With a person like Al Gore, a senior advisor to Google, and on the board of directors at Apple, two companies who are the bread and butter of the Slashdot community it seems, you think he would get a warmer welcome here. Hell, I wouldnt be surprised if he had a/. account.
I copied the posters entire post over again, if there is context, I think that is it. Just because you add brackets and extra words does not mean that I took anything out of context. Plus, I readily offer up what the original poster probably meant, a figurate 'war' vs 'battle' and then offered up my interpretation that a corporation with investors cares about all losses, with a focus on the right now rather than long term (in this case changing how they do business in the long run)
I completely agree with everything you have said. I was simply trying to express that --in response to the original post that huge losses will be "a good thing" in relation to corporte direction-- Intel being a corporation, investors will always look at "huge losses" as actual losses instead of the posters original assertion -- "lost nothing".
Intel has not lost anything. They might be getting their asses handed to them by AMD -- but remember that it often takes huge losses before a company changes its approach to doing business.
So you are saying that Intel hasnt lost anything because theyve experienced huge losses?
I think you mean that they can learn from mistakes and change direction, true, but while 'beyond the grey sky there is sunlight' type sayings are great for hippies and psychologists, they don't translate well to investors.
Hardware: Wireless Everything at Dartmouth
Wireless Networking
Posted by timothy on Wednesday May 04, @01:00PM
from the breaking-ties dept.
hende_jman writes "Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire is condensing its phone, cable TV, and Internet services all into Wi-Fi, as reported by the New York Times (free registration required). The project, which started in 2001, has added 1400 WAPs and 24,000 wired ports. All that, and cost effective too."
Guess it depends what your definition of "wireless" and "everything" is.
I feel like news outlets almost have a civic responsibility to have (at least some level of) news for free for the masses just for the sake of keeping various entities "in check" --mainly government and business.
However, at some point news at a week old isnt "news" anymore. Think about the majority of the types of people that need archived news articles -- researchers, other news writers, authors, statisticians etc. In my opinion these type of people who work for other companies or work for other interests and whose existence piggybacks at least a little bit on news articles that are archived should pay their fair share. I don't see too many private citizen's need to access archieved news.
Also, one should view this as a exponential growing cost of bandwidth and storage space for archived articles (especially for the NYTimes with a hundred years of history and the sheer amount of content that they have) not necessarily as a main revenue stream for breaking news.
But thats just my $0.02
Bookstores aren't competing with libraries. Libraries use tax money to purchse books that are in turn lent out, not given away.
However if Libraries started giving away books, I'd be willing to bet the bookstores would have a real problem with that.
So no, I don't think your analogy is accurate.
Bookstores exist because there is desire and reason to own a book as opposed to simply borrowing it. Broadband companies are no different, they will have to decide and take strategic initiative in making it worthwhile for people to purchase their service, or to paraphrase: they will now have to compete more.
Suppose that human nature turned on a dime tomorrow and everyone decided to use libraries more than buying books perosnally, are you telling me that bookstores are principalled enough that they wouldnt take action? (Or at the very least, raise prices to balance their losses)
No, that's not a good analogy, because bookstores are not a monopoly public utility. All the major types of broadband -- cable, dsl and wireless -- require exclusive use of limited resources, specifically the physical cable plant or specific radio frequencies. There is effectively no limit to the number of bookstores one can build in a town, while there is a relatively small limit to the number of cable plants and radio spectrum.
I don't even know where you are trying to go with that. Bookstores are not a monopoly...true. But would municipal broadbands be monopolies? Probably not as well. And let me ask you this: If libraries were illegal, do you think that book prices at book retailers would not be higher? They probably would be higher.
Also, the unlimited nature of "building bookstores" (although I still contend that not to be true as well) means that book retailing would come down to competing in the realm of economics (if a small town had 100 bookstores for example) so while you contend that broadband retailers have limited room for infratructure, theyre competing in how their business is ran is no different, its all economics.
No, you theoretically have to return the book to the library.
You are confusing a few concepts: quality, service and product. A library itself is a service, just like municipal broadband is. You are enumerating one of the reasons why municipal broadband isn't a bad idea in relation to an analogy of a library: private business will have to learn how to compete in the area of quality of product. A situation like this only helps the consumer. (IMO, a good thing).
