The cycle of gentrification is underway, with artists/creative types moving there (and doing things like rolling out a wimax network), and people renovating properties.
If you think gentrification in Vancouver is bad wait until the 2010 Olympics. I've heard there are groups in Vancouver who are trying to get the city to do what the government in Greece did, once the Olympics there ended a lottery for the housing was held for the low income.
When I look at my city I see Huge areas where it would be next to usless. Now city wide fiber I can see but wifi? Seems like a solution waiting for a problem.
Actually having public WiFi helped tremendously here in Minneapolis last year, when the I35W bridge collapsed. WiFi boosted the radio communications.
You forget that in the free market the customer is at the mercy of the company. The company can do whatever it wants in order to save money; the customer is the enemy and must be prevented from doing the same, lest it lead to the company losing money.
Even in a free market businesses can't breach a contract whenever they want.
(Is it just me or do a lot of people waste an awful lot of time waiting for the stupid two-minute timer that/. insists on running between allowing comments? Sorry/., I'm not some kind of retard, it's possible for me to read a comment and compose a thoughtful response in less than 120 seconds. 60 seconds would make so much more sense.)
Actually I think the delay has more to do with saving resources, bandwidth and storage. Those who don't have a paid subscription have the delay between posts but I don't think those who have paid do.
They probably slapped a EULA on the installer for the updated firmware along the lines of "By installing this upgrade you agree to...." in which I would assume they attempted to cover their asses with a bunch of lawyerly speech that no one paid any attention to. While it's certainly very shady, it's probably not illegal.
For it to be valid though the user has to have the option of installing the update. TFA says it was automatically updated though: "Today I learn that my failure is due to the fact that Meraki has automatically updated the software on all of the units (including legacy, such as ours) so that you cannot install a different firmware on it, at all."
I've supported laptops in a corporate environment for, well, too damn long, and I've *never* seen a hard drive failure.
I had my first laptop about 6 months when the hdd had to be replaced. Then again the same thing happened with a tower I had.
But laptops fail because the user drops it and the screen dies, or the power supply fries, the AC connector to the motherboard breaks, they spill their coffee in it, or something else.
None of these happed to that laptop. Well there might of been a problem with the power supply because the motherboard had to be replaced as well, but I don't know if the PS was the problem.
I picture Dell selling computers with a 128gb flash based drive, and a 1tb magnetic drive. Laptops will be SSD exclusively.
Unless and until laptops come with multi-gigabyte if not 1TB SSDs, I don't see hard disks being dropped from laptops. Now what I'd like to see are laptops with both SSDs and HDDs. The OS and programs would run on the SSD while the HDD was used for mass storage. You'd then have a faster operating environment and longer battery life while still having a large storage capacity.
If that's true, and Samsung could prove it, then Samsung could and would be awarded the patent instead. US law awards patents to "first to invent", not "first to file".
However because other countries have first to file laws there's a move afoot to harmonize US patent law with others.
To be fair, it seems like their plan is to sue to get a piece of it, via technology that they really did create. It wouldn't be very profitable just to stop progress.
They, Seagate and Western Digital, can get a piece of it by releasing their own flash drives instead of suing others.
Well, lets see, we were talking about the differences between Reagan and the first Bush's policies towards Iraq. So no, under Reagan, it was because Iran threatened us and when Bush SR. did his about face on sanctions and other policies, it was because Iraq threatened the US and Israel. I think the actual quotes were something along the lines of "to make fire burn half of Israel," with a "the binary chemical weapon". He made similar threat to our carriers in the Persian Gulf about a month before. This was in 1990 which is when Bush 1 did his 180 on policy.
My mistake then, I don't recall that threat.
Your talking about this stuff and I am severely surprised that you didn't know about that. Were you young at that time?
No, maybe it's because of an injury which damaged my memory I didn't recall it.
Here is another Interesting list [freerepublic.com] of Iraq and how he got his weapons.
Thanks for the links. The second one, on the history of bio-chemical weapons, I saved to disk.
