Computers are now being put into embedded devices, but they shouldn't look or act like computers. My prime example is the digital camera:
My mom was an amatuer photographer who used a fully manual camera in the 70's. I bought her a very easy to use Canon Powershot with the same features, and she was completely lost. Imagine this: She wants to set the f-stop, aperture, and exposure time. On her old Miranda that was a switch, a knob, and a slider (or something like that). Now, it's switch to "M" mode, then arrow left to one setting, then arrow up and down, then arrow right, then repeat for the next setting... it takes 10 times longer, and the buttons are much smaller and harder to push. She can't just go by feel while looking at the screen or viewfinder.
Buttons are not the universal replacement for all settings for the same reason that the mouse cannot replace a keyboard and vice-versa. There are multi-modal input devices which map better to some things than others. Use the most appropriate input for each setting. It actually makes it easier.
That doesn't make sense. Just because I give you the option to "opt-out" of having a crime committed against you doesn't mean that what I am doing isn't a crime. If it does, than I would like anyone who does not want to have their house broken into and robbed blind, please reply to this post. Anyone else is automatically consenting.
It ususally means having registered it with the government. That is not correct. In the United States, as of 1978, you do not have to register something for it to be copyrighted. It is very very very rarely done.
A work that was created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death.
They will not build out more capacity if they don't have the right to reserve a portion for their own use. Network Neutrality hasn't stopped them from building out before. They are still doing it now.
Why we would stop them for reserving a portion for video and private network sevices that would help pay for the investment. Network neutrality doesn't stop them from reserving a portion for video and private network services. There's nothing in the law that stops them from doing that now. Plenty of companies pay for private network services, and they can run anything they want over that. And plenty of companies run the wire themselves and use it for their own purposes. The military does. DARPA did it. Universities do it to connect campuses. That's completely different from priotizing packets.
You can buy a Used Cessna for well under $30,000 US dollars. Up your price to $40,000 and there are a lot more. A Hummer H3 runs between $30,000 and $40,000.
I know nothing about engines, so can someone answer some basic questions for me? Wouldn't a fuel-cell engine be essentially an electric engine? Would it be quieter than a gasoline engine? More reliable? Would there be any odor? If so, they would be ideal for ultralights:
I am a hang glider pilot, and I would love to have a small engine for it. There are several manufacturers who make small engines for them, they are loud, stinky, gasoline engines. Most of them only hold 1-2 gallons of fuel, which is plenty for this type of flight. Wouldn't a fuel-cell engine do the trick?
That is exactly the point. Network capacity needs to be increased. We agree on this point.
If all the energy going into the net neutrality fight went into the fight to increase capacity we might be able to make some progress! But if we don't get network neutrality, then the telecom companies won't increase capacity.
The whole point of network neutrality, from the telecom point of view, is to make money without spending money to increase capacity. They would rather just sell "prioritization" services. They are trying to convince the FCC and the legislature that they cannot possibly increase capacity without "alternate streams of revenue" (AKA scamming their customers)
If we win the fight for network neutrality, then the telecoms will be forced to compete with each other fairly, and the only way to do that is to increase bandwidth, increase capacity, decrease latency, and decrease price. This is what network neutrality will do in the end. So don't say that network neutrality is taking us away from the core issue of capacity -- it is at the heart of this issue.
I've seen this discussion 1000 times but I never see anyone link to the patents. What patents? How is the specification of an API or a language patentable? This never made any sense to me.
If the FCC wants to make a rule saying that two-way, real-time voice communication can have priority over other forms of net traffic because it is necessary for the service to work I think this scenario is the crux of our disagreement. My guess is this: if prioritization is necessary to make it work, then it is because there is not enough bandwidth to go around, so either: 1) the user needs to throttle back their bit rate and/or latency expectations; or 2) the network capacity needs to be increased. I don't think re-prioritizing would actually solve the problem anyway. If videoconferencing was eating up that much bandwidth, then the videoconferences would likely start to interfere with each other and the prioritization would become moot.
I do agree with you about priotiziation for emergency services though. That makes sense. At least until someone figures out how to make their CounterStrike game look like emergency traffic:-)
Except for throttling by protocol, I would agree. Throttling by protocol sounds reasonable, but I don't trust the ISPs to do it equitably. They'll do something smarmy like slow video then charge a special rate for it, even if there is plenty of bandwidth available. In theory, rule #1 in your list means I can just switch providers, but I doubt the list will include someone completely neutral.
