Really. After reading the article cited by the OP (I know, right?) I think the real title of the CNN story should have been "College Age Listeners Living in Atlanta, Georgia, USA Who Have Excellent Bandwidth And Who Probably Don't Pay The Data Charges For Their Devices Opt for Streaming Over Owning"
I stream music rather own them. I'm not young. I don't live in Atlanta. I pay for my data.
Being from CNN should be enough of a clue that this isn't really newsworthy.
Plus the $360 per year that your cellular Internet access provider charges for a data plan, correct?
I don't include that charge. I use Rhapsody and I mainly use WiFi to download songs to the phone. Not because I'm cheap, but because T-Mobile has spotty service where I'm at. Besides even if I did use the 4G (aka. 3G+) I'm storing the songs locally on my phone and only have to download the song once to play it multiple times. Since I have a very large storage capacity in my Android phone, I can listen to over 8 hours of music without streaming. I still have plenty of data left prior to the cap so I can still use the data service for its intended purpose which is email. Even if I did hit my cap, email is still serviceable at the reduced speeds.
Now the reasons for streaming instead of buying are: (1) I use Rhapsody as a subscription radio service to replace the crappy rural stations that are scatter along the interstate route, and (2) it's way cheaper than the crappy satellite radio service where I can't control what is being played. If I decide to discontinue Rhapsody, I'll breakdown and buy the songs that I believe are worth keeping. That would be a very small number and most of them can be ripped off of CDs purchased at garage sales. Rhapsody allows me to listen to new songs without having to purchase them first.
C= made a PC too in the 70s. C= made a cheaper home fun computer than Apple. C= made a better color computer than Mac System 6.
Actually the Commodore PET was in the 70s and it was conceived after Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak tried to get Commodore to carry the Apple II. The PET was butt ugly and really wasn't targeted at the home market. The Commodore VIC-20 was 1979 and C64 was in 1981. I believe the Commodore 64 was an overwhelming success because they were able to sell a gaming computer to the home market, their only real competitor was the Atari 400 and Atari 800 which were both introduced in 1979. The commodore 64 was a response to the Atari 800 which Atari proved too slow to answer. Software sold computers and Commodore was beating Atari on that front. Apple was more interested in the educational and small business market and didn't attempt to enter a price war with Commodore or Atari.
The C= Amgia could emulate the Macs+OS via ROM module or (copy rom as most did via BBSs). The Rom in ram ran faster. The Emulator patched some OS calls to be asyncronous and ran faster and better that a real mac did. And also ran Amiga apps at the same time as Mac Apps.
That is sort of true. It worked but it wasn't as reliable as the Atari ST at emulating the Macintosh at the time. The Atari ST hardware wasn't as advanced as the Amiga and therefore nothing much had to be bolted on to get it to work. Of course, the Amiga's and Atari's ability to emulate the MacOS using bootleg roms on an expansion bus wasn't enough to keep both machines from becoming relics and footnotes in Slashdot commentaries.
Anyway Atari and Commodore enjoyed their time in the 80's. Unfortunately neither one of them could market themselves or advance their product enough to survive the watershed caused by the era of the IBM PC compatible. Apple continued because it (wisely) didn't fully commit itself to the home market war and didn't price itself out of business.
The world would be different sure, but Apple were not alone in those days, you had several manufacturers like Atari, Commodore and Sinclair...
Very true. The Apple II came out in 1977, the Atari 400 and 800 came out two years later in 1979, and the Commodore VIC-20 came out three years after that in 1981. It wasn't until a year later in 1982 when Commodore came out with the Commodore 64, that we had a three way race for the home computing segment. Atari and Commodore fought it out on the low end, and Apple was doing well on the high end.
Incidentally the legacy of the Atari 400/800 lives on in a way. Joe Decuir was one of the designers of the the Atari SIO (a.k.a. Colleen SIO) peripheral bus, and later became one of the designers of the USB.
