If they have thousands of auctions going every day over the period of a couple years, the small percentage they get from the extra $1.50 or so can start adding up if they are affecting a large number of bidders.
Actually, I think that the Earth of 3.5 billion years ago is its "natural" state. All this oxygen and these invasive species (all plants, animals, and basically anything other than anaerobic bacteria) must go!:-)
And I agree with you Mr. Bush, which is why I voted for you!
Speaking of tin foil, what's to prevent someone from wrapping their GPS receiver in a material that would prevent it from communicating with a GPS Satellite? Aside from the privacy issues raised by this technology, I think it would be highly ineffective.
Besides, I disagree with this on general principle. I'm fine with the idea that everyone should pay for the roads, and those who use them more should pay more, but that is because every time you drive, you damage the road somewhat. The problem is that most of these fuel efficient cars are fairly light, and don't cause as much damage as large vehicles.
The only way this would be fair is if the weight of the vehicle was some how factored into the cost of the miles driven (the lighter the car, the lower the cost per mile).
That's exactly what it has to do, if you are to receive incoming calls.
Not really. TCP connections are two way, it would be simple to deploy an application using TCP that would connect to a remote server, and then block waiting for a response from that server. Calls could then be routed through said server, and no listening port on the client machine would be necessary. It would be possible to deploy a VoIP system using such a technique, but I imagine not using UDP as the underlying transport mechanism would be rather costly.
. But the real value of the Internet is two-way communication, just as with the telephone. You shouldn't have to relay email through a third-party site, any more than you should have to use voice mail to send someone a telephone message. You should be able to make some of your own files available on the Web, by running a web server on your machine. Not allowing such things is as limiting as an outgoing-calls-only phone line would be.
Such connections are available for purchase today. I imagine in the future their cost will fall to a rate that will make them reasonably available to the general public.
Is that something that can receive incoming data and respond to it w/o the user interacting? Then any mail client that checks the server for new e-mail is a server.
That is not true. The email client is not contacted by the email server, it just periodically does the work of connecting to the email server for you. It is not a service that can be contacted from external sources (as a VoIP phone can).
A SIP device does not qualify as it is not providing service network content or service to anyone out sideo yoru home -- though it receives data, it receives data on behalf of the end user.
That really depends on how you look at it. The device is providing access (network content) to anyone who dials the number. In essence it is serving a user's phone number to the rest of the world. This would be analogous to a web server that only handles one client at a time (Which I imagine would still be illegal under Comcast's TOS).
I've never looked into how VoIP is deployed, but suffice it to say that if it listens on a port for incoming connections, then it is a service.
I remeber when I used to feel that way about movies. Let's see, I was about 13.
Special effects are so good in feature films now that they hardly even seem notable (and certainly not interesting enough to warant me seeing a movie for the effects alone anymore). It has taken a few years for the technology to become cheap enough for TV shows to start using it, but it is pretty clear with the kind of stuff I've been seeing lately, that TV has started to catch up. From here on out I don't expect special effects to be very "special".
In the current Windows pre-install dominated market there is no need for boxed OS sales. I think the primary market for a boxed OSX is to current users of Windows who want a better OS for the computer they already own.
Almost all OS sales are pre-installs.
Granted that is the current state of affairs. However, don't underestimate the "coolness" factor Apple has going for them right now thanks to the iPod. I think you would have a lot of people who would switch to OSX, if only for aesthetic reasons.
How many do you think will agree to ship OS X by default when it means they are suddenly paying double or triple the software cost to their competitors not only on those boxes, but also on the rest of their boxes?
You assume the Windows monopoly will never be broken (if it is, your whole argument becomes rather irrelevant). Apple has a good shot of doing just that with their current mass market appeal. I hope the Mac-mini can do it, but I fear that without an x86 port of OSX, Windows will continue to dominate the field.
Apple being undercut badly in the commodity PC market could kill the goose who lays the golden OS eggs.
Jobs keeps claiming Apple is a software company. I think this would be the perfect thing to do to prove that. Microsoft seems to be doing just fine living off of the OS market, why couldn't Apple?
A computer lab with an Internet connection can serve to supplement the libraries of these schools.
