The conflict between the newspapers and Google is due to financial issues. With nearly 100% of news being free, newspaper revenue is declining rapidly.
Whether (or how) the online presence of newspapers generates profits is the subject of the article. It's a separate and distinct issue from the declining revenues of newspapers, which, for the most part, are a decline in classifieds revenue. Declining circulations play a role, but to a far less extent than you'd like to believe. Newspapers are still very very profitable (more so than most businesses), but lack the increasing revenues that Wall Street demands. Hardly surprising that the LA Times, for example, is now reverting to being privately held.
The newspaper companies just want Google to pay them for the free news.
Vaguely correct for ambiguous values of correct. You're talking about "access" to news stories. News isn't free. It comes from reporters who are paid to investigate, research and write stories. Most reporting is still done by newspapers. Even broadcast (television) news is a product of newspaper reporting. If newspapers can't afford to pay their reporting and editorial staff, everyone suffers. In the extreme cases, you either end up with "local reporting" (consisting mostly of puff pieces on insignicant issues), or recyled headlines from wire services (who are also under similar budgetary concerns).
If you can't see where this is heading, I'd suggest watching a few hours of celebrity news programming (consisting mostly of stock footage) on TV and asking yourself whether you feel informed about the world you live in. Or, if you're up to it, ask the Really Big Question of how a democracy can function without an informed electorate.
As to the subject of whether the newspapers deserve some cut from Google's advertising revenues, well, no. I don't think they do. If that was your point, then we're in agreement.
You mean like alcohol, saturated fats, or tobacco?
When I was a kid, our family lived in fairly urban environment in Canada. Despite that, we grew most of our vegetables, and our fruits came from our own trees or those of friends, neighbours, or the occasional trip to a farmer's market. Bread came from the oven, meat came from a farmer that raised livestock or from a reputable butcher, and wine was on the dinner table. Fairly traditional stuff for many Europeans, so you can guess my parents weren't native born. We didn't read labels, or need to, and instead of relying on the latest research on the value (or lack of it) of what we were eating, we trusted in the notion that the way ate was the way people ate for hundreds of years. The fact that it tasted good didn't hurt.
The reason I bring all this up, is that I'm old enough to remember any number of New and Improved products of one sort or another that eventually became part of the popular culture. One of those products was margarine. When it was introduced, all of thought it was obscene and laughed at people bought it, and respectfully ignored the doctors who advised people to use it. I hesitate to count how many years it took until people woke up to the fact that it basically unhealthy stuff to be putting into your body.
So, no thanks. People should stick to what is natural, and address any concerns about calorie intake (a separate issue) by eating less. Or getting off the couch or out of their car to go our for a walk once in a while. More specifically, fat IS good for you and your body needs it to function properly. You just need a lot less than you'd think, or prefer. Similarly, alcohol is also good for you, wine especially. Or do you think that stress-related illnesses or prescriptions for heart medication are more preferrable?
The fact is, we're living longer and healthier with all of this "processed crap" than we ever did with "good old food".
My grass is wet; ergo it must have rained, right? Life expectancy has increased dramatically in the last century not because of medical advances, but due to improved hygiene. Throw in vaccinating children for communicable diseases as public policy, and you've pretty much covered the extent to which modern science has had an effect on longevity.
As for the soft drink epidemic, I exect that will fade over the next generation. We've already taken the first step by disallowing our schools to fund themselves by installing vending machines to promote the crap. The second step will be to teach our kids (by example) that what is natural is good. Spending one's free time sucking flavoured corn-syrup water out of an aluminum can or plastic bottles was never natural.
How do others deal with organizing the results of browsing?
I do this as regularly as anyone.
lynx -dump > ~/docs/filename
or if you're organised
lynx -dump | add_to_database_script
What's important to me is the content itself, not the "web content", so an attorney, for example, would take a very different approach (typically a hard copy that can be filed, duplicated, etc.). Note that unless you work for a law firm or a well-run business, managing paper is like a dog walking on its hind legs: it's rare to see to it done, and when you do, it's not done very well. The same applies to bookmarks which have the additional problem of referencing pages that may get moved or simply disappear at any time.
In my experience PDF and HTML are like cousins who should refrain from getting to close to each other. By comparison, processing simple text is straightforward.
What I think he's aluding to, is not that Dell hands them a check to do business with them, but Wal-Mart is notorius for being cut-throat on getting the absolute best deal possible.