The most important tablet before the iPad was the Kindle.
Technically speaking, the original Kindle was more a device similar to a Franklin spellchecker or even a Psion. A hand held computing device devoted to a single task. With its large alpha numeric keyboard, it would more aptly be compared to a crippled version of a Hewlett-Packet 95XL.
The Kindle is not even the first e-reader with or without content tied in a controlled way. That honor goes to Sony with their Librie series and later with their PRS-500. Both of which predates the Amazon Kindle.
Linux was getting too lame so I switched to OS X for desktop shit but I'm still looking for a good open source server. Sorry, I can't take Ubuntu seriously as a server, Debian suffers from ultra-cruft like trying to support obscure 90s processors and Red Hat is so expensive it defeats the purpose. So I've been planning to go to BSD but sort of procrastinating on it. This project looks just exciting enough to get me on board.
I know the parent is trolling, but for those who ARE looking for a good open source server there are the assorted BSDs, and of course CentOS, and Scientific Linux.
I think continued use of either piece of software reflects a rigid anti-change mentality that is stuck in the past and against learning new things.
It could indicate that the editors are very good, perform their tasks well, and the new things aren't good enough to replace either vim or emacs. Why learn a new editor just for the sake of using a new editor?
The problem is who pays the middle man who connects you and Facebook? In particular, international cables aren't exactly cheap, and someone has to foot the bill.
Well I'd assume that the money that my ISP pays to the backbone provider would go towards the cost of the international cables. There are communication tariff agreements that are made at that level that dictate how much money should go to which carrier. It's similar to the telecom agreements that regulate voice traffic across different telephone companies. Even if that weren't the case, no one provides a connection for free. Eventually there would be a accounting line item that pays some company representing the international cable (or satellite) companies for the privilege of having access.
Basically the money you pay your ISP every month is used to pay for the infrastructure costs down the line. It's a "Customer pays the retailer, who in turns pay the wholesaler, who ultimately pays the consortium representing the communication infrastructure" thing.
An internet tax might not be the best idea, but there may be something to this being a social problem -- a resource that's now almost as important as food, housing and water might (from a European perspective) need some kind of legislation to ensure availability even for those who live at the wrong end of the water tube. How this is ensured, without it just being an excuse to fatten telco execs and shareholders, is a problem. I'm quite sure that the proposed bit tax is one of the worst ways to try to fix this.
This has nothing to do with the cost of the infrastructure. This is an attempt by the EU companies to gain some sort of economic advantage over their US rivals by imposing a data import tax.
IANAL, but I experienced something similar to this a couple of decades ago in a different industry. The US Department of Commerce used to collect harbor maintenance fees based on the amount of cargo my employer exported. The association that my employer was a member, filed a lawsuit to contest the constitutionality of collecting these fees. Eventually they won their lawsuit, and finally in 2001 the department of commerce (through US Customs) had to refund the fees. The lesson learned was that fees on exports were in fact unconstitutional.
The way this relates to the UN proposal is that while it remains unconstitutional for the US to collect fees on exports, the EU still has a right to charge a duty on its imports. The EU based companies are petitioning the UN to establish a process that will allow the EU to collect duties on data being imported from the US. Again this has nothing to do with paying for the infrastructure, this has more to do with EU companies wanting to give themselves a price advantage over US based data and services.
Unfortunately, the US customers could be charged a a duty when they visit European based websites. This is due to the retaliatory nature of tariffs. The US will be compelled to charge an importation duty for all data coming in from europe to counter europe's importation fees against US companies. The US customers may never see this as a line item in their bill do the disportionate amount of data being exported to europe when compared to the amount being imported from europe.
Anyway long story - shortened: This will mostly affect european customers, and this will prop up the european data services by giving them a price advantage. This will open a Pandora's box of regulations and tariffs and may ultimately hurt the internet. Imagine if we were to visit a foreign website and were subjected to the same pricing scheme as an international phone call over traditional telephone lines.