I completely agree, and I feel that this is the bare minimum required for any school. I just don't think that a school needs much more than this (but a lot of them do).
I think for the most part the money given to schools for technology is wasted (it was at my school). Technology is not the only important thing to learn in school (far from it in my opinion), and I really feel like the money can be better spent on other things (like more and better teachers). The problem is that this cut isn't going to be used for something else in education. In effect Bush is cutting education spending in favor of spending on his imperial aspirations in the middle east, and that is what I take issue with.
Sorry for the confusion. It was indeed a joke. Sadly, 10% moderated it insightful. I hope they simply felt it was an insight into the workings of a deluded mind.
Please, it is common knowledge amongst conservatives that humanity's ability to affect climate change on a global scale is a fairy tale. A fairy tale put forth by the liberal media to hurt American industry, leaving us ripe for communist invasion. Clearly we would have no chance of changing Mars's atmosphere either. Liberal wackos.
Bad joke, I admit it. Still, I have a hard time believing that US military technology is 20 years ahead of civilian technology. I certainly don't believe they have alien technology they are slowly filtering into the general popluation... Some people have been watching too much bad Sci-Fi.
My problem is that I don't think a single thing the Bush administration is doing is preventing terrorism. Especially the patriot act and the Iraq war. Still, Bush is spending billions of dollars to combat an invisible enemy that likely can not be defeated in such a fashion.
3500 is a significant number of people to die for me
I think it is significant cause for us to go after the people responsible for those deaths (Bin Laden). Not to declare war on the Muslim world simply because portions of that population like to see Americans die. Just because a group of people hate us doesn't mean they will necessarily attack us, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they could even if they wanted to.
It also isn't significant cause for us to give up liberties here at home to help "combat" terror. Granted, I personally have not felt the affects of the powers granted the government by the patriot act, but have you read the thing? It goes against everything I think this country should stand for.
Well over 3500 Americans have lost their lives to terrorism over the last few decades.
3500 Americans is not a significant number. It is certainly a horrible thing, but it isn't a number that should cause us to give up our freedoms for security. Far more Americans have died in the past to provide us with the freedoms we have in this country. We shouldn't disgrace their sacrifices because we sleep better with our own government peeking through our windows at night.
Are we still going to hear that now that we have been attacked on our own soil?
From people who aren't cowards.
You can disagree about the Iraq war, but the Afghani war was (and is) needed. And Terrorism is MOST DEFINATELY A THREAT.
I suppose I agree with Afghanistan. Terrorisim is a threat, it just isn't a siginificant one.
I keep hearing people say how fun this game was... I still haven't finished it, because frankly it is just so boring. The whole thing felt like work, and the pace was so slow. I just didn't feel like I had the kind of time it takes to play a game like HL2.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very satisifed with my purchase. Counter Strike:Source is easily the best FPS game I've ever played, and I'm totally sold on the whole Steam thing... I just wish I hadn't lost my CD key to the original Half-Life.
Ok, you win, the Bush administration has admitted that he doesn't seem to have had them after the '91 war (as Saddam maintained). The events you refer to predate his disarming.
These radicals want to see the forced death or conversion of all non-Muslims. They have gained a foothold in governments and schools in the middle east and elsewhere.
I more or less agree with you, but do you really think that inaction will lead to our destruction? These radicals you speak of could never rival the military or economic might of the Western world. Furthermore, "their turf" isn't their turf alone. There are plenty of innocents in the Middle East who do not deserve to live in a war zone.
I could see how this all might be justified if the radicals could be wiped out in this manner. The problem is that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that our aggressive actions do more to fuel extremism than to destroy it. What is our end goal? The end of Islam?
Slashdot Mirror
If the end-user wants to simply read websites, check mail, and write a document or two, a Celeron with Windows XP is the ideal choice.
I would prefer a Mac-mini. Seriously, for such a limited set of tasks, why is Windows XP ideal? Linux could handle such tasks easily as well.
If they have thousands of auctions going every day over the period of a couple years, the small percentage they get from the extra $1.50 or so can start adding up if they are affecting a large number of bidders.
This sounds just like Superman III!
It's God. You should answer.