How's this? They can throttle based on protocol but only using the throttling rules that I set.
Also, the major bandwidth hogs will just change protocols. BitTorrent over HTTP anyone? It will just result in another escalation war like the telephone blocking scheme.
That's another myth. How does network neutrality stifle innovation? When common carrier laws were created for shipping companies, it didn't stifle innovation. Nor did it stifle innovation for telephone companies. And it isn't stifling internet companies either.
I've been replying a lot to this discussion, so let me cut down to the real reason we are in the situation we have now: Comcast says I get 4Mbps of bandwidth. But they really divided 400Mbps across 100 customers, said I get 4Mbps (that's a simplified version). Now that everybody wants to download stuff from YouTube, Comcast finds that they don't actually have enough bandwidth to give everyone 4MBps. So they decide that maybe they can charge some customers to have priority over others. They make more money and finance their rollout of real 4MBps service. They they tell everyone it is 8MBps service, and sell another the option to give priority over other users. This cycle repeats forever. But it's a scam - one person gets 4MBps only because someone else's connection is now slowed down even further because their packets are delayed. You see, you really can't "speed up" a packet, you can only slow one down. There's an expression "robbing Peter to pay Paul" when you get behind on one bill, and so you pay another bill late to make this one on time. That's what the ISPs want to do.
A similar thing happened years ago with phone service. Phone companies would sell caller ID, and a service to block sales calls. They they sold the sales people a service to block their number. Then they sold a service to send blocked numbers to a special message that told them to leave a message. Then they sold sales people a service that got around the special message. In the end, nobody ever got what they paid for. The phone companies just pitted their customers against each other. So it is with "priority" service. Once everyone pays for priority, who has priority then?
Instead, we need to go the opposite direction than all of this. We need to make ISPs report accurate information on their service level (The FDA mandates food labeling and nobody went out of business). Then, we need to open-up the local telco lines to competition. You do that by separating ISP service from phone line service. Ex: Verizon does the local phone lines, but Comcast, Earthlink, CavTel, etc. provide ISP services over those lines. This will open-up real competition. In Maryland, they passed a law about 5 years ago that did this, and DSL suddenly appeared everywhere and new ISPs arrived. Now that the law reverted, my current ISP is likely to vanish since my local telco (Verizon) can force them out of business once the time limit is up.
It all gets really complicated. But in the end, Network Neutrality just means everyone is treated fairly. It has worked in every aspect of the telecom industry thus far. If your issue is that no law is needed, that is a reasonable position since the FCC is handling this now. But remember, the telecom companies stand to gain a lot by starting the phony "prioritization" scam, and you will find fake blogs and links all over the place with info about why Network Neutrality is evil. The telecoms see a chance at eliminating the FCC law, and the fight is really just to retain the status quo, more so than to add any new regulation.
Then that article is completely wrong. I'll submit an edit. That doesn't even make sense.
that telecommunications companies do not offer different rates to internet consumers based on content or service type What? I've never heard of an ISP that didn't offer different rates to customers based on service type. Let me do a quick check here:
Earthlink has 3 plans ranging from $29.95/month for 1.5Mbps to $44.95/month for 6Mbps. Comcast has 2 plans - 12MBps burst rate for $42.95/month and 16MBps burst rate for $52.95/month.
And am I supposed to believe that Slashdot pays $42.95/month for their internet connection? I'll start my own search engine if Google only pays $42.95/month for their internet:-)
I can answer some of those questions for you:
why do we need a law like this? We already have a net neutrality law, which is why very little is currently happening. But the current neutrality law is really just an FCC statute called the "common carrier" law, and the statute was weakened a few years ago. One particular ISP announced that they think neutrality is unfair, and they plan on violating it. (It was a quote about how Google doesn't pay that ISP when Google traffic went to their customers, which isn't true. I would have to dig to find the quote.)
What is currently happening that needs to be fixed by this law? A recent Slashdot article had a tale to tell. Personally, my ISP is redirecting misspelled web site traffic to their own advertising-filled phony search page. It messes-up some spam filters that thing invalid web sites are valid.
Forcing websites to cough up to be given a high bandwidth access to end users would be bad Net Neutrality has nothing to do with bandwidth to end users. I'm not sure where that one came from. Could you elaborate? It sounds like one of the things I might need to add to my Myths about Network Neutrality. The only thing Network Neutrality requires is that ISPs do not alter or re-prioritize the network stream to/from endpoints on their network.