Further, the selection in a library may not be up to par (especially in rural areas). If you want a particular good quality book guaranteed to have the last chapter still intact, you would probably choose to buy the book.
How this relates to municipal broadband? The systems being proposed would be as good, if not better than existing DSL systems in rural areas and a boat-load better than the dial-up most of the current bell customers are stuck with (unlike the sometimes inferior library product).
First off, in an argument of defending/supporting a postition, you can 'may not' anything to death. Second, your premise on why a library analogy is not applicable is because there is an inherent bias in rural vs urban and the ability to get quality information. And since this bias wouldnt be able or at least as strong in municipal broadband, therefore it cant be a good or on the same level as a publicly funded library? Excuse me?
Third, TFA specifically addresses the battle of Lafayette Lousiana which has a population of 110,000+. I do not consider a 'town' of 100,000+ as "rural". So, I could not imagine a truly rural area having the same quality of broadband as a WiFied, population dense Philadelphia (compared to the sprawing state of Montana...population 900,000).
Concluding, just because there is a bias rural v urban in quality of information (as far as libraries) doesnt mean that municipal broadband shouldnt happen (insofar as it relates to an argument against it) actually, that bias should support municipal broadband. Even though that, there will probably over all be a bias in rural vs urban municipal broadband anyways.
You then go on to explain what the private businesses want out of the municipal broadband projects, which is completely out of the scope of my original premise.
Wouldnt the philosophical analogous argument be that libraries are publicly funded, and provide free information and entertainment to anyone and everyone?
Bookstores still thrive, book publishers still thrive even though probably almost everyone in the United States could get through life never having to buy a book personally.
To paraphrase: What if someone plotted to committ a crime while simultaneously planning for someone else to take the fall for it?
Has that not been going on since the begining of crime? Does that mean that the law isn't useful or doesnt have merit.
Should we strike down first degree murder because someone can sneak into your house, take a knife from your kitchen with your fingeprints all over it, and go on a killing spree?
Considering how most states already force sex offenders to register as well as tell all their neighbors, as well as have their names published on the internet (ex http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us/) I would say that there is a high likelyhood of this GPS law not being struck down.
I guess a way to look at your statement "Punishment after a sentence is done...that doesn't sound like it goes along with the constitution." is that registering as a sex offender (and now this GPS stuff) is part of "the sentence".
Am I the only one that takes a benevolent approach to situations like this? Forcing curriculum that is non-scientific to be taught in a scientific section is one thing, and I think can be argued/ruled without getting into the very hairy aspects of it all. However, am I the only ones that sits back and looks at the religion vs. science or evolution vs. faith and thinks that both sides, at times are equally foaming-at-the-mouth fervent and sometimes just plain weird? Faith and science will always be a square peg in a round hole situation. By definition! If faith were somehow provable/disprovable by science or vice versa then we wouldnt have the distinction between the two.
It is inherent in the design of faith to always always always have an "explanation" for scientific proofs. Talk about fossils and scientific "proof" that the world is older than religion says it is? Thats just God testing the believers from the non-believers is what they will come back to you with.
I almost think, to take care of school boards with a hard on for controversy is to mandate a class called "Controversial Topics" where all odds and ends are thrown into a mixed bag and hashed out, evolution, intelligent design, abortion, homosexuality...and to prepare you for the real world, students are graded according to just how loud they can yell and afirm that their certain position is absolutely correct.
"The business is going to attempt to sustain growth and creativity by making game players buy newer and newer machines. Computer gaming has always been sustained by never-ending improvements in resolution and realism. But once we get to photorealism, what is going to sustain growth?"
Uh...the same way that all other areas of of media - music, books, literature in general and movies sustain.... by focusing on even little creativeness/inovations within the bounds of the medium and focusing on quality elements that make up the medium?
Say, its a foggy day on a highway and a major pile up occurs resulting in traffic accidents.
If I am near the begining or even the person that caused it does my insurance go up exponentially and am I more responsible the more cars wreck behind me?
Or am I only responsible for the person I hit infront of me?