This deserves to be modded up. Not because it's particularly insightful, but because 9 out 10 Walmart shoppers have no frigging idea of how Walmart does business. Or how the manner in which they do business affects other businesses.
Put another way, Dell's margins will be very thin, but they should expect to make up for the losses in volume. Until, of course, Walmart renegotiates the deal. Lather, rinse, repeat. Why renegotiate if you stand to have your margins shaved even more? Because your company (Dell, in this case) now relies on the increased evenues from the huge increases in volumes to stay afloat. That, and Walmart will beat them down until they submit or go away.
Whether the approach works is another matter. Personally, I've always felt that Dell's consumer offerings belong in a Walmart.
I'm not sure what's next, but I know what's already here -- horizontal scrollbars!
Sigh.
My guess is that most web designers are also Windows users who run all their programs in fullscreen, or otherwise work for folks that believe their sites merit an inordinate amount screen real estate. Given the amount of rubbish on the intarweb, I don't think I'm alone in finding a complaint or two in that regard. On my 1024x768 laptop, for example, I'll allot no more than 75% of the screen to a Firefox window (maybe full screen for The New York Times). If Slashdot can fit nicely, why can't everyone else? Or do people not mind the staring into a lightbulb effect? Or the eyestrain of reading overlong lines of text? Then again, maybe they don't read at all.
Google News was always a favourite of mine. Not entirely representative of what I'd consider newsworthy, but it distinguishes itself in a number of areas, not the least of which is the typical Google style of conciseness (measured in terms of both screen real estate and content) we've all come to expect.
Maybe I'll just say f*ck it and go back to using a text browser. Oddly enough, most of the news stories I read by copying the link address into lynx, etc. to spare myself the grief of encountering bloated and slow loading pages with little content which, surprise, constitute the majority of news sites aggregated.
If I can add, fast food, by design, doesn't require chewing. How else to encourage mindless consumption, right?
What's disappointing to me reading the endless whining going on here is discovering (being reminded) how many people insist that fast food is the real way to go. Or really like fast food. Or can't tell the difference. Or have a list of excuses why they don't have time for something that isn't fast. Or don't know any better. Or think it's not really bad for you. Or are quick to criticise those who want something better of being elitist or somehow out of touch. Or are unembarrased to demonstrate a willful obliviousness to the false economies of things fast and cheap. Or simply that it's everywhere.
Maybe it is a matter of taste. For me, I'll make my own burgers thank-you-very-much. And snicker at Mac users ordering expensive ones at trendy restaurants.
In the early 80s Bayan, Ghassan and Hassan Elashi had a little company that made computers for the royal Suadi family. My boss was Jewish and he and I were the only white guys there
I guess the term white guys could include Jews for large values of white, but some people might disagree. Then, again, Arabs and Jews can both be characterised as Semites, but that might upset other folks and offend the sensibilities of the politically correct who really don't know WTF they're saying (if anything).
Either way, you're screwed. You'd appeal to larger groups if you use more specific terminology or, as an alternative, use ethnic humour to make the point. If it was me, I'd opt for ethnic humour route, and offend everyone you possibly can.;-)
This might be the reason that providers are offering different high-speed internet plans.
Sure. I switched over to one of those. The actual numbers I don't recall[1], but here's a sampling of SBC/ATT's services.
JoeSixpack Service: 384 Kbps to 768 Mbps Regular Service: 768 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps SuperDeluxe Service: 1.5 Mbps to 3.0 Mbps
Originally, I opted for the Regular Service. I typically got the maximum 1.5 Mbps, and life was good.
After a year or so, the service started to degrade to around 768 Mbps, so I said, fuck it, and upgraded to SuperDeluxe Service and got my 3.0 Mbps regularly. Life was good again.
After less than a year, my new 3.0 Mbps rate slowed down to 1.5 Mbps. WTF? I called them, laying out the scenario and they splained that those were "maximums only".
Can't win for losing. I expect to upgrade to their ReallySuperDeluxeThisTimeWeMeanIt Service if they introduce such a thing.
------- [1] Blase enough to not bother remembering, but annoyed enough to whinge on Slashdot.
Re:Piracy is marker of immature market
on
Piracy Economics
·
· Score: 1
While the car and book analogies make sense, Microsoft isn't actually hurt by people pirating Windows. Windows has always been pirated and they're a billion dollar company.
So how would you explain Microsoft's decison to implement product activation and subsequent efforts in that regard?
This is about the name "Linux", rather than what Linux actually IS.
Indeed.