I'd never pay a U.N. based tax, and I'd make damn sure no US politicians who were stupid enough to suggest that the US become a signatory of this proposed amendment ever gets reelected. I'm pretty sure most other US citizens feel the same way. We're quite sensitive about the whole taxation without representation thing.
I think the grand parent was commenting about the design elements of the notebook. You know the black border around the display, the trackpad placement, the keyboard design and color, the aluminum like finish of the laptop body and the edge-to-edge glass on the clamshell.
The very things that make the Asus x86 transformer look very very similar to an Apple MacBook Air.
Actually, what it shows is that when Apple launched a patent attack on HTC over importing devices using Google software -- that is, launched an attack-by-proxy on Google...
When you file a complaint with the EU or ITC to ban the importation of a product, you file a claim against that product's manufacturer. You act like Apple purposely went after HTC as a proxy to Google.
Just because someone argues for something in a legal case (and just because it convinced Florian Mueller) doesn't mean it is credible.
I agree. However the same thing can be said about Google's claims against Microsoft and Nokia. In both cases, a claim is being made to the EU and in both cases a finding has not been made. So how is this case different from Apple's?
I never said HTC is a patent troll. What I did say is that Google has used HTC as a proxy in its fight against Apple.
You can try to finesse the facts but it doesn't negate the fact that HTC is acting as a proxy for Google in that patent case against Apple.
Armchair Google haters and paranoid tin hat wearers everywhere notwithstanding.
Nice ad-hominem attack. I don't hate Google, in fact I use a lot of their services. I just pointed out that Google also uses proxies in its patent battles.
Apple is in the process of having HTC complaints against them dismissed by the ITC due to lack of standing. It seems that Google transferred five patents key to HTC complaint just prior to the filing with the ITC (less than week). The ITC hasn't ruled on Apple's motion, but it indicates that HTC is acting as Google's proxy in this matter.
MedicAlert does have all of my father's information. MedicAlert also has the reception and time problems (since it involves a phone call) that the GGP is using as a fearmongering argument against a QR code system
Is the information available fast enough? The fact that it requires a phone call doesn't seem that too restrictive or time consuming. It seems that the emergency responder is free to continue to stabilize the patient while listening to the medical information being read to him by MedicAlert. Do you know for a fact that a verbal phone call is the only means to access the information and that the hospital doesn't have electronic access to those same records?
I wouldn't call the GGP suggestion of printing all the information on a bracelet as "fear mongering" just impractical. It does seem that you are doing a little fear mongering of your own to promote a QR code based system over the current system.
Again, the main point is that redundancy offers reliability.
I think you meant availability which is not equivalent to accuracy. Availability is handled by having more than one operator handling the phones, or having more than one means to access the data by the member stakeholder. Accuracy is maintained by having a single repository that holds this information. Multiple supplier databases can lead to situations where one database has a more recent and accurate medical entry then the competing service.
Google filed an EU antitrust complaint against Microsoft and Nokia on Thursday, claiming they are using proxy companies to make smartphone-related patent claims in an attack on Google's Android business.
I thought medical personal would call MedicAlert with your father's bracelet ID to get all that information.
What if your bracelet falls off, or gets dirty, or is tarnished, or if it's upside down and the paramedics can't move your arm to read it? You could die of a reaction to penicillin because the bracelet didn't work!
Are you suggesting that people would have the QR tattooed on a standard location on their body? Otherwise this system is prone to the same failure.
Actually I remember an old rapture movie (in the 80's) that used UPC bar codes as a main plot device to track people and execute christians. Bar code scanners were new back then and I'm sure it's just a matter of time before the movies are updated with QR codes.
What is not so crazy is our willingness to make it easier to track ourselves.
FFS calm down. The law has passed and it will go into effect. So in essence we are becoming acclimated to the new world of first to file.
First-to-file itself has nothing to do with determining patentability.
