing and mineral extraction firms into combines that can profitably extract the riches of space and fund the defense needs of their installation and provide an economic base for whatever military needs to be stationed up there as well.
For that sort of vision, I'd certainly be willing to put in $500 investment a year out of my retirement funds and take both a security leap, a science leap, and a nice portfolio boost along the way.
If you want to pay for the cool things that are unprofitable, be my guest but what you were really asking for is for all of us to pay for your personal entertainment. No thanks.
If you're using the moon as a military base to loft rocks at the earth, I would expect that earthly deposits of all that stuff would become available very quickly. Call it a strategic investment.
Actually, the number to worry about is the 150 million *surplus* agricultural workers coupled with the growing number of urban unemployed (10s of millions here too). Most of the economic figures out of the PRC are bogus but their unemployment numbers are sure to be lowballed and they admit to the 150M.
They don't need nukes, just the capability to launch large rocks. They could even justify building the launchers for commercial reasons right until the first one lands in Tblisi as a demonstration delivered right along with an ultimatum to surrender.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see you've never run a business. Why would I want to run 30%+ higher costs in the vulnerable startup phase when the current offering is superior to the competition?
Something like this would be very nice in an expansion phase (and thanks for the tip) but for a startup? Not in the first year as a wrong guess kills you quicker. Much better to oversubscribe and run cogent as a second provider.
First of all, you lose about a third of your bandwidth due to dialup overhead using 1 channel of a T-1 is faster than dialup because the error correction is out of band. Second of all a T-1 has 24 channels so even if they had similar overhead (remember they down't) the T-1 would still offer more bandwidth. Third, the number of times that everybody is going to be going out on the net flat out simultaneously is rather low. Most ISPs oversubscribe by a factor of at least 4-1, many go as high as 8-1 I'm thinking of going no higher than 2-1 since I'm not looking to make this my full time job and just want to provide very good service with low overhead, making my real money on consulting.
If business lines are still available flat rate (T1/E1) then it is possible to beat them. Wireless ISPs are the wave of the future because you generally don't need regulatory permission and you just rent your lines like any other business until you can lay your own copper out of your profits.
Actually the only babies getting sold in the US are aborted ones sold for parts, including stem cells. The right wing is much cooler with using your own stem cells which doesn't kill anybody and keeps you off the anti-rejection drugs making stem cell procedures a one-time cost instead of a lifetime expense.
Funny, those leftist pro-choicers want the stem cell variant that puts the maximum amount of money in the pockets of the drug companies. Who would have thought that?
Indirect competition is one of the most little understood features of capitalism. Most critics of capitalism just ignore it and that is what makes their critiques so silly. In this case running a WISP (Wireless Internet Service Provider) is likely your solution after the next price hike.
If you have a few social skills and good relations with your neighbors, throw up an 802.11b cloud, get a T-1 line and charge $60 a month for access. Get your customers first and then you'll end up having the same or more practical bandwidth, control over your own future (there's a lot more competition for T-1 lines) and you'll actually make a small profit you can bank in case you suddenly lose a lot of customers.
Indirect competition is what's going to kill the price hikes and quite soon. Big business has a lot of clout over T-1 pricing and past a certain point, it's just cheaper to get your own business quality line with SLA.
Lets see, a burstable T-1 costs $700 a month at my location (worldcom, lowest tier, a clean T-1 that isn't metered at all costs $900) with which I can share this with 20 of my closest neighbors @ $50/month for an income of $1000/month which pays for my time, the aironet hubs and the rest of the equipment to keep the 802.11b cloud humming and relatively secure. Compare that to the $50/month DSL charges and the T-1 price is the same, you get much higher local connection speeds for the LAN and best of all, you actually get a service level agreement so if your line drops for 8 or 12 hours, they have to pay you. Nobody offers SLAs for cablemodem or DSL internet access.
Any suburban subdivision with at least one technogeek in residence is better off getting T-1 than DSL or cablemodem.
The fanmail form goes to her management, not to her personally. If you think that her management didn't have anything to do with this, you're in need of your own clue.
Actually, it's not just Sony that would be hauled into court if they're distributing malware but all the record stores that stocked it after they were notified that it was malware. The distributors are key because if they won't buy it, Celine Dion and Sony make far less money and won't ever use Key2Audio again.
Actually, the Pentagon needs to talk to the NSA.
--start quote--
Stenbit said that the debate is academic and that what matters is how secure a given piece of software is. To that end, the Defense Department is now prohibited from purchasing any software that has not undergone security testing by the NSA. Stenbit said he is unaware of any open-source software that has been tested.
--end quote--
Apparently, the pentagon spokesman has never heard that the NSA actually puts out its own Linux variant. I doubt that this would have a problem passing NSA security testing...
You missed one possibility. Allchin lied. But then again, that'd be perjury, 10 years in the federal penitentiary if they figure it out.
Funny, perjury's the one thing I haven't seen mentioned up 'till now.
My guess is that it's Netscape Communicator level bad, take it out back and shoot it bad. That's why they don't want to release it because they know their market position won't stand the gales of laughter from the wider programming community if it were made public.