Everyone knows that Linux is a line of laundry detergents and laundry bleaches for home use; all purpose cleaning preparations; general purpose scouring powders; skin soap.
anyone who can dismantle supertankers with their bare hands deserves some respect.
Not a Chinese story, but an Indian one.;-) IIRC, there was PBS/Frontline type of special not too long on the subject. The supertanker dismantling was featured, but so was a program run by an Indian scientist of some sort that involved the disassembly and salvage of computers and computer parts. It was interesting to note how large and well run the operation was. The owner, keenly aware of both the monetary value and the environmental hazards of the work, was sympathetic to the workers but made it clear that despite the nature of the work and the few dollars per day they earned, his employees would have no work whatsoever. I guess happiness is where you find it.
Thank god for the saints over at The Pirate Bay committing millions of thankless acts every day! Mother Theresa, eat your heart out.
That's Mother Teresa. I don't know if it extends to that level, but we do teach our children to share, don't we? I doubt any parent or teacher has ever added or will add a "but only if it doesn't incur financial, civil or criminal penalties" qualifier.
The reason we teach our children to share is that we know it invites good will. If you extend that notion and add to it the fact good will exits on the balance sheets of many companies, it's possible to argue that "piracy" benefits Microsoft. A specious argument, perhaps, but who would question that piracy has benefited Microsoft in any number of ways, not the least of which is maintaining the desktop monopoly? I'd like to think that a cost-benefit analysis would lead to the conclusion that the cost of piracy exceeds such monopoly benfefits, but how else to explain why Microsoft themselves continually invest in money-losing ventures, the only possible benefit of which is that maintaining that monopoly?
Short of multiple users who want to swap between QWERTY, Dvorak and other languages I can't think of any reason re-programming the standard keys is useful and it must add stacks to the cost.
Might work for you, but I don't think I'm alone in making keyboard purchases based on the placement of those keys you're referring to as standard. It's been too many years to bother counting when some semblance of standard was replaced by design considerations which, in turn were based mostly on aesthetic considerations.
Specifically, the placement, shape and size of the Control, Caps Lock, Escape, Enter, Bracket and Pipe/Backslash keys are the most problematic, and are keys I use more frequently than most others. Then, there's absence or inclusion of one or more "Windows" keys and the Menu key, all of which vary from model to model. As those keys get resized or shifted around the placement of surrounding keys gets changed in subtle but possibly significant ways. Punctuation keys aren't just for punctuating sentences. Then there's the top row Function keys. I've not made much use of the them since using Wordperfect in the DOS days, but for any user who considers them important, this particular keyboard's design choices (again, mostly aesthetic) would be a no-starter.
No big deal? For many perhaps. And even easier to dismiss the entire argument as insignificant when you consider that most people rely on a mouse.
I'd be the first in line to buy a well engineered keyboard with new features that I can make use of, and but this one doesn't isn't. That said, it does appear that a lot of thought has been put into it, and it does look a lot better than the crappy keyboards most of are accustomed to using.
Nope. They cannot state those as current-period sales, and for Gates to publically announce that they were would be grounds for FTC action. I'm sure he cleared the statement through Legal, so I'd be willing to bet those aren't included.
I strongly doubt whether Gates needs to check with the folks in Legal when the folks in Accounting will do just fine.
And since neither you nor I works in that area, we'll have to defer to someone more qualified or at least informed to comment as to how the sales were booked and the rationale used. In the interim, lets enjoy the wild speculation, trusting in the notion that there's a grain of truth to all rumours.
It's an asynchronous download service that runs in the background and downloads patches, updates and other files without consuming network bandwidth. It's a very nice component and if you consider that it supports HTTP and can be programmed via COM API, it's the perfect tool to make Windows download anything you want.
Re:Weight loss thru exercise alone is a fallacy
on
Treadmill Workstation
·
· Score: 1
Do the math. Brisk walking burns 7 calories a minute. A McDonalds value meal has 1170 calories. You have to walk briskly for 167.14 minutes to burn off those calories. That's 2 hours 47 minutes. Of walking. Briskly.
I guess that explains the popularity of drive-throughs.
He made that one comment about the availability of mail going to/from accounts that aren't part of the normal government flow of things through the archived WH comms system. Political communications - such as when, say, Al Gore was working (while being VP) to coordinate campaign-related fundraisers - are traditionally done through other channels, and in fact in some cases are required by federal law to be handled through other channels.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't the entire point of the Gonzo hearings that there was undue political interference in government business? One of the many outrages of the committee members overseeing the mess is that documentation and correspondence that *should* be on record have conveniently gone missing. Your argument that cabinet members have tough jobs and have to wear different hats from time to time is as unconvincing as Gonzales' "I don't remember" statements are ludicruous.
