I sure hope there is some mention of a court order before shutting down anything, whether public or private. Even if it is in such a way where they do it first, then get the court order within like 72 hours.
It falls on a Sunday next year. Oh wait, schools don't tend to have school on Sundays. Hmmm. There's always Sunday school, but what does God have to do with math?
Then the question is, what is the argument regarding net neutrality?
Is it really about congestion, or is it under the guise of pandering to "certain organizations" (which I won't mention)?
Network congestion is an issue, but I guess it depends on whether or not, one is someone who is affected.
Now, one more question. Are these ISPs, who are against net neutrality, ones who have accepted some sort of money in order to upgrade their network? I don't know the technical terms, but like making it so there is more bandwidth available. Or in other words, are they being greedy? Get rid (or throttle) of the few "bandwidth" hogs so they don't have to upgrade their network to handle the increase in congestion.
Regardless of whether an ISP is dealing with non-ISP related things, net neutrality probably is a good thing. Because people may find ways around throttling, and who is the ISP to decide what is more important than other things?
I think the solution is rather simple, and this isn't entirely my idea.
One idea I've heard is the more you download, the slower your connection should be made to be. So if you're getting 20mpbs, after you download let's say 100GB, maybe you are down to 10mpbs.
Then, perhaps we should do no lowered caps during very-off-peak hours. For example, I'd assume after 1am to some hour in the morning. This way, if someone could schedule their large downloads, like updating their OS or whatever, it would free up the "pipes" during the daytime.
What they need to do is to allow vendors, who deal with more than a certain number of taxing jurisdictions, to deduct the cost of filing the tax from the tax collected.
Here's an arbitrary example. A business collects $50k in sales tax. $30k is in-state related, so we ignore that other $20k. Maybe the law could be done to allow up to 10% of the tax collected to be used for the excessive accounting needed. So, the business would be able to keep UP TO $3k of that $30k collected to pay for the additional accounting costs.
if your power goes out, that your Internet connection goes with it?
Wait, no, even if the power goes out, you'd still lose your Internet connection.
Well, not precisely. Think about it. What if all your equipment is hooked up to a UPS? Then, as long as your cable, telephone, or whatnot, stays up, you'd stay up.
I assume the problem with tolls is this. How do you determine when the road is paid off? What about the upkeep, the repair, of it? Is each new repair a new construction?
Wouldn't it also violate the concept of one person, one vote? Here's what I mean.
Let's say Iowa does that, and follows the national popular vote. Okay, but doesn't that mean any person, not in Iowa, voting in the election, influences Iowa's vote? In a sense, someone in New York would not just be voting for their state's electoral votes, they'd be voting for Iowa's electoral votes too.
Can anyone imagine if we simply let the second place "winner" just take the vice-president slot?
Each product needs to be seen separately. An update for the operating system shouldn't mean being forced to update other products the company has made. If anything, the company can make separate updates for each product. Their in a sense bundling updates, and I just see that as wrong, and I'd think others would too.
Maybe this is why schools don't want students citing Wikipedia as a source. RESEARCH cannot be emphasized enough.
Wikipedia may be good for providing an overview, but factual information it doesn't necessarily make. If anyone can edit, it's not like a newspaper, or other reputable source.
I disagree. Just because said products came from their company, doesn't mean they have a right to modify it when modifying another one of their products.
Imagine buying a car. The car comes with a radio, from the car company. Let's say it's a nice satellite radio. One day, you go back to get a free tune-up they offer as part of your purchase. Oil change, tire rotations, etc.
But, they notice you still have a satellite radio in your car. (You haven't swapped it out or anything.) They decide to "upgrade it", in accordance with the tune up. Maybe the upgrade is to automatically turn off the radio when the car isn't in motion, or perhaps autodampening the audio when it gets too loud, etc.
What I am saying is this. Stick to what needs to be done. For the car analogy, just the basic tune-up. For Windows, just patching the OS. Offer the popup blocker as a seperate download. Offer the firewall as a seperate download. Don't bundle.
It's not whether or not they were behind the times. It is about choice. Users should be able to choose between adding the popup blocker or not. They did NOT need to bundle it with an operating system update. Especially if Internet Explorer is suppose to be seperate from Windows.
Is there any difference between Microsoft doing that to Firefox, and Microsoft doing that popup blocker with Internet Explorer when someone does the SP2 update? Or how they force a firewall on you?
You see, Microsoft is akin to a proctologist. Sticking things where they don't belong.
I agree. For the hardware? No. For the software? Yes. Analogy time.
Imagine buying a bed before moving to your new apartment. Unfortunately, the bed is bigger than advertised and doesn't fit into your bedroom. (It's a small apartment.) So, do you return the bed (software), or get a bigger apartment (hardware)?
In my opinion, Microsoft should offer a full refund for those wishing to return Vista, and partial compensation for those who had to upgrade hardware. But, what kind of compensation for a hardware upgrade?