What it does is make it harder for the real inventor to revoke a patent once it has been awarded. You place way too much faith on increasing the novelty factor for a patent. The US patent office has not demonstrated an ounce of discretion when it comes to what should be patentable, and quite frankly I don't see anything changing anytime soon even after AIA goes into effect. The government bureaucrats who work for the USPTO the day before AIA will be the ones working at the USPTO the day after.
The purpose of AIA was to lower the amount of court cases contesting patents and free up the USPTO from having to handle "prior art" claims. The AIA was not created to increase the quality of the patent.
If a law says, "Promotion of fire fighters shall be determined based on the outcome of written examinations," and the judge named Sotomayor then turns-round and cancels the promotion of those men who legally-passed the exam, the judge is NOT enforcing the law. Or interpreting the law as written. They are arbitrarily acting with no reason or rationality, except their own desires to make law from the bench.
Just to clarify, Justice Sotomayor ruling was concerning New Haven's motion to disregard the outcome of the exams due to there being a disproportionate number of white firemen passing the exams. She and another appellate judged ruled that since no one was promoted then no civil rights were violated. A technicality that completely ignores the spirit of the 1964 Civil Right Act.
Thankfully her decision was overturned by SCOTUS. Unfortunately, she was appointed to SCOTUS.
Slashdot Mirror
I stream music rather own them. I'm not young. I don't live in Atlanta. I pay for my data.
Being from CNN should be enough of a clue that this isn't really newsworthy.
I don't include that charge. I use Rhapsody and I mainly use WiFi to download songs to the phone. Not because I'm cheap, but because T-Mobile has spotty service where I'm at. Besides even if I did use the 4G (aka. 3G+) I'm storing the songs locally on my phone and only have to download the song once to play it multiple times. Since I have a very large storage capacity in my Android phone, I can listen to over 8 hours of music without streaming. I still have plenty of data left prior to the cap so I can still use the data service for its intended purpose which is email. Even if I did hit my cap, email is still serviceable at the reduced speeds.
Now the reasons for streaming instead of buying are: (1) I use Rhapsody as a subscription radio service to replace the crappy rural stations that are scatter along the interstate route, and (2) it's way cheaper than the crappy satellite radio service where I can't control what is being played. If I decide to discontinue Rhapsody, I'll breakdown and buy the songs that I believe are worth keeping. That would be a very small number and most of them can be ripped off of CDs purchased at garage sales. Rhapsody allows me to listen to new songs without having to purchase them first.
Well since the Lisa was 29 years ago, I'd say that a good track record.
The only way I'd go to a theatre is if they invented a device that would get people to STFU while the movie is playing.
Actually the Commodore PET was in the 70s and it was conceived after Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak tried to get Commodore to carry the Apple II. The PET was butt ugly and really wasn't targeted at the home market. The Commodore VIC-20 was 1979 and C64 was in 1981. I believe the Commodore 64 was an overwhelming success because they were able to sell a gaming computer to the home market, their only real competitor was the Atari 400 and Atari 800 which were both introduced in 1979. The commodore 64 was a response to the Atari 800 which Atari proved too slow to answer. Software sold computers and Commodore was beating Atari on that front. Apple was more interested in the educational and small business market and didn't attempt to enter a price war with Commodore or Atari.
That is sort of true. It worked but it wasn't as reliable as the Atari ST at emulating the Macintosh at the time. The Atari ST hardware wasn't as advanced as the Amiga and therefore nothing much had to be bolted on to get it to work. Of course, the Amiga's and Atari's ability to emulate the MacOS using bootleg roms on an expansion bus wasn't enough to keep both machines from becoming relics and footnotes in Slashdot commentaries.
Anyway Atari and Commodore enjoyed their time in the 80's. Unfortunately neither one of them could market themselves or advance their product enough to survive the watershed caused by the era of the IBM PC compatible. Apple continued because it (wisely) didn't fully commit itself to the home market war and didn't price itself out of business.