There is always going to be a certain amount of blowback. I'm not sure if it was ignored or originally calculated as acceptable. I don't find fault in the logic though. It seems that if you don't have the hindsight capability to see what happened, it was sound policy until Saddam shifted and turned on us.
What bothers me is that even after it was found that Saddam was using biological or chemical, I don't recall which right now, the Reagan then the Bush Sr admins still supported Saddam. Once it was suspected he should have been warned to stop, then when verified support should have ended.
Even the CATO article does not say anything about the Taliban getting any more money. Googling bush taliban $43 opium "down payment" returns no results saying the payment was a down payment to the Taliban.
Actually it does not say the $43 million was a down payment, but it does say something I was wrong about. I had said Bush gave the Taliban the money, however TFA quotes Powell as saying "We provide our relief to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's ruling factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it." So in that I was wrong.
It appears that Iraq didn't invade Kuwait because of slant drilling but because of a comment by a Kuwaiti official who made a comment referring to Iraqi women as 10 dollar whores. Who in their right mind would invade another country in the face of international pressure over a comment like that?
Yea, that is insane.
I want to apologize and thank you for correcting some things I was wrong about.
Anyhow, I've wondered, are spectrum auctions time-limited, or for posterity? If I were the government, I'd only auction spectrum for like 10 (well, maybe 15, because forcing companies to be in a situation where they must build a network, recover the costs, and make a profit in only 10 years might be a bit too short of a time) years at a time, then recover the spectrum rights after that time to either re-auction, or potentially do something else with.
It's relatively easy to fix it so a company can make a profit. Require the buyer to show they are building a system say within 2 years then have periods of tyme wherein they have to show progress. If they don't make the required progress then the airwaves revert can to the FCC. If however they do build it then the clock starts and they get that 10 years.
Personally I oppose the FCC and licensing, instead I believe that like in the beginning of broadcasting the airwaves should be homesteaded.
But now that these spectrum have been sold to them, might they then be inclined to simply NOT use it?
I could see a lawsuit if they didn't use the airwaves. As an example if I were a stockholder in one of these companies and it didn't try to use the license they won to create a market then I'd be tempted to sue, instead of paying billions of dollars they could have paid me a dividend. Though not always shareholder activism can get things done.
If you're going to bet on one of them, bet on the hare. The FCC isn't stupid, they know who is going to do productive things with the airwaves
Well if the FCC, federal government really, wants productivity then they'd allow the airwaves to be open, homesteaded, instead of licensed. Prior to the creation of the Federal Radio Commission(FRC) in 1927, which became the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) in 1934, the airwaves were homesteaded, ie if someone in a given area started broadcasting on a specific frequency before someone else did they established a legal right to use that frequency in that area. The FRC was created in an era of scarcity of airwaves however with today's technology that scarcity doesn't exist. Ten tymes as many radio stations could exist without interfering with each other today.
Like I said, we supported Iraq because they were against Iran and because Kuwait was paying them to protection from Iran. Now ask yourself what happened during that time, Iraq threatened the US and Israel.
The US supported Iraq because Iraq threatened us? That exactly why the US shouldn't support Iraq. Perhaps you meant Iran threatened us. There's a problem with this though, the US did support a dictator before his overthrow.
Now, I don't know if we where reading the same article or not, the version I saw only had 3 paragraphs. And it appeared that the 10 mill was because they claimed to have banned opium cultivation.
Ok, here's more: bush taliban $43. Your CATO article is #5. I don't see the link I provided on the first page of results, instead my TFA I had saved years ago. Ah, adding "opium" to the search then my link is #5 and the CATO link is 7.
This also saw the start of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980. We had good reason to support one of the other even though we didn't really like either at the time. Ignoring this makes it appear like our actions in the past where reckless or something.
Ignoring Blowback isn't exactly smart either, it makes us look reckless as well.
An alternative would have been to demand the Taliban work with US advisors who would administer the funds. "You do X and you get Y" Or "here's a third of what you need for X, when you get half way you get more then when you finish you get the rest." What you do not do is hand over everything then hope they do what you want.