The cost alone of buying new hardware? Is that what they are talking about? How about taking the new hardware value, and subtract the old hardware value, and compensate people that way. After all, that old hardware still has value. It's not complete junk, you know.
You know, another option, and one more I think people would be happy with, is to offer them a free copy of Windows XP. After all, I think it only costs Microsoft something like $30 (don't ask me how I got that figure) for each license of XP. Furthermore, XP would work on the hardware they bought.
Is this in effect endorsing the ESRB rating system? Another question, are games having ESRB mandatory or voluntary? Will the government want to control how ESRB rates games? Could the government fine the ESRB for misrating a game?
It sounds like she wanted to make sure students learned the material by requiring notes as part of the grade. It sounds like she destroyed the notebooks (which is an assignment technically) to ensure no one would easily cheat.
It would still be possible to photocopy the notes, but still, that would require extra work on the part of the student.
Analog at standard resolution. That's fairly nice, isn't it? I mean, there isn't much need for a higher resolution unless one has a big screen in which the pixels would be noticable.
That crossed my mind as of late. What good is an operating system without an internet browser of sorts? How do you go out and download a browser? Do you buy a CD of the browser you want?
They should offer Windows with and without IE, so people have a choice. People could always install a browser from a CD. If it is pre-installed, make it so it can be fully uninstalled from the operating system, so the OS is clean before installing a new browser.
It's like lemonade mix. One packet per liter. But, one liter won't go far enough. So, you dilute it with water. You keep diluting it more and more, until you get something that is akin to water.
Meanwhile, all those foreign countries which lent us money won't trust us anymore. After all, would you lend money to someone whose currency is virtually worthless? Well, paper money will have a worth. We will always need toilet paper, provided we don't find a "cure" for why we defecate.
In all seriousness though, the government spending itself into more debt is like trying to dig oneself out of a hole. It just seems like a bad idea. How are we expected to pay it off? My guess is to find a new market in which the world will want to buy from us.
Bad products will fall to the wayside, eventually. All in all though, does anyone ever buy a product only having a handful of reviews? Does the type of scheme mentioned in the article work on products having literally hundreds of reviews? Read all reviews, the good and the bad.
Slashdot Mirror
What if someone has no proof of the "when"?
I sure hope there is some mention of a court order before shutting down anything, whether public or private. Even if it is in such a way where they do it first, then get the court order within like 72 hours.
Aren't linux machines still Personal Computers?
It falls on a Sunday next year. Oh wait, schools don't tend to have school on Sundays. Hmmm. There's always Sunday school, but what does God have to do with math?
Then the question is, what is the argument regarding net neutrality?
Is it really about congestion, or is it under the guise of pandering to "certain organizations" (which I won't mention)?
Network congestion is an issue, but I guess it depends on whether or not, one is someone who is affected.
Now, one more question. Are these ISPs, who are against net neutrality, ones who have accepted some sort of money in order to upgrade their network? I don't know the technical terms, but like making it so there is more bandwidth available. Or in other words, are they being greedy? Get rid (or throttle) of the few "bandwidth" hogs so they don't have to upgrade their network to handle the increase in congestion.
Regardless of whether an ISP is dealing with non-ISP related things, net neutrality probably is a good thing. Because people may find ways around throttling, and who is the ISP to decide what is more important than other things?
I think the solution is rather simple, and this isn't entirely my idea.
One idea I've heard is the more you download, the slower your connection should be made to be. So if you're getting 20mpbs, after you download let's say 100GB, maybe you are down to 10mpbs.
Then, perhaps we should do no lowered caps during very-off-peak hours. For example, I'd assume after 1am to some hour in the morning. This way, if someone could schedule their large downloads, like updating their OS or whatever, it would free up the "pipes" during the daytime.
What they need to do is to allow vendors, who deal with more than a certain number of taxing jurisdictions, to deduct the cost of filing the tax from the tax collected.
Here's an arbitrary example.
A business collects $50k in sales tax. $30k is in-state related, so we ignore that other $20k. Maybe the law could be done to allow up to 10% of the tax collected to be used for the excessive accounting needed. So, the business would be able to keep UP TO $3k of that $30k collected to pay for the additional accounting costs.
if your power goes out, that your Internet connection goes with it?
Wait, no, even if the power goes out, you'd still lose your Internet connection.
Well, not precisely. Think about it. What if all your equipment is hooked up to a UPS? Then, as long as your cable, telephone, or whatnot, stays up, you'd stay up.
Good point. Good point.
I guess it's time to stop arguing with myself.
I assume the problem with tolls is this. How do you determine when the road is paid off? What about the upkeep, the repair, of it? Is each new repair a new construction?
Wouldn't it also violate the concept of one person, one vote? Here's what I mean.
