that no version of this story seems to try to point the source of these plans to the US? They probably should be. I can think of no better reason to understand why they found out about it than knowing the source of the material. Color me cynical.
Interestingly (or not) you demonstrate a logical understanding of the technology marketplace. To paraphrase you, if I may, Intel and AMD are fighting about who gets to piss on the idea of competition creates value for the consumer. Any space where AMD and Intel are competing is full of this, and not inconsequentially, lawsuits. Intel has been partnered with MS for a long time, and they worked hard to be the hardware version of what MS was to software.
We can detail the lawsuits ad nausea, but my point is that anyone that was a healthy partner with MS has done to their industry what MS did to software. Like that or not, it is true. In the end, we have Mr Gates to thank for this, no matter how philanthropic he may try to be these days. I wonder sometimes how far exactly he has set the human race back from what will eventually, and necessarily be.
Though that is sort of scifi philosophy, it is true. In the name of riches, the advancement of technology has been slowed, deliberately, and with malicious intent against the betterment of mankind. In this way, I find his generosity a bit pale these days.
Open standards are indeed the ONLY way to create technology and advancement that will last and actually advance mankind in a direction that betters all of us. Despite the socialist sounding tone of that, it is true. We are all better for the sharing of technology from the space race. Technology, and specifically computing/networks are still in the hands of those that would derail it's benefits if there is profit in it. There are those that are trying to change this situation, but it is slow going. Even hardware manufacturers are hobbled by things like the DMCA and it's ilk around the world. Sometimes I'm sad to say I'm American.
Fighting against the 'right thing to do' for the sake of money is not in the best interests of the community, and in the end, it hurts your business. Customer is king, so they say, and when you put hurdles in the way of a complete and exemplary experience by the end user, you harm your business in some way, if not in big ways. It's unfortunate that not enough people will understand that the competitions in the technology markets have hurt them, and they will not understand how to express their frustration that older USB devices won't work with new USB hosts. It will be just one more black magic thing they don't understand about technology type things. They will go to PCs R Us and buy whatever the best they can get happens to be, hoping that it works for a couple of years, not unlike car buyers. So for profits, businesses promote the throw-away society. When there is something new, throw the old away, don't upgrade, don't re-use. How is this helpful to the human race?
Well, just some late night thoughts about this whole thing, and the absolutely ignorant waste it makes of the world.
BTW, there is hardware space competition.... if you are willing to build your own and not buy what the idiot^H^H^H^H^H salesman tells you at worstbuy.
I agree... the battle just heating up, how can you be biased? Not until there are two definitive sides can you get behind one or the other.
This does point out one thing, there is a lot to be said for open standards... even if some of them have been OOXML'd lately. (that's not even valid in Roman Numerals)
No matter which version is better technically, if there is one that is not backwards compatible they will have an uphill slog trying to sell it. Yeah, I know, CDs were not backwards compatible with floppy drives, but this is a bit different. If the connector is the same, it MUST be compatible or my aunt nelly will kill someone.
whether this is in England or North America. Cable companies and large ISPs in general have the same problem in most places.
They did not invest in infrastructure of the future at any point in the past. That is to say that they have never done what was needed to build a network that would support heavy usage.
An example of this is the cable company that I have to use (there are no options. Satellite is not a viable option for broadband IMO). I have three cable boxes on digital cable. If I rent a movie in the living room I can't move to the bedroom to watch it without having to pay twice. This means there is NO infrastructure built to know I have two boxes and which they are so that I can rent a movie once and watch anywhere in the house. This is not just ignorant of the capabilities of technology, it is blatantly ignoring them at the cost of value to the consumer.
There are a few people that would defend this situation with various excuses, but they won't work IMO because of the complaints that ISPs make regarding network usage, and the balance of guilt when you see what they were given as incentives to build a viable, usable network already.
Their business plan has been designed to steal as much money from the user's pockets and the government as possible. They have done nothing less.
This business of throttling traffic because of bandwidth usage is criminal in nature. If you rented a car to drive to your aunt's house but found that you weren't able to drive the expected speeds on all roads because of crippling by the rental company, would you sue? would you rent from them again? would you complain to the appropriate regulatory agency?
Go ahead, tell me about the fine print in the contract. meh. I pay for xyz MBits/second and I have more than reasonable expectation that this is what I'll be able to get regardless of protocol, end destination, or content.
The fact that I can't and that ISPs are throttling the service that I paid for is criminal. Their business model is broken. period. They have oversold their network to steal money from you and I, and now they got caught. It is convenient for them to blame the BPI and **AA, and there may indeed be collusion, but the fact remains that they did NOT use the money they were given to produce a usable network and are now trying, AGAIN, to get the users or government to pay them extra to build one.
Why, yes, I do have a solution. I'm glad you asked. The last mile should never belong to a private enterprise. It should belong to co-operatives or the local council or some group that is directly responsible to the local public. By responsible, I mean by order of a vote, they can be replaced and the performance of the cooperative is judged on whether they keep their jobs in a way similar to how AT&T boardmembers are responsible to the share holders.