My impression was that the 31 mill was a portion of it.
Even the CATO article does not say anything about the Taliban getting any more money. Googling bush taliban $43 opium "down payment" returns no results saying the payment was a down payment to the Taliban.
You give consent to be governed by the government by not leaving the country. It is the political process and how it works
No I don't, I specifically refuse to be governed by a government I do not like by supporting those candidates that share my political views. And that is how it's supposed to be.
If your guy didn't win, you might have been able to do more to ensure his victory, but by participating and staying in the country, you have given consent.
No you don't if you leave you've given up. I'd rather fight than roll over and die. I don't know about you but I served in the military when I thought I would be sent to fight. I did because I support liberty.
This isn't a looser opt out system. You actually have to move or cause someone else to be elected change your consent.
Moving is opting out, which is litle better than rolling over.
People have attempted to claim the mujahadeem included Al Qaeda and the taliban but it didn't.
,/i>
You're dead wrong. The mujahedeen was made up of different groups with different objectives. Check the Wiki article. After the Soviets left Afghan the mujahedeen split broke down into the various groups it was to begin with. As for al Qaeda, they were in Afghan to support the mujahedeen. Afghan is where the al Qaeda started, in support of the fighting against the Soviets.
The taliban wasn't even an organization until 1994 or so, well after the soviets bailed out and we stop our support of the mujahadeem.
Perhaps you should let the wiki editor know this as they date the Taliban from the early '80s: there is "some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets."
Are you sure your not thinking of John Kelly arguing before congress in 1990 and not during Reagan's administration?
As you can see, Bush Senior supported sanctions on Iraq.
According to NYT support for sanctions were "an abrupt shift from the policy of the Reagan Administration, the Bush Administration said today that it would accept legislation to impose economic sanctions on countries that use chemical weapons and on companies that assist in the production of such weapons."
You also have to understand, Kuwait was still paying Iraq for protection and we where still "bent" over their coup in the 50's.
A coup the CIA helped with, just as they did in Iran which overthrew a democratic government and replaced it with Shah. Unfortunately the US has a history of supporting coups which overthrow democratic governments, a US president and Secretary of State even supported the invasion of a democratic nation by a dictator.
Finally, did you read the link you posted? We gave the taliban 43 million dollars because they stopped opium production and were supposed to address their support for terrorist, civil rights violations, and a couple of other things like free and open elections and a final resolve to
They need a transformer or some electronics to convert the voltage. That's where they will build in the flaws to keep you buying. It's already affecting the fluorescents in my place. They're not lasting very long.
Used almost daily I've had CFLs last more than 10 years. The first one I bought lasted about 15.
And this is the problem. Yes, CFLs take less power, but they also give out a lot less light.
I don't know where this come from, I've got 12 watt CFLs that put out as much light as 60 watt incandescents, and 15 watt CFLs put out the light of 75 watt incandescents. The one problem I have with CFLs is that the average ones put out funky colours in photography.
Slashdot Mirror
They, Meraki, changed the hardware's firmware without permission.
FalconThe cycle of gentrification is underway, with artists/creative types moving there (and doing things like rolling out a wimax network), and people renovating properties.
If you think gentrification in Vancouver is bad wait until the 2010 Olympics. I've heard there are groups in Vancouver who are trying to get the city to do what the government in Greece did, once the Olympics there ended a lottery for the housing was held for the low income.
FalconWhen I look at my city I see Huge areas where it would be next to usless. Now city wide fiber I can see but wifi? Seems like a solution waiting for a problem.
Actually having public WiFi helped tremendously here in Minneapolis last year, when the I35W bridge collapsed. WiFi boosted the radio communications.
FalconYou forget that in the free market the customer is at the mercy of the company. The company can do whatever it wants in order to save money; the customer is the enemy and must be prevented from doing the same, lest it lead to the company losing money.
Even in a free market businesses can't breach a contract whenever they want.