My point was, and perhaps it is my fault for not making it clear, is that you can get 3 years in prision, for sharing one file once. I notice many people making the point of "downstream" revenue loss which has many valid points however it must be noted that all it takes is one person breaking copyright once on one file to fall under the sentencing guidlines in this federal law. We are rational human beings responsible for our own actions, if someone shares one file once that *eventually* leads to millions of dollars in loss, it is all and all irrelevant.
I suppose its a conceptual argument really. Some view it as one person, sharing one file that leads to eventually say 10,000 people. Represented as 1 + 10,0000 with the person at the begining 'more guilty' than the rest. I on the other hand look at it as more of a 1 + 1 + 1 + 1.... situation, with each person just as guilty as the previous and following.
Isnt just downright amazing how out of sync sentencing is for certain crimes?
Take for example Massachusetts Sentencing Guidlines. And compare it to this new federal law that was signed. Larceny on a scale of $10,000-$50,000 can get an offender 36 months (in some cases, less!) than someone breaking copyright on a *single file*. This means that Person A can walk into a physical record store and almost wipe the store clean via theft, and get sentenced the same as Person B who shares one copyrighted song online.
Hmm, actually, I think the point the grandparent post was making was that (consumer or not doesnt matter) that Tiger is just being released today, and even if the reporter even did have a pre-release, what tests did he do? What evidence does he have that it is the most secure? In general, time (in addition to testing) is the best measure of what is secure/stable/best, and in this case Tiger just hasnt had that opportunity to live up to scrutiny, which I believe was the posters point.
Slashdot Mirror
With a person like Al Gore, a senior advisor to Google, and on the board of directors at Apple, two companies who are the bread and butter of the Slashdot community it seems, you think he would get a warmer welcome here. Hell, I wouldnt be surprised if he had a /. account.
Thank you thank you thank you
Way to take a few words out of context!
I copied the posters entire post over again, if there is context, I think that is it. Just because you add brackets and extra words does not mean that I took anything out of context. Plus, I readily offer up what the original poster probably meant, a figurate 'war' vs 'battle' and then offered up my interpretation that a corporation with investors cares about all losses, with a focus on the right now rather than long term (in this case changing how they do business in the long run)
I completely agree with everything you have said. I was simply trying to express that --in response to the original post that huge losses will be "a good thing" in relation to corporte direction-- Intel being a corporation, investors will always look at "huge losses" as actual losses instead of the posters original assertion -- "lost nothing".
Intel has not lost anything. They might be getting their asses handed to them by AMD -- but remember that it often takes huge losses before a company changes its approach to doing business.
So you are saying that Intel hasnt lost anything because theyve experienced huge losses?
I think you mean that they can learn from mistakes and change direction, true, but while 'beyond the grey sky there is sunlight' type sayings are great for hippies and psychologists, they don't translate well to investors.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm
hey, thanks man.
TFA:
Hardware: Wireless Everything at Dartmouth Wireless Networking
Posted by timothy on Wednesday May 04, @01:00PM
from the breaking-ties dept.
hende_jman writes "Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire is condensing its phone, cable TV, and Internet services all into Wi-Fi, as reported by the New York Times (free registration required). The project, which started in 2001, has added 1400 WAPs and 24,000 wired ports. All that, and cost effective too."
Guess it depends what your definition of "wireless" and "everything" is.
I see this as completely reasonable.
I feel like news outlets almost have a civic responsibility to have (at least some level of) news for free for the masses just for the sake of keeping various entities "in check" --mainly government and business.
However, at some point news at a week old isnt "news" anymore. Think about the majority of the types of people that need archived news articles -- researchers, other news writers, authors, statisticians etc. In my opinion these type of people who work for other companies or work for other interests and whose existence piggybacks at least a little bit on news articles that are archived should pay their fair share. I don't see too many private citizen's need to access archieved news.
Also, one should view this as a exponential growing cost of bandwidth and storage space for archived articles (especially for the NYTimes with a hundred years of history and the sheer amount of content that they have) not necessarily as a main revenue stream for breaking news.
But thats just my $0.02
At least this is a better story and more technical (aka nerdy) than oh say....what Google's homepage looked like in 1997.