It's been pretty clear for some time that Microsoft has backed away from its prior statements that the entire Win32 API is actually documented in those SDKs and that an ISV actually has a level playing field coding against internal MS programmers. Years ago they used to claim that there was a 'chinese wall' between the OS programmers and the App programmers and that there were no secret APIs, everything was in those $3k Universal Subscription mailings and the little guy had an even shot.
They don't do that anymore because people have reverse engineered enough of Windows and the MS apps that run on it to demonstrate conclusively that you've been fed a big fat lie. You don't have a level playing field and you never did.
This is a multi-billion dollar fraud and in large part it's what made Microsoft the uber-monopoly it is today (this was the grounds that the DoJ should have used to go after MS). The fact that you don't know that you've been shafted years after BillG and SteveB have admitted this in interviews leaves me speechless.
Basic research is why we have a NSF. NASA is supposed to be about the stuff we haven't figured out how to do already. I don't think you get it. A moonbase isn't being launched by private companies for one and only one reason, there's no incentive where there's no ownership and we've signed a treaty that says you can't have private property outside of Earth.
I don't have a problem with funding basic research right now, at least until we have enough enlightened millionaires who fund massive research programs because they think that's the best use for their dollars.
What I do have is a problem with the attitude that space is automatically a govenment domain and we shouldn't even consider private action in a major societal initiative. That's bogus. What are the X Prize people doing it for anyway...
Actually it's not workable. This has an obvious solution for MS, just don't fix the code and it stays secret. Why would they fix anything at that point?
The question is can they legally do security work for MS on the taxpayers dime. I bet that the legal department ruled no. Open source is different because the general public has access to their work so a technique to secure Linux or BSD can be adopted in other operating systems and thus more closely fits the character of computer security work that is in the government's charter. NSA fix MS code? Only if MS pays for it, and richly. And even then, you run into the problem of undercutting private sector code shops so the NSA still gets whacked.
No, it isn't happening for well established legal reasons. The short version is we're not a bunch of communists.
You have the entirely naive attitude that government contracts in aerospace and moonbase construction will not end up lining the pockets of corrupt politicians. At least when you have a corrupt private corporation in a year or five the company goes down the tubes taking their corrupt accountants with them. Government contractors and their corrupt politician partners stick around for decades.
The entire colonial push into the New World was largely a profit making enterprise and it worked out splendidly for the colonial empires for hundreds of years. We've advanced quite a bit since that time but I don't see anything wrong with creating a profitable moonbase if we can. You get all the same technological progress but the money is raised from among the farsighted and the profits distributed accordingly.
National pride can be had from our citizens private achievements. Doesn't Lindbergh's flight across the Atlantic, the domination of Hollywood in world film culture, the invention of the transistor, the PC and countless other private innovations reflect in our national pride too?
What's the benefit of making a moonbase a public endeavor anyway other than putting pressure on enlarging government?
As I recall he wanted to raid the DoD for the money instead of privately financing it. The DoD provides lots of return, like killing people who want to enslave us and breaking their things. Along the way the provide lots of R&D and civilian spinoffs itself. I would like us to do the cool stuff as a society but if something can be made profitable, we should have a preference for funding it privately.
The point is that with a large enough stone, you don't need explosive power when you are throwing it down a gravity well. A monopoly on moon bases would put the PRC in the position to do that and to issue subsequent ultimatums to the rest of the world.
Not a nice scenario, given the kind of government they are.
I don't know about vital but there was a documented case where somebody (they never figured out whether it was Russia or just routed through Russia) was pulling jobs off of Pentagon print queues (Windows printing), printing them and putting the jobs back in the queues. I don't know if they ever patched that particular hole...
The DoD has a lot of responsibilities and is not geared up properly to handle them. They have to go through a 10-15 year retooling process to handle the small war threat and then turn right around and fire up the next generation of weapons systems because our 20 year technical advantage will have been mostly eaten up at that point. Also, there's a war on so I think that such a relatively long term threat is best handled by abrogating or renegotiating the space treaty that kills the free enterprise system outside of earth (no property ownership allowed) and encourage aerospace companies to team with manufacturing and mineral extraction firms into combines that can profitably extract the riches of space and fund the defense needs of their installation and provide an economic base for whatever military needs to be stationed up there as well.
For that sort of vision, I'd certainly be willing to put in $500 investment a year out of my retirement funds and take both a security leap, a science leap, and a nice portfolio boost along the way.
Much better, don't you think?
If you want to pay for the cool things that are unprofitable, be my guest but what you were really asking for is for all of us to pay for your personal entertainment. No thanks.
If you're using the moon as a military base to loft rocks at the earth, I would expect that earthly deposits of all that stuff would become available very quickly. Call it a strategic investment.
Actually, the number to worry about is the 150 million *surplus* agricultural workers coupled with the growing number of urban unemployed (10s of millions here too). Most of the economic figures out of the PRC are bogus but their unemployment numbers are sure to be lowballed and they admit to the 150M.
They don't need nukes, just the capability to launch large rocks. They could even justify building the launchers for commercial reasons right until the first one lands in Tblisi as a demonstration delivered right along with an ultimatum to surrender.