Yes, all that AT&T, Virgin, Verizon, Comcast et all can do is provide network services. They can only hook up their big pipes to the local WAN and provide backbone network services. You can subscribe to their email etc. or you can subscribe to someone else's email and home page portal. You would be able to access Google via any of them network service packages. Like emergency services, email services would be possible without having long distance.
Once network services are separated from last mile and provisioning services, their worth will be seen in the correct light, and all this throttling will become a thing of the past, a memory of bad times when criminals ran the board meetings and made marketing decisions for cable companies.
When consumers have the right to choose and can do so with a phone call, then the market place will work as it should.
In short, Fuck Virgin! and all their warlord comrades around the world.
I think the intent of the OLPC is good, and there are tangential benefits to such a program, however I think this justifies all the people that in the beginning asked one simple question: Why?
If you have a better way to build a mousetrap, build it and see if people will buy it. Trying to tell them they need it before you build one is... well, not how things work really.
The whole rent thing is just a bit of a bad idea in the case where you get a physical object that cannot be returned, and the leasing company does not ever want it back. If in fact you are leasing it, the repairs of such should be free of charge if they are not due to normal use, and you as a lease holder are due a proper and functioning unit while the lease is current.
If the cost of an xbox is a lifetime lease, then the product should be accompanied by lifetime warranty, lifetime repair as well. When leasing a house or car, you are responsible for damage to the property, normally paid on termination of the lease. This process is not in use for the xbox, indicating that it is NOT a lease, but a sale. Where lifetime == term of the lease.
I've not explained that correctly, but under the law MS has not acted like someone renting out games consoles. They behave like someone selling them. Until that changes, doctrine of first sale applies.
The movie rental place by my house 'rents' games consoles, and they act like they are renting it. MS does not do that, and charges a different price as well. Intent has a lot to do with how many judicial processes look at things. Intent to murder and accident are two different things as an example.
You might as well do it... at the rate that AI development is proceeding, the earth is more likely to be hit by an life ending asteroid than be overtaken by AI lifeforms unless they show up in spaceships and demand to see McGyver.
It's common knowledge that what we call the Internet was suckled by the military. Black-hat and white-hat security conferences and practices have been an active part of Internet security for over a decade.
Can you explain what seems to be the US Military arriving at the game in the third inning?
Having had TSEC and observed security processes and procedures, such as tempest precautions some time ago, I'm having trouble understanding why the 'cyber defenses' of the US Military only now seem to be actually realized.
Is the delay due to funding? Priorities? or simply to underestimation of what the rest of the world was up to all this time?
If that starts happening, cellular providers/voicemail providers can simply let you vote to have that number blocked. If they get a trigger value of no votes, it gets blocked network wide. Feedback would be quick, number would be blocked, so when they move to the next number to call from, it too will get blocked.
Groupsourcing the identification of spitters would be easy enough, or so it would seem.
And it sounds like MS has found a stack of Popular Science magazines in a second had book store in Redmond somewhere.
Digital Manners? hahahahahahahahaha So much has been written that could be prior art for this in science fiction that it's not even funny. Since the first brick with an antenna on it, people have wanted to control when cell phones could be used. Enforcing driving habits? SciFi has it covered. In fact, I'm not certain, but I don't think there is anything you can call novel or non-obvious about it. It's just always been impractical or unpopular. Getting a patent on it won't make either of it.
Imagine a person at the movies. The theater forces phones to be shut off. The email from someone's alarm system saying there is a fire is never received. When they get home the fire and police departments take them to the hospital so they can watch their two small children die of burns. Yeah, that will work out nicely in the papers.
Say you try to control these things anywhere, there is a scenario not unlike that which could happen. Controlling speed of vehicles? Good fucking luck with that one pal. The remote kill switch functions some people have tried for stolen vehicles have NEVER passed muster for insurance companies. Why would MS get to do it? All it would take is one fatality and the class action law suit begins.
In fact, where ever there is a human involved in controlling a machine or gadget there has never been any successful method to wrest control from the human in favor of a machine as far as I know. The cruise control is the best attempt that I know and that is a simple assistive technology.
Sure, alarm system replaces security guard, but does not take control from a human over a machine. There are gray area examples, but you see what I mean. Getting a patent for doing so is like trying to get a patent on breathing air.
If MS tries for the breathing air patent, I give up.
What the hell are they going to do with it? Once they are installed and there is no longer any use in trying to use a plane for terrorist activities and the terrorist turn to the much easier alternative that they already have... uhhh who the fuck is going to pay for the kill switches? This OCD focus on air transport for anti-terrorism is a ploy as there is no reason to believe that there are MORE terrorists who WANT to use planes.
It's all a ruse to continue the 'war on terror' and the multibillion dollar boondoggle of the American populace. $4/gallon is nothing once we start paying for all these unnecessary anti-terrorism measure it will be up to $15/gallon or higher.
Actually the only word that I can think of for the focus on air transport is criminal. Nothing less is behind it.