Bookstores aren't competing with libraries. Libraries use tax money to purchse books that are in turn lent out, not given away.
However if Libraries started giving away books, I'd be willing to bet the bookstores would have a real problem with that.
So no, I don't think your analogy is accurate.
Bookstores exist because there is desire and reason to own a book as opposed to simply borrowing it. Broadband companies are no different, they will have to decide and take strategic initiative in making it worthwhile for people to purchase their service, or to paraphrase: they will now have to compete more.
Suppose that human nature turned on a dime tomorrow and everyone decided to use libraries more than buying books perosnally, are you telling me that bookstores are principalled enough that they wouldnt take action? (Or at the very least, raise prices to balance their losses)
No, that's not a good analogy, because bookstores are not a monopoly public utility. All the major types of broadband -- cable, dsl and wireless -- require exclusive use of limited resources, specifically the physical cable plant or specific radio frequencies. There is effectively no limit to the number of bookstores one can build in a town, while there is a relatively small limit to the number of cable plants and radio spectrum.
I don't even know where you are trying to go with that. Bookstores are not a monopoly...true. But would municipal broadbands be monopolies? Probably not as well. And let me ask you this: If libraries were illegal, do you think that book prices at book retailers would not be higher? They probably would be higher.
Also, the unlimited nature of "building bookstores" (although I still contend that not to be true as well) means that book retailing would come down to competing in the realm of economics (if a small town had 100 bookstores for example) so while you contend that broadband retailers have limited room for infratructure, theyre competing in how their business is ran is no different, its all economics.
No, you theoretically have to return the book to the library.
You are confusing a few concepts: quality, service and product. A library itself is a service, just like municipal broadband is.
You are enumerating one of the reasons why municipal broadband isn't a bad idea in relation to an analogy of a library: private business will have to learn how to compete in the area of quality of product. A situation like this only helps the consumer. (IMO, a good thing).
Further, the selection in a library may not be up to par (especially in rural areas). If you want a particular good quality book guaranteed to have the last chapter still intact, you would probably choose to buy the book. How this relates to municipal broadband? The systems being proposed would be as good, if not better than existing DSL systems in rural areas and a boat-load better than the dial-up most of the current bell customers are stuck with (unlike the sometimes inferior library product).
First off, in an argument of defending/supporting a postition, you can 'may not' anything to death.
Second, your premise on why a library analogy is not applicable is because there is an inherent bias in rural vs urban and the ability to get quality information. And since this bias wouldnt be able or at least as strong in municipal broadband, therefore it cant be a good or on the same level as a publicly funded library? Excuse me?
Third, TFA specifically addresses the battle of Lafayette Lousiana which has a population of 110,000+. I do not consider a 'town' of 100,000+ as "rural". So, I could not imagine a truly rural area having the same quality of broadband as a WiFied, population dense Philadelphia (compared to the sprawing state of Montana...population 900,000).
Concluding, just because there is a bias rural v urban in quality of information (as far as libraries) doesnt mean that municipal broadband shouldnt happen (insofar as it relates to an argument against it) actually, that bias should support municipal broadband. Even though that, there will probably over all be a bias in rural vs urban municipal broadband anyways.
You then go on to explain what the private businesses want out of the municipal broadband projects, which is completely out of the scope of my original premise.
Wouldnt the philosophical analogous argument be that libraries are publicly funded, and provide free information and entertainment to anyone and everyone?
Bookstores still thrive, book publishers still thrive even though probably almost everyone in the United States could get through life never having to buy a book personally.
To paraphrase: What if someone plotted to committ a crime while simultaneously planning for someone else to take the fall for it?
Has that not been going on since the begining of crime? Does that mean that the law isn't useful or doesnt have merit.
Should we strike down first degree murder because someone can sneak into your house, take a knife from your kitchen with your fingeprints all over it, and go on a killing spree?
Considering how most states already force sex offenders to register as well as tell all their neighbors, as well as have their names published on the internet (ex http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us/) I would say that there is a high likelyhood of this GPS law not being struck down.
I guess a way to look at your statement "Punishment after a sentence is done...that doesn't sound like it goes along with the constitution." is that registering as a sex offender (and now this GPS stuff) is part of "the sentence".