Very true. The Apple II came out in 1977, the Atari 400 and 800 came out two years later in 1979, and the Commodore VIC-20 came out three years after that in 1981. It wasn't until a year later in 1982 when Commodore came out with the Commodore 64, that we had a three way race for the home computing segment. Atari and Commodore fought it out on the low end, and Apple was doing well on the high end.
Incidentally the legacy of the Atari 400/800 lives on in a way. Joe Decuir was one of the designers of the the Atari SIO (a.k.a. Colleen SIO) peripheral bus, and later became one of the designers of the USB.
Technically speaking, the original Kindle was more a device similar to a Franklin spellchecker or even a Psion. A hand held computing device devoted to a single task. With its large alpha numeric keyboard, it would more aptly be compared to a crippled version of a Hewlett-Packet 95XL.
The Kindle is not even the first e-reader with or without content tied in a controlled way. That honor goes to Sony with their Librie series and later with their PRS-500. Both of which predates the Amazon Kindle.
Well they are an Irish rock band... Oh wait... Wrong Bonobos.
I know the parent is trolling, but for those who ARE looking for a good open source server there are the assorted BSDs, and of course CentOS, and Scientific Linux.
It could indicate that the editors are very good, perform their tasks well, and the new things aren't good enough to replace either vim or emacs. Why learn a new editor just for the sake of using a new editor?
Well I'd assume that the money that my ISP pays to the backbone provider would go towards the cost of the international cables. There are communication tariff agreements that are made at that level that dictate how much money should go to which carrier. It's similar to the telecom agreements that regulate voice traffic across different telephone companies. Even if that weren't the case, no one provides a connection for free. Eventually there would be a accounting line item that pays some company representing the international cable (or satellite) companies for the privilege of having access.
Basically the money you pay your ISP every month is used to pay for the infrastructure costs down the line. It's a "Customer pays the retailer, who in turns pay the wholesaler, who ultimately pays the consortium representing the communication infrastructure" thing.
This has nothing to do with the cost of the infrastructure. This is an attempt by the EU companies to gain some sort of economic advantage over their US rivals by imposing a data import tax.
IANAL, but I experienced something similar to this a couple of decades ago in a different industry. The US Department of Commerce used to collect harbor maintenance fees based on the amount of cargo my employer exported. The association that my employer was a member, filed a lawsuit to contest the constitutionality of collecting these fees. Eventually they won their lawsuit, and finally in 2001 the department of commerce (through US Customs) had to refund the fees. The lesson learned was that fees on exports were in fact unconstitutional.
The way this relates to the UN proposal is that while it remains unconstitutional for the US to collect fees on exports, the EU still has a right to charge a duty on its imports. The EU based companies are petitioning the UN to establish a process that will allow the EU to collect duties on data being imported from the US. Again this has nothing to do with paying for the infrastructure, this has more to do with EU companies wanting to give themselves a price advantage over US based data and services.
Unfortunately, the US customers could be charged a a duty when they visit European based websites. This is due to the retaliatory nature of tariffs. The US will be compelled to charge an importation duty for all data coming in from europe to counter europe's importation fees against US companies. The US customers may never see this as a line item in their bill do the disportionate amount of data being exported to europe when compared to the amount being imported from europe.
Anyway long story - shortened: This will mostly affect european customers, and this will prop up the european data services by giving them a price advantage. This will open a Pandora's box of regulations and tariffs and may ultimately hurt the internet. Imagine if we were to visit a foreign website and were subjected to the same pricing scheme as an international phone call over traditional telephone lines.
I'd never pay a U.N. based tax, and I'd make damn sure no US politicians who were stupid enough to suggest that the US become a signatory of this proposed amendment ever gets reelected. I'm pretty sure most other US citizens feel the same way. We're quite sensitive about the whole taxation without representation thing.
I don't think we have to wait that long. Book burnings are happening both literately and figuratively.
