The problem is that derivative works are also restricted, along with exact copies. I'm unable to contribute my own creative works to society because they are derived from your original ideas.
I was thinking something along the same lines today. Offer a smaller 7" iPad. Larger and smaller iPhones. iPhones with slide-out keyboards. I know it's not trivial to shrink a 10" iPad to a 7" or add a keyboard, but it's a one-time engineering deal. Otherwise you instantly lose out on the 7" market or phone with keyboard market. I know I'm not the first to think/wish along these lines. Apple will be Apple, though... who knows why they do (or don't do) certain things.
no idea if it could explode tomorrow or a million years time.
I had a chuckle here when the news said something about that. According to them, scientists say the star could explode before the end of the year or sometime in the next million years. lol... way to narrow it down.
When the judge asked the FCC that question in the Comcast case, they didn't have an answer
The FCC had an answer, but the court said it wasn't good enough to prove jurisdiction. So if the FCC gives a better answer this time, the court could decide in their favor.Whether planned or not, the Comcast case was a good test of jurisdiction arguments for the FCC, to see what would work (or wouldn't work, in the Comcast case).
...won't MS have a bit of a public education battle? Will the general public get confused by windows apps that are for one hardware variant and not another?
I wouldn't be surprised if they just adopt the app store model for Windows ARM devices.
Cellphones are mobile. Once your radio or TV is plugged in, it rarely moves. Cellphones will have chargers in the car, at home, at work, cigar shop, etc. Or if you're traveling and need to buy another charger, it'd be nice to just buy a cellphone charger instead of having to find something specific to your make and model.
It'd be nice if other devices were standardized, too, especially laptops.
The BCS system uses several computer "polls" where high/low is thrown out and a human poll. Computers count 2/3 towards final rank and human poll 1/3, I think. So no way the current system is covered by the method described in this patent.
"Dropbox lets you share your folders with others by creating a new shared folder or sharing an existing one. Once you add other members to the folder, it will appear in your friends or colleagues own Dropbox just as it does in yours. Any changes made to the shared folder's contents will appear instantaneously to everyone who is a member of the folder."
So you, your mom and sister all install drop box and have a shared folder. Whatever your sister saves into that folder is visible to you and your mom. Only caveat is I think the shared folder counts towards everyones quota. So you might want upgraded accounts if you're going to save a lot of pictures.
Someone else also mentioned CrashPlan, the free version of which appears to sync files between multiple computers (instead of a server-based storage system).
Most of those questions could be answered yes at one point or another. Job offer through FB. Thoughtful messages about my grandfather passing through FB. Paid off for me by working with friends to get BCS game tickets.
FB isn't required for any of that, but it can make it a whole lot easier at times.
You'd be surprised what you may have in common with folks you haven't kept in touch with since high school. I found one of my old classmates who likes to smoke cigars, so we met up for a smoke and a football game the last time I went home. We never hung out in school though, because we were in different groups. We're both adults now, though, all that HS bullshit is gone, and we had a great time just hanging out.
If reconnecting is all that really bothers you, there's an IGNORE button for friend requests. Use it. There's no notification that the request was ignored, the request goes away and you can just carry on with things.
Whether you want to "reconnect" or not, FB is still an easy way to keep in touch with friends and family. It's a fancy email presentation system with threaded replies.
Tech savvy enough to, I don't know, just view it at home? There's no reason these need to be viewed at work and can be considered a simple time waster like Facebook (which is also blocked or at least was on my networks).
I don't even think it's that complicated. The sites are a time waster, just like Facebook. You want to read the cables, do it on your own time. There's no reason to be sifting through these on the job. The people that need to view them already have access on the appropriate network.
How do three graphs show Comcast is not delivering the promised bandwidth and committing fraud? Two graphs are for a ONE day period for TWO separate interfaces and the third graph is ANOTHER interface over a 30 day period. 30Gb at this ONE location. The ONLY thing shown here is that the links were nearly 100% utilized for the time shown. That's it.
I read the entire thread, including the replies. The ONLY thing shown here is that three links are nearly 100% utilized during peak hours.
So yes, IF the baseless assumptions are true, there may be grounds for a lawsuit. What a useless statement and worthless contribution to the discussion.