I have the eReader and it's great for reading paperbacks. But tech docs fall short due to it's smallish screen. If this is really the size of an A4/Letter and has a high dpi then I see it taking off.
I've not seen an eReader close up so I can't comment, but I'd like to think that A4 or letter may be larger than necessary. How many books, periodicals, journals, etc. have you seen published in either of those sizes?
My guess is that you mean you've found a limitation with using the eReader to read technical documentation that's distributed in a format meant to be printed on A4/letter-sized paper. If that's the case, yeah, I'd agree. At any rate, any product that can emulate the book, etc. reading experience will undoubtedly start a revolution of sorts.
Refusing to do business in the country is one way, but working within the system is probably more effective. I don't see that Google is wrong here; some other company more willing to go along with the government would take their place if they pull out.
I watched a Charlie Rose show last night where he interviewed Warren Buffer for the hour. Interesting listening to the thoughts of one of the world's richest and most influential men, but what caught my ear was his answer to a question in regards to influencing policy in China. Berkshire Hathaway (Buffett's company) holds a multi-billion dollar stake in Petro China, and Petro China are the folks developing the oil in Sudan (read "Darfur" for those not inclined to keep up with the news).
The points he made included the following. Of the 33 largest companies in China, the Chinese government is the largest shareholder in 31 of of them. Berkshire Hathaway's investment, while large, is relatively insignificant by comparison, and then of only a single subsidiary of a single company. The oil from Sudan will be sold, if not to China,then to any one of a long list of willing and capable investors. Oil, being a fungible product sold on a world market, knows no boundaries, so none of us has control or even knowledge of where the gas in our gas tanks came from. If the development in Sudan slowed, stopped or otherwise became more expensive (by China walking away from its investment there, for example), the price of oil in China and the rest of the world could skyrocket, and the US economy, dependent on oil as it is, would get into Real Trouble real fast.
Now, all the above doesn't relate to free speech issues directly. It does, however, illustrate how complicated the Real World is. If one of the world's richest and most influential men can't influence the government of China when genocide is the subject at hand, and the rest of the world (governments included) are watching, my guess is that few others can. I'd also wager that none of us, whether sitting comfortably in our armchairs, at conference tables in board rooms, or protesting in the street, is able to comprehend fully the complexities of governing a country as large and varied as China. And there is little in US history that suggests that its leaders or its citizens will be capable of understanding very much outside its borders anytime soon.
"If my pattern of mind is beyond repair, drop my naked nutrient-rich matter into a vertical hole and plant a tree. I forbid energy-wastful cremation, and burial in a rip-off casket in a drab cemetery surrounded by giant obelisk phallic symbols..." Of course, there's probably some business-friendly laws which says that's illegal.
I had this in mind when I chose to bury two of my dogs in the backyard. Looking back on the experience (I ended up with two small plaques and planting some flowers and shrubs), I don't regret my decision. I could write an essay on the subject, but it should suffice to say it just seemed like the right thing to do. From every point of view.
Whether the above is legal, I don't know. My guess is that it isn't. Once upon a time people (at least those who owned land) had family cemeteries. Maybe someone here who knows more about such traditions could enlighten us. At any rate, today, at least here in California, burying someone on private land, irrespective of whether you own one acre of land or 1000 acres, was made illegal sometime in the 1920s (?).
It's kind of shame, really. Obviously, we can't all just around burying people just anywhere (broadband deployment is complicated enough), but there's something to be said for being buried in the dirt, and having someone come along and plant some grass or a tree where you were laid to rest.
And if you really think that the X-No-Archive header is honored by more than a very small fraction of sites...
True, to the extent it's been honoured at all in recent history, but "sites"? There are no sites, or forums, or boards, or whatever else when you're talking about usenet; weird-assed gateways excluded, there's just the groups, the posts, and the servers that propagate them.
I'm considering raising organic beef, lamb and eggs.....
You won't get very far if you don't first discover that you need to be raising cows, sheep and chickens to get the beef, lamb and eggs you're looking for.
Slashdot Mirror
The conflict between the newspapers and Google is due to financial issues. With nearly 100% of news being free, newspaper revenue is declining rapidly.