Falconup
Neither can definitions.
Falcon(Is it just me or do a lot of people waste an awful lot of time waiting for the stupid two-minute timer that /. insists on running between allowing comments? Sorry /., I'm not some kind of retard, it's possible for me to read a comment and compose a thoughtful response in less than 120 seconds. 60 seconds would make so much more sense.)
Actually I think the delay has more to do with saving resources, bandwidth and storage. Those who don't have a paid subscription have the delay between posts but I don't think those who have paid do.
FalconThey probably slapped a EULA on the installer for the updated firmware along the lines of "By installing this upgrade you agree to ...." in which I would assume they attempted to cover their asses with a bunch of lawyerly speech that no one paid any attention to. While it's certainly very shady, it's probably not illegal.
For it to be valid though the user has to have the option of installing the update. TFA says it was automatically updated though: "Today I learn that my failure is due to the fact that Meraki has automatically updated the software on all of the units (including legacy, such as ours) so that you cannot install a different firmware on it, at all."
FalconI've supported laptops in a corporate environment for, well, too damn long, and I've *never* seen a hard drive failure.
I had my first laptop about 6 months when the hdd had to be replaced. Then again the same thing happened with a tower I had.
But laptops fail because the user drops it and the screen dies, or the power supply fries, the AC connector to the motherboard breaks, they spill their coffee in it, or something else.
None of these happed to that laptop. Well there might of been a problem with the power supply because the motherboard had to be replaced as well, but I don't know if the PS was the problem.
FalconI picture Dell selling computers with a 128gb flash based drive, and a 1tb magnetic drive. Laptops will be SSD exclusively.
Unless and until laptops come with multi-gigabyte if not 1TB SSDs, I don't see hard disks being dropped from laptops. Now what I'd like to see are laptops with both SSDs and HDDs. The OS and programs would run on the SSD while the HDD was used for mass storage. You'd then have a faster operating environment and longer battery life while still having a large storage capacity.
FalconIf that's true, and Samsung could prove it, then Samsung could and would be awarded the patent instead. US law awards patents to "first to invent", not "first to file".
However because other countries have first to file laws there's a move afoot to harmonize US patent law with others.
FalconTo be fair, it seems like their plan is to sue to get a piece of it, via technology that they really did create. It wouldn't be very profitable just to stop progress.
They, Seagate and Western Digital, can get a piece of it by releasing their own flash drives instead of suing others.
FalconWell, lets see, we were talking about the differences between Reagan and the first Bush's policies towards Iraq. So no, under Reagan, it was because Iran threatened us and when Bush SR. did his about face on sanctions and other policies, it was because Iraq threatened the US and Israel. I think the actual quotes were something along the lines of "to make fire burn half of Israel," with a "the binary chemical weapon". He made similar threat to our carriers in the Persian Gulf about a month before. This was in 1990 which is when Bush 1 did his 180 on policy.
My mistake then, I don't recall that threat.
Your talking about this stuff and I am severely surprised that you didn't know about that. Were you young at that time?
No, maybe it's because of an injury which damaged my memory I didn't recall it.
Here is another Interesting list [freerepublic.com] of Iraq and how he got his weapons.
Thanks for the links. The second one, on the history of bio-chemical weapons, I saved to disk.
There is always going to be a certain amount of blowback. I'm not sure if it was ignored or originally calculated as acceptable. I don't find fault in the logic though. It seems that if you don't have the hindsight capability to see what happened, it was sound policy until Saddam shifted and turned on us.
What bothers me is that even after it was found that Saddam was using biological or chemical, I don't recall which right now, the Reagan then the Bush Sr admins still supported Saddam. Once it was suspected he should have been warned to stop, then when verified support should have ended.
Even the CATO article does not say anything about the Taliban getting any more money. Googling bush taliban $43 opium "down payment" returns no results saying the payment was a down payment to the Taliban.