Actually, I think that the Earth of 3.5 billion years ago is its "natural" state. All this oxygen and these invasive species (all plants, animals, and basically anything other than anaerobic bacteria) must go! :-)
And I agree with you Mr. Bush, which is why I voted for you!
I am hardly a tin foil hat wearing type
Speaking of tin foil, what's to prevent someone from wrapping their GPS receiver in a material that would prevent it from communicating with a GPS Satellite? Aside from the privacy issues raised by this technology, I think it would be highly ineffective.
Besides, I disagree with this on general principle. I'm fine with the idea that everyone should pay for the roads, and those who use them more should pay more, but that is because every time you drive, you damage the road somewhat. The problem is that most of these fuel efficient cars are fairly light, and don't cause as much damage as large vehicles.
The only way this would be fair is if the weight of the vehicle was some how factored into the cost of the miles driven (the lighter the car, the lower the cost per mile).
As some one who doesn't play these sorts of games, I'm a little confused about the issue here. What are these people doing wrong?
That's exactly what it has to do, if you are to receive incoming calls.
Not really. TCP connections are two way, it would be simple to deploy an application using TCP that would connect to a remote server, and then block waiting for a response from that server. Calls could then be routed through said server, and no listening port on the client machine would be necessary. It would be possible to deploy a VoIP system using such a technique, but I imagine not using UDP as the underlying transport mechanism would be rather costly.
. But the real value of the Internet is two-way communication, just as with the telephone. You shouldn't have to relay email through a third-party site, any more than you should have to use voice mail to send someone a telephone message. You should be able to make some of your own files available on the Web, by running a web server on your machine. Not allowing such things is as limiting as an outgoing-calls-only phone line would be.
Such connections are available for purchase today. I imagine in the future their cost will fall to a rate that will make them reasonably available to the general public.
Is that something that can receive incoming data and respond to it w/o the user interacting? Then any mail client that checks the server for new e-mail is a server.
That is not true. The email client is not contacted by the email server, it just periodically does the work of connecting to the email server for you. It is not a service that can be contacted from external sources (as a VoIP phone can).
A SIP device does not qualify as it is not providing service network content or service to anyone out sideo yoru home -- though it receives data, it receives data on behalf of the end user.
That really depends on how you look at it. The device is providing access (network content) to anyone who dials the number. In essence it is serving a user's phone number to the rest of the world. This would be analogous to a web server that only handles one client at a time (Which I imagine would still be illegal under Comcast's TOS).
I've never looked into how VoIP is deployed, but suffice it to say that if it listens on a port for incoming connections, then it is a service.
I watch them for the SFX.
I remeber when I used to feel that way about movies. Let's see, I was about 13.
Special effects are so good in feature films now that they hardly even seem notable (and certainly not interesting enough to warant me seeing a movie for the effects alone anymore). It has taken a few years for the technology to become cheap enough for TV shows to start using it, but it is pretty clear with the kind of stuff I've been seeing lately, that TV has started to catch up. From here on out I don't expect special effects to be very "special".
Intel reverse engineered it.
I believe Intel engineered it.
but really how many boxed OS's are sold?
In the current Windows pre-install dominated market there is no need for boxed OS sales. I think the primary market for a boxed OSX is to current users of Windows who want a better OS for the computer they already own.
Almost all OS sales are pre-installs.
Granted that is the current state of affairs. However, don't underestimate the "coolness" factor Apple has going for them right now thanks to the iPod. I think you would have a lot of people who would switch to OSX, if only for aesthetic reasons.
How many do you think will agree to ship OS X by default when it means they are suddenly paying double or triple the software cost to their competitors not only on those boxes, but also on the rest of their boxes?
You assume the Windows monopoly will never be broken (if it is, your whole argument becomes rather irrelevant). Apple has a good shot of doing just that with their current mass market appeal. I hope the Mac-mini can do it, but I fear that without an x86 port of OSX, Windows will continue to dominate the field.
Apple being undercut badly in the commodity PC market could kill the goose who lays the golden OS eggs.
Jobs keeps claiming Apple is a software company. I think this would be the perfect thing to do to prove that. Microsoft seems to be doing just fine living off of the OS market, why couldn't Apple?
At my school the tech guy was teaching the tech classes. Still it was a worthless program, which deserves the axe.