Whether (or how) the online presence of newspapers generates profits is the subject of the article. It's a separate and distinct issue from the declining revenues of newspapers, which, for the most part, are a decline in classifieds revenue. Declining circulations play a role, but to a far less extent than you'd like to believe. Newspapers are still very very profitable (more so than most businesses), but lack the increasing revenues that Wall Street demands. Hardly surprising that the LA Times, for example, is now reverting to being privately held.
The newspaper companies just want Google to pay them for the free news.
Vaguely correct for ambiguous values of correct. You're talking about "access" to news stories. News isn't free. It comes from reporters who are paid to investigate, research and write stories. Most reporting is still done by newspapers. Even broadcast (television) news is a product of newspaper reporting. If newspapers can't afford to pay their reporting and editorial staff, everyone suffers. In the extreme cases, you either end up with "local reporting" (consisting mostly of puff pieces on insignicant issues), or recyled headlines from wire services (who are also under similar budgetary concerns).
If you can't see where this is heading, I'd suggest watching a few hours of celebrity news programming (consisting mostly of stock footage) on TV and asking yourself whether you feel informed about the world you live in. Or, if you're up to it, ask the Really Big Question of how a democracy can function without an informed electorate.
As to the subject of whether the newspapers deserve some cut from Google's advertising revenues, well, no. I don't think they do. If that was your point, then we're in agreement.
You mean like alcohol, saturated fats, or tobacco?
When I was a kid, our family lived in fairly urban environment in Canada. Despite that, we grew most of our vegetables, and our fruits came from our own trees or those of friends, neighbours, or the occasional trip to a farmer's market. Bread came from the oven, meat came from a farmer that raised livestock or from a reputable butcher, and wine was on the dinner table. Fairly traditional stuff for many Europeans, so you can guess my parents weren't native born. We didn't read labels, or need to, and instead of relying on the latest research on the value (or lack of it) of what we were eating, we trusted in the notion that the way ate was the way people ate for hundreds of years. The fact that it tasted good didn't hurt.
The reason I bring all this up, is that I'm old enough to remember any number of New and Improved products of one sort or another that eventually became part of the popular culture. One of those products was margarine. When it was introduced, all of thought it was obscene and laughed at people bought it, and respectfully ignored the doctors who advised people to use it. I hesitate to count how many years it took until people woke up to the fact that it basically unhealthy stuff to be putting into your body.
So, no thanks. People should stick to what is natural, and address any concerns about calorie intake (a separate issue) by eating less. Or getting off the couch or out of their car to go our for a walk once in a while. More specifically, fat IS good for you and your body needs it to function properly. You just need a lot less than you'd think, or prefer. Similarly, alcohol is also good for you, wine especially. Or do you think that stress-related illnesses or prescriptions for heart medication are more preferrable?
The fact is, we're living longer and healthier with all of this "processed crap" than we ever did with "good old food".
My grass is wet; ergo it must have rained, right? Life expectancy has increased dramatically in the last century not because of medical advances, but due to improved hygiene. Throw in vaccinating children for communicable diseases as public policy, and you've pretty much covered the extent to which modern science has had an effect on longevity.
As for the soft drink epidemic, I exect that will fade over the next generation. We've already taken the first step by disallowing our schools to fund themselves by installing vending machines to promote the crap. The second step will be to teach our kids (by example) that what is natural is good. Spending one's free time sucking flavoured corn-syrup water out of an aluminum can or plastic bottles was never natural.
How do others deal with organizing the results of browsing?
I do this as regularly as anyone.
lynx -dump > ~/docs/filename
or if you're organised
lynx -dump | add_to_database_script
What's important to me is the content itself, not the "web content", so an attorney, for example, would take a very different approach (typically a hard copy that can be filed, duplicated, etc.). Note that unless you work for a law firm or a well-run business, managing paper is like a dog walking on its hind legs: it's rare to see to it done, and when you do, it's not done very well. The same applies to bookmarks which have the additional problem of referencing pages that may get moved or simply disappear at any time.
In my experience PDF and HTML are like cousins who should refrain from getting to close to each other. By comparison, processing simple text is straightforward.
What I think he's aluding to, is not that Dell hands them a check to do business with them, but Wal-Mart is notorius for being cut-throat on getting the absolute best deal possible.
This deserves to be modded up. Not because it's particularly insightful, but because 9 out 10 Walmart shoppers have no frigging idea of how Walmart does business. Or how the manner in which they do business affects other businesses.