Let's say Iowa does that, and follows the national popular vote. Okay, but doesn't that mean any person, not in Iowa, voting in the election, influences Iowa's vote? In a sense, someone in New York would not just be voting for their state's electoral votes, they'd be voting for Iowa's electoral votes too.
Can anyone imagine if we simply let the second place "winner" just take the vice-president slot?
Each product needs to be seen separately. An update for the operating system shouldn't mean being forced to update other products the company has made. If anything, the company can make separate updates for each product. Their in a sense bundling updates, and I just see that as wrong, and I'd think others would too.
Maybe this is why schools don't want students citing Wikipedia as a source. RESEARCH cannot be emphasized enough.
Wikipedia may be good for providing an overview, but factual information it doesn't necessarily make. If anyone can edit, it's not like a newspaper, or other reputable source.
I disagree. Just because said products came from their company, doesn't mean they have a right to modify it when modifying another one of their products.
Imagine buying a car. The car comes with a radio, from the car company. Let's say it's a nice satellite radio. One day, you go back to get a free tune-up they offer as part of your purchase. Oil change, tire rotations, etc.
But, they notice you still have a satellite radio in your car. (You haven't swapped it out or anything.) They decide to "upgrade it", in accordance with the tune up. Maybe the upgrade is to automatically turn off the radio when the car isn't in motion, or perhaps autodampening the audio when it gets too loud, etc.
What I am saying is this. Stick to what needs to be done. For the car analogy, just the basic tune-up. For Windows, just patching the OS. Offer the popup blocker as a seperate download. Offer the firewall as a seperate download. Don't bundle.
It's not whether or not they were behind the times. It is about choice. Users should be able to choose between adding the popup blocker or not. They did NOT need to bundle it with an operating system update. Especially if Internet Explorer is suppose to be seperate from Windows.
Is there any difference between Microsoft doing that to Firefox, and Microsoft doing that popup blocker with Internet Explorer when someone does the SP2 update? Or how they force a firewall on you?
You see, Microsoft is akin to a proctologist. Sticking things where they don't belong.
I agree. For the hardware? No. For the software? Yes. Analogy time.
Imagine buying a bed before moving to your new apartment. Unfortunately, the bed is bigger than advertised and doesn't fit into your bedroom. (It's a small apartment.) So, do you return the bed (software), or get a bigger apartment (hardware)?
In my opinion, Microsoft should offer a full refund for those wishing to return Vista, and partial compensation for those who had to upgrade hardware. But, what kind of compensation for a hardware upgrade?
The cost alone of buying new hardware? Is that what they are talking about? How about taking the new hardware value, and subtract the old hardware value, and compensate people that way. After all, that old hardware still has value. It's not complete junk, you know.
You know, another option, and one more I think people would be happy with, is to offer them a free copy of Windows XP. After all, I think it only costs Microsoft something like $30 (don't ask me how I got that figure) for each license of XP. Furthermore, XP would work on the hardware they bought.
Is this in effect endorsing the ESRB rating system? Another question, are games having ESRB mandatory or voluntary? Will the government want to control how ESRB rates games? Could the government fine the ESRB for misrating a game?
It sounds like she wanted to make sure students learned the material by requiring notes as part of the grade. It sounds like she destroyed the notebooks (which is an assignment technically) to ensure no one would easily cheat.
It would still be possible to photocopy the notes, but still, that would require extra work on the part of the student.
Analog at standard resolution. That's fairly nice, isn't it? I mean, there isn't much need for a higher resolution unless one has a big screen in which the pixels would be noticable.
Are we talking about Google wanting to rescue Yahoo? Or are we talking about big banks buying failing banks?
That crossed my mind as of late. What good is an operating system without an internet browser of sorts? How do you go out and download a browser? Do you buy a CD of the browser you want?
They should offer Windows with and without IE, so people have a choice. People could always install a browser from a CD. If it is pre-installed, make it so it can be fully uninstalled from the operating system, so the OS is clean before installing a new browser.
That's hilarious. I hope you get modded up.
It's like lemonade mix. One packet per liter. But, one liter won't go far enough. So, you dilute it with water. You keep diluting it more and more, until you get something that is akin to water.
Meanwhile, all those foreign countries which lent us money won't trust us anymore. After all, would you lend money to someone whose currency is virtually worthless? Well, paper money will have a worth. We will always need toilet paper, provided we don't find a "cure" for why we defecate.
In all seriousness though, the government spending itself into more debt is like trying to dig oneself out of a hole. It just seems like a bad idea. How are we expected to pay it off? My guess is to find a new market in which the world will want to buy from us.
So they're going to offer us our own tax dollars we've paid them, to get rid of the cars we have?
Bad products will fall to the wayside, eventually. All in all though, does anyone ever buy a product only having a handful of reviews? Does the type of scheme mentioned in the article work on products having literally hundreds of reviews? Read all reviews, the good and the bad.