In our case, the hackers were storing "Snakes on a Place" in various Nordic languages. Who compromises a server and uploads Snakes on a friggin' Plane????
Or maybe the local bookstore's days are at an end. Hardly! I've seen a surge in bookstores over the past 10 years. Not that long ago, bookstores were quaint corner shops and places in the mall. Now places like Borders and Barnes and Noble they are anchor stores, cool hang-outs, and good place to buy small gifts, get coffee, listen to music, etc. Yet prices have remained stable. To me, this is an industry that reinvented itself.
Is there a way to submit comments to the study? Most Slashdotters can answer some of those "questions" off the top of their heads. I'm not going to fault the FCC for doing more research, just so long as it is real research and not a secret way to rubber-stamp some corporate agenda.
I signed-up for a 14-day trial of Eve Online. As a fan of Descent, Wing Commander, and Trade Wars I thought I would love this game. After a few days I realized the game was awesome, vast, huge, addictive, and... boring. I think the problem with Eve is that it is _too_ real. I wasn't playing the game - it was playing me. To make progress, I had to spend 15-minute blocks of time watching my ship fly from point A to point B. Or watching a meter count down telling me my character completed some task like building something. *yawn*
I keep hearing that classic linear offline games are boring and limiting and going away. But that's like saying that a book is too limiting because it only has one possible outcome. With a video game or a book, I want to be the hero, I want to see the journey. I don't want to be thrown into a world where my only goal is to make money or get bigger. What fun is that? I can do that in real life.
...just to put a little salt on that potential wound - my MB is an OEM, which means if I swap it out I'll have to buy a new copy of Windows. Depending on who the OEM is, there are ways around that. Personally, that would piss me off enough that I would go pretty far to make it work, on principle.
And even more than that, Intel's Turions appear... You meant AMD's Turions. I have one in my HTPC and I love it. 98% silent, and it is the first system I've built that sits in an entertainment center without overheating.
How about making PDA software? It's pocket-sized, has a stylus, includes an on-screen keyboard program, and has Wi-Fi support. It's everythign I've wanted in a PDA - except it has no PDA software.
I'm in the same boat. I am using a single core 3400+ because the new chips aren't really any faster - just more cores. So they won't really buy me much performance, especially considering the fact that I have to swap-out every component in my system again. When they have 4Ghz multi-core chips, and everyday apps run multi-core, then the upgrade will be worth it. For now, for most apps and games, a 5000+ and 3500+ are about the same.
AMD is producing chips using a 90nm process and moving to 65nm, while Intel is moving from 65nm to 45nm. It is very difficult to compete in design when you are working with something 4 times less dense. AMD has always been behind in this area (except when they were using IBM fabs, and they had copper interconnects before Intel).
Simultaneously with this story, I see an announcement that Intel has announced another 45nm processor for ultra low power consumption.
I hope it is better than NBC's Video Rewind site which lets you view previous episodes of their shows. It is so glitchy that it is probably easier for an end-user to install BitTorrent, find a site, and download it. They use Flash video, so you get postage-stamp size video. They divide it into 6 sections and run short commercials in-between -- shorter than network TV commercials, which would be nice... except that half the time it gets stuck and doesn't move on to the next section. Then if you try to seek it displays another commercial. And it plays the video before it is buffered so you have to pause/play it manually and guesstimate when it is safe. Then of course, if you mis-click, or the playback glitches, you seek and get an ad and have to start over. It took me 2 hours to watch a 1 hour episodeof Lost.
To top it off, it crashed when I exit the browser (Safari) which is sad since I can spent hours watching videos on YouTube without it crashing.
Why can't they just stream an.MP4 file? It's a standard, cross-platform format that every OS has a player for. Sheesh.
Slashdot Mirror
Computers are now being put into embedded devices, but they shouldn't look or act like computers. My prime example is the digital camera:
My mom was an amatuer photographer who used a fully manual camera in the 70's. I bought her a very easy to use Canon Powershot with the same features, and she was completely lost. Imagine this: She wants to set the f-stop, aperture, and exposure time. On her old Miranda that was a switch, a knob, and a slider (or something like that). Now, it's switch to "M" mode, then arrow left to one setting, then arrow up and down, then arrow right, then repeat for the next setting... it takes 10 times longer, and the buttons are much smaller and harder to push. She can't just go by feel while looking at the screen or viewfinder.