A computer lab with an Internet connection can serve to supplement the libraries of these schools.
I completely agree, and I feel that this is the bare minimum required for any school. I just don't think that a school needs much more than this (but a lot of them do).
I think for the most part the money given to schools for technology is wasted (it was at my school). Technology is not the only important thing to learn in school (far from it in my opinion), and I really feel like the money can be better spent on other things (like more and better teachers). The problem is that this cut isn't going to be used for something else in education. In effect Bush is cutting education spending in favor of spending on his imperial aspirations in the middle east, and that is what I take issue with.
Sorry for the confusion. It was indeed a joke. Sadly, 10% moderated it insightful. I hope they simply felt it was an insight into the workings of a deluded mind.
Please, it is common knowledge amongst conservatives that humanity's ability to affect climate change on a global scale is a fairy tale. A fairy tale put forth by the liberal media to hurt American industry, leaving us ripe for communist invasion. Clearly we would have no chance of changing Mars's atmosphere either. Liberal wackos.
Bad joke, I admit it. Still, I have a hard time believing that US military technology is 20 years ahead of civilian technology. I certainly don't believe they have alien technology they are slowly filtering into the general popluation... Some people have been watching too much bad Sci-Fi.
I personally think all life is important
So clearly we shouldn't have invaded Iraq then.
especially if their death was preventable.
My problem is that I don't think a single thing the Bush administration is doing is preventing terrorism. Especially the patriot act and the Iraq war. Still, Bush is spending billions of dollars to combat an invisible enemy that likely can not be defeated in such a fashion.
3500 is a significant number of people to die for me
I think it is significant cause for us to go after the people responsible for those deaths (Bin Laden). Not to declare war on the Muslim world simply because portions of that population like to see Americans die. Just because a group of people hate us doesn't mean they will necessarily attack us, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they could even if they wanted to.
It also isn't significant cause for us to give up liberties here at home to help "combat" terror. Granted, I personally have not felt the affects of the powers granted the government by the patriot act, but have you read the thing? It goes against everything I think this country should stand for.
This has to be the most frustrating story I've seen in years. They need to show us ALL of the responses or just stfu.
You sound as gullible as their purported applicants.
"Take what you see, evolve it 3 or 4 generations, that is what they (DoD) have"
Sure, and we can't even provide armor for our troops. Keep dreaming.
Well over 3500 Americans have lost their lives to terrorism over the last few decades.
3500 Americans is not a significant number. It is certainly a horrible thing, but it isn't a number that should cause us to give up our freedoms for security. Far more Americans have died in the past to provide us with the freedoms we have in this country. We shouldn't disgrace their sacrifices because we sleep better with our own government peeking through our windows at night.
Are we still going to hear that now that we have been attacked on our own soil?
From people who aren't cowards.
You can disagree about the Iraq war, but the Afghani war was (and is) needed. And Terrorism is MOST DEFINATELY A THREAT.
I suppose I agree with Afghanistan. Terrorisim is a threat, it just isn't a siginificant one.
but it was loads of fun while it lasted.
I keep hearing people say how fun this game was... I still haven't finished it, because frankly it is just so boring. The whole thing felt like work, and the pace was so slow. I just didn't feel like I had the kind of time it takes to play a game like HL2.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very satisifed with my purchase. Counter Strike:Source is easily the best FPS game I've ever played, and I'm totally sold on the whole Steam thing... I just wish I hadn't lost my CD key to the original Half-Life.
Ok, you win, the Bush administration has admitted that he doesn't seem to have had them after the '91 war (as Saddam maintained). The events you refer to predate his disarming.
These radicals want to see the forced death or conversion of all non-Muslims. They have gained a foothold in governments and schools in the middle east and elsewhere.
I more or less agree with you, but do you really think that inaction will lead to our destruction? These radicals you speak of could never rival the military or economic might of the Western world. Furthermore, "their turf" isn't their turf alone. There are plenty of innocents in the Middle East who do not deserve to live in a war zone.
I could see how this all might be justified if the radicals could be wiped out in this manner. The problem is that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that our aggressive actions do more to fuel extremism than to destroy it. What is our end goal? The end of Islam?