I think the grand parent was commenting about the design elements of the notebook. You know the black border around the display, the trackpad placement, the keyboard design and color, the aluminum like finish of the laptop body and the edge-to-edge glass on the clamshell.
The very things that make the Asus x86 transformer look very very similar to an Apple MacBook Air.
When you file a complaint with the EU or ITC to ban the importation of a product, you file a claim against that product's manufacturer. You act like Apple purposely went after HTC as a proxy to Google.
I agree. However the same thing can be said about Google's claims against Microsoft and Nokia. In both cases, a claim is being made to the EU and in both cases a finding has not been made. So how is this case different from Apple's?
I never said HTC is a patent troll. What I did say is that Google has used HTC as a proxy in its fight against Apple.
You can try to finesse the facts but it doesn't negate the fact that HTC is acting as a proxy for Google in that patent case against Apple.
Nice ad-hominem attack. I don't hate Google, in fact I use a lot of their services. I just pointed out that Google also uses proxies in its patent battles.
Here the links for stories discussing HTC acting as Google's proxy:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/09/google-to-htc-take-these-patents-keep-fighting-apple/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-07/htc-sues-apple-alleging-infringement-of-four-u-s-patents.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57435572-37/apple-wants-to-squelch-five-google-patents-issued-to-htc/
Apple is in the process of having HTC complaints against them dismissed by the ITC due to lack of standing. It seems that Google transferred five patents key to HTC complaint just prior to the filing with the ITC (less than week). The ITC hasn't ruled on Apple's motion, but it indicates that HTC is acting as Google's proxy in this matter.
Feel free to google it.
Is the information available fast enough? The fact that it requires a phone call doesn't seem that too restrictive or time consuming. It seems that the emergency responder is free to continue to stabilize the patient while listening to the medical information being read to him by MedicAlert. Do you know for a fact that a verbal phone call is the only means to access the information and that the hospital doesn't have electronic access to those same records?
I wouldn't call the GGP suggestion of printing all the information on a bracelet as "fear mongering" just impractical. It does seem that you are doing a little fear mongering of your own to promote a QR code based system over the current system.
I think you meant availability which is not equivalent to accuracy. Availability is handled by having more than one operator handling the phones, or having more than one means to access the data by the member stakeholder. Accuracy is maintained by having a single repository that holds this information. Multiple supplier databases can lead to situations where one database has a more recent and accurate medical entry then the competing service.
You mean like how Google used HTC as their proxy?
I thought medical personal would call MedicAlert with your father's bracelet ID to get all that information.
Are you suggesting that people would have the QR tattooed on a standard location on their body? Otherwise this system is prone to the same failure.
Actually I remember an old rapture movie (in the 80's) that used UPC bar codes as a main plot device to track people and execute christians. Bar code scanners were new back then and I'm sure it's just a matter of time before the movies are updated with QR codes.
What is not so crazy is our willingness to make it easier to track ourselves.
FFS calm down. The law has passed and it will go into effect. So in essence we are becoming acclimated to the new world of first to file.
What it does is make it harder for the real inventor to revoke a patent once it has been awarded. You place way too much faith on increasing the novelty factor for a patent. The US patent office has not demonstrated an ounce of discretion when it comes to what should be patentable, and quite frankly I don't see anything changing anytime soon even after AIA goes into effect. The government bureaucrats who work for the USPTO the day before AIA will be the ones working at the USPTO the day after.
The purpose of AIA was to lower the amount of court cases contesting patents and free up the USPTO from having to handle "prior art" claims. The AIA was not created to increase the quality of the patent.
Welcome to the world of "First to File" patenting.
Just to clarify, Justice Sotomayor ruling was concerning New Haven's motion to disregard the outcome of the exams due to there being a disproportionate number of white firemen passing the exams. She and another appellate judged ruled that since no one was promoted then no civil rights were violated. A technicality that completely ignores the spirit of the 1964 Civil Right Act.
Thankfully her decision was overturned by SCOTUS. Unfortunately, she was appointed to SCOTUS.