Put another way, Dell's margins will be very thin, but they should expect to make up for the losses in volume. Until, of course, Walmart renegotiates the deal. Lather, rinse, repeat. Why renegotiate if you stand to have your margins shaved even more? Because your company (Dell, in this case) now relies on the increased evenues from the huge increases in volumes to stay afloat. That, and Walmart will beat them down until they submit or go away.
Whether the approach works is another matter. Personally, I've always felt that Dell's consumer offerings belong in a Walmart.
I'm not sure what's next, but I know what's already here -- horizontal scrollbars!
Sigh.
My guess is that most web designers are also Windows users who run all their programs in fullscreen, or otherwise work for folks that believe their sites merit an inordinate amount screen real estate. Given the amount of rubbish on the intarweb, I don't think I'm alone in finding a complaint or two in that regard. On my 1024x768 laptop, for example, I'll allot no more than 75% of the screen to a Firefox window (maybe full screen for The New York Times). If Slashdot can fit nicely, why can't everyone else? Or do people not mind the staring into a lightbulb effect? Or the eyestrain of reading overlong lines of text? Then again, maybe they don't read at all.
Google News was always a favourite of mine. Not entirely representative of what I'd consider newsworthy, but it distinguishes itself in a number of areas, not the least of which is the typical Google style of conciseness (measured in terms of both screen real estate and content) we've all come to expect.
Maybe I'll just say f*ck it and go back to using a text browser. Oddly enough, most of the news stories I read by copying the link address into lynx, etc. to spare myself the grief of encountering bloated and slow loading pages with little content which, surprise, constitute the majority of news sites aggregated.
And so it is with McWindows.
An interesting post!
If I can add, fast food, by design, doesn't require chewing. How else to encourage mindless consumption, right?
What's disappointing to me reading the endless whining going on here is discovering (being reminded) how many people insist that fast food is the real way to go. Or really like fast food. Or can't tell the difference. Or have a list of excuses why they don't have time for something that isn't fast. Or don't know any better. Or think it's not really bad for you. Or are quick to criticise those who want something better of being elitist or somehow out of touch. Or are unembarrased to demonstrate a willful obliviousness to the false economies of things fast and cheap. Or simply that it's everywhere.
Maybe it is a matter of taste. For me, I'll make my own burgers thank-you-very-much. And snicker at Mac users ordering expensive ones at trendy restaurants.
In the early 80s Bayan, Ghassan and Hassan Elashi had a little company that made computers for the royal Suadi family. My boss was Jewish and he and I were the only white guys there
;-)
I guess the term white guys could include Jews for large values of white, but some people might disagree. Then, again, Arabs and Jews can both be characterised as Semites, but that might upset other folks and offend the sensibilities of the politically correct who really don't know WTF they're saying (if anything).
Either way, you're screwed. You'd appeal to larger groups if you use more specific terminology or, as an alternative, use ethnic humour to make the point. If it was me, I'd opt for ethnic humour route, and offend everyone you possibly can.
The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as 'What shall I do tomorrow?'
AFAIK, I'm not doing anything tomorrow. Until the new Google service shows up in beta, anyone got any good suggestions?
This might be the reason that providers are offering different high-speed internet plans.
Sure. I switched over to one of those. The actual numbers I don't recall[1], but here's a sampling of SBC/ATT's services.
JoeSixpack Service: 384 Kbps to 768 Mbps
Regular Service: 768 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps
SuperDeluxe Service: 1.5 Mbps to 3.0 Mbps
Originally, I opted for the Regular Service. I typically got the maximum 1.5 Mbps, and life was good.
After a year or so, the service started to degrade to around 768 Mbps, so I said, fuck it, and upgraded to SuperDeluxe Service and got my 3.0 Mbps regularly. Life was good again.
After less than a year, my new 3.0 Mbps rate slowed down to 1.5 Mbps. WTF? I called them, laying out the scenario and they splained that those were "maximums only".
Can't win for losing. I expect to upgrade to their ReallySuperDeluxeThisTimeWeMeanIt Service if they introduce such a thing.
-------
[1] Blase enough to not bother remembering, but annoyed enough to whinge on Slashdot.
While the car and book analogies make sense, Microsoft isn't actually hurt by people pirating Windows. Windows has always been pirated and they're a billion dollar company.
So how would you explain Microsoft's decison to implement product activation and subsequent efforts in that regard?
This is about the name "Linux", rather than what Linux actually IS.
Indeed.