Buttons are not the universal replacement for all settings for the same reason that the mouse cannot replace a keyboard and vice-versa. There are multi-modal input devices which map better to some things than others. Use the most appropriate input for each setting. It actually makes it easier.
Oh, and more buttons isn't the answer.
That doesn't make sense. Just because I give you the option to "opt-out" of having a crime committed against you doesn't mean that what I am doing isn't a crime. If it does, than I would like anyone who does not want to have their house broken into and robbed blind, please reply to this post. Anyone else is automatically consenting.
Excerpt from Copyright office basics:
You can buy a Used Cessna for well under $30,000 US dollars. Up your price to $40,000 and there are a lot more. A Hummer H3 runs between $30,000 and $40,000.
I know nothing about engines, so can someone answer some basic questions for me? Wouldn't a fuel-cell engine be essentially an electric engine? Would it be quieter than a gasoline engine? More reliable? Would there be any odor? If so, they would be ideal for ultralights:
I am a hang glider pilot, and I would love to have a small engine for it. There are several manufacturers who make small engines for them, they are loud, stinky, gasoline engines. Most of them only hold 1-2 gallons of fuel, which is plenty for this type of flight. Wouldn't a fuel-cell engine do the trick?
The whole point of network neutrality, from the telecom point of view, is to make money without spending money to increase capacity. They would rather just sell "prioritization" services. They are trying to convince the FCC and the legislature that they cannot possibly increase capacity without "alternate streams of revenue" (AKA scamming their customers)
If we win the fight for network neutrality, then the telecoms will be forced to compete with each other fairly, and the only way to do that is to increase bandwidth, increase capacity, decrease latency, and decrease price. This is what network neutrality will do in the end. So don't say that network neutrality is taking us away from the core issue of capacity -- it is at the heart of this issue.
I've seen this discussion 1000 times but I never see anyone link to the patents. What patents? How is the specification of an API or a language patentable? This never made any sense to me.
I do agree with you about priotiziation for emergency services though. That makes sense. At least until someone figures out how to make their CounterStrike game look like emergency traffic
Except for throttling by protocol, I would agree. Throttling by protocol sounds reasonable, but I don't trust the ISPs to do it equitably. They'll do something smarmy like slow video then charge a special rate for it, even if there is plenty of bandwidth available. In theory, rule #1 in your list means I can just switch providers, but I doubt the list will include someone completely neutral.
How's this? They can throttle based on protocol but only using the throttling rules that I set.
Also, the major bandwidth hogs will just change protocols. BitTorrent over HTTP anyone? It will just result in another escalation war like the telephone blocking scheme.
That's another myth. How does network neutrality stifle innovation? When common carrier laws were created for shipping companies, it didn't stifle innovation. Nor did it stifle innovation for telephone companies. And it isn't stifling internet companies either.
I've been replying a lot to this discussion, so let me cut down to the real reason we are in the situation we have now:
Comcast says I get 4Mbps of bandwidth. But they really divided 400Mbps across 100 customers, said I get 4Mbps (that's a simplified version). Now that everybody wants to download stuff from YouTube, Comcast finds that they don't actually have enough bandwidth to give everyone 4MBps. So they decide that maybe they can charge some customers to have priority over others. They make more money and finance their rollout of real 4MBps service. They they tell everyone it is 8MBps service, and sell another the option to give priority over other users. This cycle repeats forever. But it's a scam - one person gets 4MBps only because someone else's connection is now slowed down even further because their packets are delayed. You see, you really can't "speed up" a packet, you can only slow one down. There's an expression "robbing Peter to pay Paul" when you get behind on one bill, and so you pay another bill late to make this one on time. That's what the ISPs want to do.
A similar thing happened years ago with phone service. Phone companies would sell caller ID, and a service to block sales calls. They they sold the sales people a service to block their number. Then they sold a service to send blocked numbers to a special message that told them to leave a message. Then they sold sales people a service that got around the special message. In the end, nobody ever got what they paid for. The phone companies just pitted their customers against each other. So it is with "priority" service. Once everyone pays for priority, who has priority then?