How do you get "intentional congestion" from looking at the graphs for 3 10Gb links? How many packets were dropped on TATA's side because of the "congestion"?
The ONLY thing that's proven looking at this is that 3 links average near 100% utilization during peak hours.
You only hear bad because those are the people that complain. People that get good service from Comcast (like me) just use the service. Squeaky wheels, man...:)
I'm a satisfied Comcast customer. Cable works great. HD looks good. Internet and VoIP from Comcast have worked with no issues since we got here over a year ago. The kids and I watch Netflix videos through a Roku box almost daily. My little girl will stream SuperWhy for hours on end.
If _what_ is true? That three links are saturated? That all links are saturated? That this is on purpose and anti-competitive? That these links actually belong to Comcast?
Your IF clause only makes sense if you're implying Comcast is being anti-competitive. There's no information provided in this article that would support that, however.
Actually, the three graphs each reference a separate 10Gb interface. So that's 30Gb total running through this ONE router in ONE location, allegedly between TATA and Comcast.
The cost to add another 10Gb link isn't the cost of a fiber patch cord and a monthly charge, either. Can TATA handle another 10Gb across their network to this location? Because you know once the link is added, it's going to be used up very quickly. Can Comcast handle another 10Gb across their network from this location? If this region has 30Gb interconnects within the Comcast core, then what good would it be adding another 10Gb at this one location? You just move the congestion from this link to the core. Is this link over-saturated or perfectly utilized? Without seeing the percentage of dropped packets on the TATA side, you have no idea.
Comcast is paying TATA for the imbalance since TATA is a transit provider and Comcast is their customer.
The Level 3 issue is separate as Level 3 wants a FREE interconnection. If you want FREE then you should maintain a 1:1, or up to a 2:1 depending on the contract, traffic ratio.
You got a peek at 3 interfaces on ONE router processing 30Gb of Comcast traffic (allegedly) and all of a sudden you know how the entire company is operating in enough detail to file a class action lawsuit? Ridiculous...
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that derivative works are also restricted, along with exact copies. I'm unable to contribute my own creative works to society because they are derived from your original ideas.
I was thinking something along the same lines today. Offer a smaller 7" iPad. Larger and smaller iPhones. iPhones with slide-out keyboards. I know it's not trivial to shrink a 10" iPad to a 7" or add a keyboard, but it's a one-time engineering deal. Otherwise you instantly lose out on the 7" market or phone with keyboard market. I know I'm not the first to think/wish along these lines. Apple will be Apple, though... who knows why they do (or don't do) certain things.
-John
I had a chuckle here when the news said something about that. According to them, scientists say the star could explode before the end of the year or sometime in the next million years. lol... way to narrow it down.
It's still unlimited. Verizon is just going to control how fast you get there.
The FCC had an answer, but the court said it wasn't good enough to prove jurisdiction. So if the FCC gives a better answer this time, the court could decide in their favor.Whether planned or not, the Comcast case was a good test of jurisdiction arguments for the FCC, to see what would work (or wouldn't work, in the Comcast case).
-John
I don't use the status bar now, so I think it's a good idea. Although I don't know why it can't just be a user option like it's always been.
I wouldn't be surprised if they just adopt the app store model for Windows ARM devices.
Small caps are fine so long as they are clearly advertised as such and the customer has a very easy method of monitoring use.
I'd like to see a dozen tiers so that you can pick one in a range that's useful to you.
Cellphones are mobile. Once your radio or TV is plugged in, it rarely moves. Cellphones will have chargers in the car, at home, at work, cigar shop, etc. Or if you're traveling and need to buy another charger, it'd be nice to just buy a cellphone charger instead of having to find something specific to your make and model.
It'd be nice if other devices were standardized, too, especially laptops.
The BCS system uses several computer "polls" where high/low is thrown out and a human poll. Computers count 2/3 towards final rank and human poll 1/3, I think. So no way the current system is covered by the method described in this patent.
"Dropbox lets you share your folders with others by creating a new shared folder or sharing an existing one. Once you add other members to the folder, it will appear in your friends or colleagues own Dropbox just as it does in yours. Any changes made to the shared folder's contents will appear instantaneously to everyone who is a member of the folder."