Everyone knows that Linux is a line of laundry detergents and laundry bleaches for home use; all purpose cleaning preparations; general purpose scouring powders; skin soap.
Made from Penguins, no doubt.
anyone who can dismantle supertankers with their bare hands deserves some respect.
;-) IIRC, there was PBS/Frontline type of special not too long on the subject. The supertanker dismantling was featured, but so was a program run by an Indian scientist of some sort that involved the disassembly and salvage of computers and computer parts. It was interesting to note how large and well run the operation was. The owner, keenly aware of both the monetary value and the environmental hazards of the work, was sympathetic to the workers but made it clear that despite the nature of the work and the few dollars per day they earned, his employees would have no work whatsoever. I guess happiness is where you find it.
Not a Chinese story, but an Indian one.
Thank god for the saints over at The Pirate Bay committing millions of thankless acts every day! Mother Theresa, eat your heart out.
That's Mother Teresa. I don't know if it extends to that level, but we do teach our children to share, don't we? I doubt any parent or teacher has ever added or will add a "but only if it doesn't incur financial, civil or criminal penalties" qualifier.
The reason we teach our children to share is that we know it invites good will. If you extend that notion and add to it the fact good will exits on the balance sheets of many companies, it's possible to argue that "piracy" benefits Microsoft. A specious argument, perhaps, but who would question that piracy has benefited Microsoft in any number of ways, not the least of which is maintaining the desktop monopoly? I'd like to think that a cost-benefit analysis would lead to the conclusion that the cost of piracy exceeds such monopoly benfefits, but how else to explain why Microsoft themselves continually invest in money-losing ventures, the only possible benefit of which is that maintaining that monopoly?
Short of multiple users who want to swap between QWERTY, Dvorak and other languages I can't think of any reason re-programming the standard keys is useful and it must add stacks to the cost.
Might work for you, but I don't think I'm alone in making keyboard purchases based on the placement of those keys you're referring to as standard. It's been too many years to bother counting when some semblance of standard was replaced by design considerations which, in turn were based mostly on aesthetic considerations.
Specifically, the placement, shape and size of the Control, Caps Lock, Escape, Enter, Bracket and Pipe/Backslash keys are the most problematic, and are keys I use more frequently than most others. Then, there's absence or inclusion of one or more "Windows" keys and the Menu key, all of which vary from model to model. As those keys get resized or shifted around the placement of surrounding keys gets changed in subtle but possibly significant ways. Punctuation keys aren't just for punctuating sentences. Then there's the top row Function keys. I've not made much use of the them since using Wordperfect in the DOS days, but for any user who considers them important, this particular keyboard's design choices (again, mostly aesthetic) would be a no-starter.
No big deal? For many perhaps. And even easier to dismiss the entire argument as insignificant when you consider that most people rely on a mouse.
I'd be the first in line to buy a well engineered keyboard with new features that I can make use of, and but this one doesn't isn't. That said, it does appear that a lot of thought has been put into it, and it does look a lot better than the crappy keyboards most of are accustomed to using.
What the hell are you talking about?
Maybe he meant speech wreck ignition?
I read some of the comments in that old story and came across this gem:
... ... ... ...
Raise your hand if
Raise your hand if
Raise your hand if
Raise your hand if
There is Apple's market. Pretty slim, eh?
I'll say. I've never seen anyone with four hands.
Nope. They cannot state those as current-period sales, and for Gates to publically announce that they were would be grounds for FTC action. I'm sure he cleared the statement through Legal, so I'd be willing to bet those aren't included.
I strongly doubt whether Gates needs to check with the folks in Legal when the folks in Accounting will do just fine.
And since neither you nor I works in that area, we'll have to defer to someone more qualified or at least informed to comment as to how the sales were booked and the rationale used. In the interim, lets enjoy the wild speculation, trusting in the notion that there's a grain of truth to all rumours.
Ok, so I feel detached and amused, but I'm still left wondering why it is that Windows users always seem to have all the new neato features.
From Symantec's Malware Update with Windows Update
Do the math. Brisk walking burns 7 calories a minute. A McDonalds value meal has 1170 calories. You have to walk briskly for 167.14 minutes to burn off those calories. That's 2 hours 47 minutes. Of walking. Briskly.
I guess that explains the popularity of drive-throughs.