Instead, we need to go the opposite direction than all of this. We need to make ISPs report accurate information on their service level (The FDA mandates food labeling and nobody went out of business). Then, we need to open-up the local telco lines to competition. You do that by separating ISP service from phone line service. Ex: Verizon does the local phone lines, but Comcast, Earthlink, CavTel, etc. provide ISP services over those lines. This will open-up real competition. In Maryland, they passed a law about 5 years ago that did this, and DSL suddenly appeared everywhere and new ISPs arrived. Now that the law reverted, my current ISP is likely to vanish since my local telco (Verizon) can force them out of business once the time limit is up.
It all gets really complicated. But in the end, Network Neutrality just means everyone is treated fairly. It has worked in every aspect of the telecom industry thus far. If your issue is that no law is needed, that is a reasonable position since the FCC is handling this now. But remember, the telecom companies stand to gain a lot by starting the phony "prioritization" scam, and you will find fake blogs and links all over the place with info about why Network Neutrality is evil. The telecoms see a chance at eliminating the FCC law, and the fight is really just to retain the status quo, more so than to add any new regulation.
Earthlink has 3 plans ranging from $29.95/month for 1.5Mbps to $44.95/month for 6Mbps.
Comcast has 2 plans - 12MBps burst rate for $42.95/month and 16MBps burst rate for $52.95/month.
And am I supposed to believe that Slashdot pays $42.95/month for their internet connection? I'll start my own search engine if Google only pays $42.95/month for their internet
My boss hired that guy.
In our case, the hackers were storing "Snakes on a Place" in various Nordic languages. Who compromises a server and uploads Snakes on a friggin' Plane????
Is there a way to submit comments to the study? Most Slashdotters can answer some of those "questions" off the top of their heads. I'm not going to fault the FCC for doing more research, just so long as it is real research and not a secret way to rubber-stamp some corporate agenda.
I signed-up for a 14-day trial of Eve Online. As a fan of Descent, Wing Commander, and Trade Wars I thought I would love this game. After a few days I realized the game was awesome, vast, huge, addictive, and... boring. I think the problem with Eve is that it is _too_ real. I wasn't playing the game - it was playing me. To make progress, I had to spend 15-minute blocks of time watching my ship fly from point A to point B. Or watching a meter count down telling me my character completed some task like building something. *yawn*
I keep hearing that classic linear offline games are boring and limiting and going away. But that's like saying that a book is too limiting because it only has one possible outcome. With a video game or a book, I want to be the hero, I want to see the journey. I don't want to be thrown into a world where my only goal is to make money or get bigger. What fun is that? I can do that in real life.
...just to put a little salt on that potential wound - my MB is an OEM, which means if I swap it out I'll have to buy a new copy of Windows. Depending on who the OEM is, there are ways around that. Personally, that would piss me off enough that I would go pretty far to make it work, on principle.How about making PDA software? It's pocket-sized, has a stylus, includes an on-screen keyboard program, and has Wi-Fi support. It's everythign I've wanted in a PDA - except it has no PDA software.
I'm in the same boat. I am using a single core 3400+ because the new chips aren't really any faster - just more cores. So they won't really buy me much performance, especially considering the fact that I have to swap-out every component in my system again. When they have 4Ghz multi-core chips, and everyday apps run multi-core, then the upgrade will be worth it. For now, for most apps and games, a 5000+ and 3500+ are about the same.
AMD is producing chips using a 90nm process and moving to 65nm, while Intel is moving from 65nm to 45nm. It is very difficult to compete in design when you are working with something 4 times less dense. AMD has always been behind in this area (except when they were using IBM fabs, and they had copper interconnects before Intel).
Simultaneously with this story, I see an announcement that Intel has announced another 45nm processor for ultra low power consumption.
I hope it is better than NBC's Video Rewind site which lets you view previous episodes of their shows. It is so glitchy that it is probably easier for an end-user to install BitTorrent, find a site, and download it. They use Flash video, so you get postage-stamp size video. They divide it into 6 sections and run short commercials in-between -- shorter than network TV commercials, which would be nice... except that half the time it gets stuck and doesn't move on to the next section. Then if you try to seek it displays another commercial. And it plays the video before it is buffered so you have to pause/play it manually and guesstimate when it is safe. Then of course, if you mis-click, or the playback glitches, you seek and get an ad and have to start over. It took me 2 hours to watch a 1 hour episodeof Lost.
.MP4 file? It's a standard, cross-platform format that every OS has a player for. Sheesh.
To top it off, it crashed when I exit the browser (Safari) which is sad since I can spent hours watching videos on YouTube without it crashing.
Why can't they just stream an
Is there a version that isn't a 400+MB movie file? I was expecting an article.