This links says it
Actually it does not say the $43 million was a down payment, but it does say something I was wrong about. I had said Bush gave the Taliban the money, however TFA quotes Powell as saying "We provide our relief to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's ruling factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it." So in that I was wrong.
It appears that Iraq didn't invade Kuwait because of slant drilling but because of a comment by a Kuwaiti official who made a comment referring to Iraqi women as 10 dollar whores. Who in their right mind would invade another country in the face of international pressure over a comment like that?
Yea, that is insane.
I want to apologize and thank you for correcting some things I was wrong about.
FalconThe obvious solution is to remove profit from the equation. As for how, well, that's the tricky part.
I can't say "obvious" because most haven't even thought of it but I believe the best solution is to go back to homesteading the airwaves.
FalconAnyhow, I've wondered, are spectrum auctions time-limited, or for posterity? If I were the government, I'd only auction spectrum for like 10 (well, maybe 15, because forcing companies to be in a situation where they must build a network, recover the costs, and make a profit in only 10 years might be a bit too short of a time) years at a time, then recover the spectrum rights after that time to either re-auction, or potentially do something else with.
It's relatively easy to fix it so a company can make a profit. Require the buyer to show they are building a system say within 2 years then have periods of tyme wherein they have to show progress. If they don't make the required progress then the airwaves revert can to the FCC. If however they do build it then the clock starts and they get that 10 years.
Personally I oppose the FCC and licensing, instead I believe that like in the beginning of broadcasting the airwaves should be homesteaded.
FalconBut now that these spectrum have been sold to them, might they then be inclined to simply NOT use it?
I could see a lawsuit if they didn't use the airwaves. As an example if I were a stockholder in one of these companies and it didn't try to use the license they won to create a market then I'd be tempted to sue, instead of paying billions of dollars they could have paid me a dividend. Though not always shareholder activism can get things done.
FalconWho would want a small company to win a part of the spectrum? By definition, they wouldn't be able to use it universally for all Americans.
Except not all of the airwaves auctioned off were nationwide. Some of those auctions were for specific locations, like NYC.
Falcon>A former mail carrier, McBride has been trying his luck at FCC auctions since 1996.
Darl, is that you?
That was my first thought too.
FalconIf you're going to bet on one of them, bet on the hare. The FCC isn't stupid, they know who is going to do productive things with the airwaves
Well if the FCC, federal government really, wants productivity then they'd allow the airwaves to be open, homesteaded, instead of licensed. Prior to the creation of the Federal Radio Commission(FRC) in 1927, which became the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) in 1934, the airwaves were homesteaded, ie if someone in a given area started broadcasting on a specific frequency before someone else did they established a legal right to use that frequency in that area. The FRC was created in an era of scarcity of airwaves however with today's technology that scarcity doesn't exist. Ten tymes as many radio stations could exist without interfering with each other today.
FalconLike I said, we supported Iraq because they were against Iran and because Kuwait was paying them to protection from Iran. Now ask yourself what happened during that time, Iraq threatened the US and Israel.
The US supported Iraq because Iraq threatened us? That exactly why the US shouldn't support Iraq. Perhaps you meant Iran threatened us. There's a problem with this though, the US did support a dictator before his overthrow.
Now, I don't know if we where reading the same article or not, the version I saw only had 3 paragraphs. And it appeared that the 10 mill was because they claimed to have banned opium cultivation.
Ok, here's more: bush taliban $43. Your CATO article is #5. I don't see the link I provided on the first page of results, instead my TFA I had saved years ago. Ah, adding "opium" to the search then my link is #5 and the CATO link is 7.
This also saw the start of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980. We had good reason to support one of the other even though we didn't really like either at the time. Ignoring this makes it appear like our actions in the past where reckless or something.
Ignoring Blowback isn't exactly smart either, it makes us look reckless as well.
An alternative would have been to demand the Taliban work with US advisors who would administer the funds. "You do X and you get Y" Or "here's a third of what you need for X, when you get half way you get more then when you finish you get the rest." What you do not do is hand over everything then hope they do what you want.
My impression was that the 31 mill was a portion of it.