So you, your mom and sister all install drop box and have a shared folder. Whatever your sister saves into that folder is visible to you and your mom. Only caveat is I think the shared folder counts towards everyones quota. So you might want upgraded accounts if you're going to save a lot of pictures.
Someone else also mentioned CrashPlan, the free version of which appears to sync files between multiple computers (instead of a server-based storage system).
Most of those questions could be answered yes at one point or another. Job offer through FB. Thoughtful messages about my grandfather passing through FB. Paid off for me by working with friends to get BCS game tickets.
FB isn't required for any of that, but it can make it a whole lot easier at times.
Your fault. Stop accepting friend requests for people you don't want to be a friend with. There's an ignore button for a reason.
You'd be surprised what you may have in common with folks you haven't kept in touch with since high school. I found one of my old classmates who likes to smoke cigars, so we met up for a smoke and a football game the last time I went home. We never hung out in school though, because we were in different groups. We're both adults now, though, all that HS bullshit is gone, and we had a great time just hanging out.
If reconnecting is all that really bothers you, there's an IGNORE button for friend requests. Use it. There's no notification that the request was ignored, the request goes away and you can just carry on with things.
Whether you want to "reconnect" or not, FB is still an easy way to keep in touch with friends and family. It's a fancy email presentation system with threaded replies.
Tech savvy enough to, I don't know, just view it at home? There's no reason these need to be viewed at work and can be considered a simple time waster like Facebook (which is also blocked or at least was on my networks).
I don't even think it's that complicated. The sites are a time waster, just like Facebook. You want to read the cables, do it on your own time. There's no reason to be sifting through these on the job. The people that need to view them already have access on the appropriate network.
How do three graphs show Comcast is not delivering the promised bandwidth and committing fraud? Two graphs are for a ONE day period for TWO separate interfaces and the third graph is ANOTHER interface over a 30 day period. 30Gb at this ONE location. The ONLY thing shown here is that the links were nearly 100% utilized for the time shown. That's it.
I read the entire thread, including the replies. The ONLY thing shown here is that three links are nearly 100% utilized during peak hours.
So yes, IF the baseless assumptions are true, there may be grounds for a lawsuit. What a useless statement and worthless contribution to the discussion.
How do you get "intentional congestion" from looking at the graphs for 3 10Gb links? How many packets were dropped on TATA's side because of the "congestion"?
The ONLY thing that's proven looking at this is that 3 links average near 100% utilization during peak hours.
You only hear bad because those are the people that complain. People that get good service from Comcast (like me) just use the service. Squeaky wheels, man... :)
I'm a satisfied Comcast customer. Cable works great. HD looks good. Internet and VoIP from Comcast have worked with no issues since we got here over a year ago. The kids and I watch Netflix videos through a Roku box almost daily. My little girl will stream SuperWhy for hours on end.
Now we have two data points. Yay!
If _what_ is true? That three links are saturated? That all links are saturated? That this is on purpose and anti-competitive? That these links actually belong to Comcast?
Your IF clause only makes sense if you're implying Comcast is being anti-competitive. There's no information provided in this article that would support that, however.
-John
Actually, the three graphs each reference a separate 10Gb interface. So that's 30Gb total running through this ONE router in ONE location, allegedly between TATA and Comcast.
The cost to add another 10Gb link isn't the cost of a fiber patch cord and a monthly charge, either. Can TATA handle another 10Gb across their network to this location? Because you know once the link is added, it's going to be used up very quickly. Can Comcast handle another 10Gb across their network from this location? If this region has 30Gb interconnects within the Comcast core, then what good would it be adding another 10Gb at this one location? You just move the congestion from this link to the core. Is this link over-saturated or perfectly utilized? Without seeing the percentage of dropped packets on the TATA side, you have no idea.
Comcast is paying TATA for the imbalance since TATA is a transit provider and Comcast is their customer.
The Level 3 issue is separate as Level 3 wants a FREE interconnection. If you want FREE then you should maintain a 1:1, or up to a 2:1 depending on the contract, traffic ratio.
You got a peek at 3 interfaces on ONE router processing 30Gb of Comcast traffic (allegedly) and all of a sudden you know how the entire company is operating in enough detail to file a class action lawsuit? Ridiculous...