Am I the only one that takes a benevolent approach to situations like this? Forcing curriculum that is non-scientific to be taught in a scientific section is one thing, and I think can be argued/ruled without getting into the very hairy aspects of it all.
However, am I the only ones that sits back and looks at the religion vs. science or evolution vs. faith and thinks that both sides, at times are equally foaming-at-the-mouth fervent and sometimes just plain weird?
Faith and science will always be a square peg in a round hole situation. By definition! If faith were somehow provable/disprovable by science or vice versa then we wouldnt have the distinction between the two.
It is inherent in the design of faith to always always always have an "explanation" for scientific proofs. Talk about fossils and scientific "proof" that the world is older than religion says it is? Thats just God testing the believers from the non-believers is what they will come back to you with.
I almost think, to take care of school boards with a hard on for controversy is to mandate a class called "Controversial Topics" where all odds and ends are thrown into a mixed bag and hashed out, evolution, intelligent design, abortion, homosexuality...and to prepare you for the real world, students are graded according to just how loud they can yell and afirm that their certain position is absolutely correct.
While they haven't given up yet...
I envision a NASA tech and a NASA manager lurking infront of a big control panel
Tech: Sir it appears to be...uh...stuck in some sand
Manager: Sand? Well, try all our options to get it unstuck!
Tech: I uh....can...tell it to move forward...again...
Manager: Great idea!
*Tech presses obvious large red button*
Tech: Uh...still won't move...
Manager: Well dammit, what else can we do?
Tech: We could....push the button again...
"The business is going to attempt to sustain growth and creativity by making game players buy newer and newer machines. Computer gaming has always been sustained by never-ending improvements in resolution and realism. But once we get to photorealism, what is going to sustain growth?"
Uh...the same way that all other areas of of media - music, books, literature in general and movies sustain.... by focusing on even little creativeness/inovations within the bounds of the medium and focusing on quality elements that make up the medium?
...that when they saw the headline thought...Apple...Steve Jobs...Acid2...
"Hey looks like theyre back to their 70s roots!"
Say, its a foggy day on a highway and a major pile up occurs resulting in traffic accidents.
If I am near the begining or even the person that caused it does my insurance go up exponentially and am I more responsible the more cars wreck behind me?
Or am I only responsible for the person I hit infront of me?
My point was, and perhaps it is my fault for not making it clear, is that you can get 3 years in prision, for sharing one file once.
.... situation, with each person just as guilty as the previous and following.
I notice many people making the point of "downstream" revenue loss which has many valid points however it must be noted that all it takes is one person breaking copyright once on one file to fall under the sentencing guidlines in this federal law.
We are rational human beings responsible for our own actions, if someone shares one file once that *eventually* leads to millions of dollars in loss, it is all and all irrelevant.
I suppose its a conceptual argument really. Some view it as one person, sharing one file that leads to eventually say 10,000 people. Represented as 1 + 10,0000 with the person at the begining 'more guilty' than the rest. I on the other hand look at it as more of a 1 + 1 + 1 + 1
I think the guy would have a better case if the domain names werent so similar.
:-p
Is it reasonable to suspect someone mistaken the parody site for the reason one, a difference in a hyphen? I can't answer that, I dunno.
But given the average/stereo-typical intellectuality of a Wal-Mart customer....
Isnt just downright amazing how out of sync sentencing is for certain crimes?
Take for example Massachusetts Sentencing Guidlines. And compare it to this new federal law that was signed.
Larceny on a scale of $10,000-$50,000 can get an offender 36 months (in some cases, less!) than someone breaking copyright on a *single file*. This means that Person A can walk into a physical record store and almost wipe the store clean via theft, and get sentenced the same as Person B who shares one copyrighted song online.
That is just amazing to me.
Hmm, actually, I think the point the grandparent post was making was that (consumer or not doesnt matter) that Tiger is just being released today, and even if the reporter even did have a pre-release, what tests did he do? What evidence does he have that it is the most secure? In general, time (in addition to testing) is the best measure of what is secure/stable/best, and in this case Tiger just hasnt had that opportunity to live up to scrutiny, which I believe was the posters point.