He made that one comment about the availability of mail going to/from accounts that aren't part of the normal government flow of things through the archived WH comms system. Political communications - such as when, say, Al Gore was working (while being VP) to coordinate campaign-related fundraisers - are traditionally done through other channels, and in fact in some cases are required by federal law to be handled through other channels.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't the entire point of the Gonzo hearings that there was undue political interference in government business? One of the many outrages of the committee members overseeing the mess is that documentation and correspondence that *should* be on record have conveniently gone missing. Your argument that cabinet members have tough jobs and have to wear different hats from time to time is as unconvincing as Gonzales' "I don't remember" statements are ludicruous.
I have the eReader and it's great for reading paperbacks. But tech docs fall short due to it's smallish screen. If this is really the size of an A4/Letter and has a high dpi then I see it taking off.
I've not seen an eReader close up so I can't comment, but I'd like to think that A4 or letter may be larger than necessary. How many books, periodicals, journals, etc. have you seen published in either of those sizes?
My guess is that you mean you've found a limitation with using the eReader to read technical documentation that's distributed in a format meant to be printed on A4/letter-sized paper. If that's the case, yeah, I'd agree. At any rate, any product that can emulate the book, etc. reading experience will undoubtedly start a revolution of sorts.
Refusing to do business in the country is one way, but working within the system is probably more effective. I don't see that Google is wrong here; some other company more willing to go along with the government would take their place if they pull out.
I watched a Charlie Rose show last night where he interviewed Warren Buffer for the hour. Interesting listening to the thoughts of one of the world's richest and most influential men, but what caught my ear was his answer to a question in regards to influencing policy in China. Berkshire Hathaway (Buffett's company) holds a multi-billion dollar stake in Petro China, and Petro China are the folks developing the oil in Sudan (read "Darfur" for those not inclined to keep up with the news).
The points he made included the following. Of the 33 largest companies in China, the Chinese government is the largest shareholder in 31 of of them. Berkshire Hathaway's investment, while large, is relatively insignificant by comparison, and then of only a single subsidiary of a single company. The oil from Sudan will be sold, if not to China,then to any one of a long list of willing and capable investors. Oil, being a fungible product sold on a world market, knows no boundaries, so none of us has control or even knowledge of where the gas in our gas tanks came from. If the development in Sudan slowed, stopped or otherwise became more expensive (by China walking away from its investment there, for example), the price of oil in China and the rest of the world could skyrocket, and the US economy, dependent on oil as it is, would get into Real Trouble real fast.
Now, all the above doesn't relate to free speech issues directly. It does, however, illustrate how complicated the Real World is. If one of the world's richest and most influential men can't influence the government of China when genocide is the subject at hand, and the rest of the world (governments included) are watching, my guess is that few others can. I'd also wager that none of us, whether sitting comfortably in our armchairs, at conference tables in board rooms, or protesting in the street, is able to comprehend fully the complexities of governing a country as large and varied as China. And there is little in US history that suggests that its leaders or its citizens will be capable of understanding very much outside its borders anytime soon.
"If my pattern of mind is beyond repair, drop my naked nutrient-rich matter into a vertical hole and plant a tree. I forbid energy-wastful cremation, and burial in a rip-off casket in a drab cemetery surrounded by giant obelisk phallic symbols..." Of course, there's probably some business-friendly laws which says that's illegal.
I had this in mind when I chose to bury two of my dogs in the backyard. Looking back on the experience (I ended up with two small plaques and planting some flowers and shrubs), I don't regret my decision. I could write an essay on the subject, but it should suffice to say it just seemed like the right thing to do. From every point of view.
Whether the above is legal, I don't know. My guess is that it isn't. Once upon a time people (at least those who owned land) had family cemeteries. Maybe someone here who knows more about such traditions could enlighten us. At any rate, today, at least here in California, burying someone on private land, irrespective of whether you own one acre of land or 1000 acres, was made illegal sometime in the 1920s (?).
It's kind of shame, really. Obviously, we can't all just around burying people just anywhere (broadband deployment is complicated enough), but there's something to be said for being buried in the dirt, and having someone come along and plant some grass or a tree where you were laid to rest.
Recyling at its best.
And if you really think that the X-No-Archive header is honored by more than a very small fraction of sites ...
True, to the extent it's been honoured at all in recent history, but "sites"? There are no sites, or forums, or boards, or whatever else when you're talking about usenet; weird-assed gateways excluded, there's just the groups, the posts, and the servers that propagate them.
I'm considering raising organic beef, lamb and eggs.....
You won't get very far if you don't first discover that you need to be raising cows, sheep and chickens to get the beef, lamb and eggs you're looking for.