Even the CATO article does not say anything about the Taliban getting any more money. Googling bush taliban $43 opium "down payment" returns no results saying the payment was a down payment to the Taliban.
FalconYou left out the second part of my requirement--the length of that 100-watt CFL is 5.84 inches.
Yea I did miss that. I'm wonder now why the requirement for 100 watts though, do you have a specific application in mind?
FalconYou give consent to be governed by the government by not leaving the country. It is the political process and how it works
No I don't, I specifically refuse to be governed by a government I do not like by supporting those candidates that share my political views. And that is how it's supposed to be.
If your guy didn't win, you might have been able to do more to ensure his victory, but by participating and staying in the country, you have given consent.
No you don't if you leave you've given up. I'd rather fight than roll over and die. I don't know about you but I served in the military when I thought I would be sent to fight. I did because I support liberty.
This isn't a looser opt out system. You actually have to move or cause someone else to be elected change your consent.
Moving is opting out, which is litle better than rolling over.
People have attempted to claim the mujahadeem included Al Qaeda and the taliban but it didn't.
,/i> You're dead wrong. The mujahedeen was made up of different groups with different objectives. Check the Wiki article. After the Soviets left Afghan the mujahedeen split broke down into the various groups it was to begin with. As for al Qaeda, they were in Afghan to support the mujahedeen. Afghan is where the al Qaeda started, in support of the fighting against the Soviets.
The taliban wasn't even an organization until 1994 or so, well after the soviets bailed out and we stop our support of the mujahadeem.
Perhaps you should let the wiki editor know this as they date the Taliban from the early '80s: there is "some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets."
Are you sure your not thinking of John Kelly arguing before congress in 1990 and not during Reagan's administration?
Yes, I saved articles from the NYT and The Washington Post dated 1989, unfortunately I didn't have a backup and the disk was reformated and I haven't gotten around to recovering the data that was on it. Back then they both also supported Saddam. Check out "Rumsfeld's Handshake Deal With Saddam" and "The Washington Post's Gas Attack Today's outrage was yesterday's no big deal".
As you can see, Bush Senior supported sanctions on Iraq.
According to NYT support for sanctions were "an abrupt shift from the policy of the Reagan Administration, the Bush Administration said today that it would accept legislation to impose economic sanctions on countries that use chemical weapons and on companies that assist in the production of such weapons."
You also have to understand, Kuwait was still paying Iraq for protection and we where still "bent" over their coup in the 50's.
A coup the CIA helped with, just as they did in Iran which overthrew a democratic government and replaced it with Shah. Unfortunately the US has a history of supporting coups which overthrow democratic governments, a US president and Secretary of State even supported the invasion of a democratic nation by a dictator.
Finally, did you read the link you posted? We gave the taliban 43 million dollars because they stopped opium production and were supposed to address their support for terrorist, civil rights violations, and a couple of other things like free and open elections and a final resolve to
They need a transformer or some electronics to convert the voltage. That's where they will build in the flaws to keep you buying. It's already affecting the fluorescents in my place. They're not lasting very long.
Used almost daily I've had CFLs last more than 10 years. The first one I bought lasted about 15.
FalconMuch like CFLs, I don't think there is an LED light which will produce light output equivalent to that of a 100-watt incandescent bulb,
Greenlite 26WELSM - 26 Watt Mini Spiral 100 Watt Replacement. Edison Opto has introduced a 100 Watt single-package LED.
FalconRight now I only use fluorescent bulbs in the basement and some places where everybody forgets to turn the light off
Of the 7 light fixtures in the apartment I live in I have 6 have with CFLs. The one that does not have them I rarely ever use.
FalconAnd this is the problem. Yes, CFLs take less power, but they also give out a lot less light.
I don't know where this come from, I've got 12 watt CFLs that put out as much light as 60 watt incandescents, and 15 watt CFLs put out the light of 75 watt incandescents. The one problem I have with CFLs is that the average ones put out funky colours in photography.
Falcon