As myself and many others will point out, there are PLENTY of other worthy methods of terrorism. Picking the most guarded of them is hardly filed under 'surprise attack' in the terrorist's field manual.
Back to basics here:
Where are the terrorists? Prove it! What will they use to attack? Prove it! Why won't they use other, simpler methods? Prove it!
If you can answer those three in support of beefing up air transport security I will quickly ask why you have not gone out and apprehended them already since you know who is guilty of what and why, and apparently have the fucking proof.
I'm so tired of these ineffective and inconvenient excuses for the government to steal my rights in the name of protecting me. Fuck off already. At the rate things are going, the next round of so called 'terrorists' will actually be citizens revolting against the protective measures.... arrgghhhh
But that is similar to a police person taking a 'girl' out on a date, drinks, home for sex, then offering to pay for the sex and arresting her when she refuses and claims that is not why she dresses up nicely, and didn't know it would attract that kind of attention.
there is something to be said for that:
But since we can't really trust the average Joe to take preventive measures such as safe browsing, or using antivirus and firewalls, I'm not too convinced that your idea is gonna be as popular as one may expect... I find this to be the case. Questions like "Why can't I install software on this machine?" "Why do I need a different login to surf the web?" "Why is the computer so slow at 3:30 a.m.?"
Even after explaining rights/permissions and how to keep from giving the wrong ones to malicious websites, I still get those questions. After explaining that protection/scanning software is running while you are supposed to be asleep and that is why it's slow at 3:30 a.m. I still get the complaint.
19 year olds 'know' everything so never have to read about how to protect themselves. As they grow up they only decide they need to read more when their personal computer grinds to a halt and they have to pay someone to fix it. When they are forced to learn a couple things, the big picture and overall practices of security do not sink in because it is inconvenient. Malware will always exist because of this.
Actually, thank you... Reminding me that the media played a large part in the initiation of the 'other war', the war on drugs.
I'm pretty happy to have all media owners drawn and quartered... literally. Well, ok, lets find the ones complicit in hoodwinking the people at large and just do those.
I believe their actions criminal, as much so as Bush's actions/inactions/mistruths etc.
There is no longer any reason to trust the media. Its a sad thing to say that. They used to stand for something better than the thugs that now own them and shake their leashes.
Bloggers are wont to report their own bias, and not check sources so you end up having to do research to find truth, but that is better than trusting those that will stab you when they get the chance to put the knife in.
.......That William Randolph Hearst and his Yellow-journalism fueled the war on drugs in the first place, the Media are the LAST people I trust to provide me with reliable information. There, fixed that for you
This is exactly what is great about F/OSS
on
Ubuntu Eee Goes Gold
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
In years gone by, you'd have to pay through the nose for that, to have an OS and applications configured and built for installation on a single pc system.
That makes F/OSS awesome. period.
It also means that handset makers, private endeavors, and all sorts can ALSO make their own distribution. No matter what it is based on, they can, and that is totally AWESOME.
I know some will not be impressed, but I've been around awhile and to get that, and have it be free too, well... it just rocks in ways that even senators won't be able to commend high enough.
I actually see a future where you can go to a distro download site and specify the pc make and model and get choices of pre-built distributions for that setup. Why that instead of a one size fits all system?
Simple, if built right it is much faster while containing all the same applications. It's also not cluttered with support files for everything your uncle harry wants but you do not. I hope to see OEMs doing this in the near future. Imagine if Windows were tuned for each OEMs box? oh... what the fuck was I thinking there... it is, but it's tuned to run slow... sorry about that.
Still, I'd like to see it in the very near future. click and go, updates scheduled etc. and have it fit the EXACT hardware that I have (under condition that I bought a specific OEM pc).
Yep, that would make it much easier for ma and pa kettle to use the F/OSS with their internet pc thingy.
But.. but.. but.. if you applied coherent design criteria with materials management there are lots of things that you can do. Well, enough that designing a car for the US market could be more than possible.
Where do you cut weight from? Perhaps the transmission by going manual. How much weight do you lose by going electric? Fuel weight, coolant weight, radiator weight etc. Well, have to add batteries, but new lithium technology is quite light. May not gain that much back. Supercaps don't weigh that much either.
Reduce the biggest drag on a vehicles fuel economy: overcoming inertia. Regenerative braking will add some weight, but also increase fuel economy. Air assisted acceleration: add this compressed air tech to overcome inertia. This adds weight to transmission/drive train and weight for a tank, but tank materials can be expensive ones to allow for lighter materials.
Options to this plugin? 1/2 hp diesel generator set. Once you get to work, click the switch to start charging (or something like that) to augment solar panels built into the vehicle.
The questions are not how to cut weight or increase fuel economy, but how to get the best design for the changes made, where design requirements are not big SUV or luxury vehicle, but instead are safe, fuel efficient, comfortable passenger vehicles that are built for similar or cheaper prices than today's 15-25,000 dollar vehicles.
What are the goals of a nisan sentra? Why would those goals differ if it becomes an plug-in electric.
If you can option it for a 100-300 miles per charge with the generator set, that will cover a huge number of people's driving needs.
If you use expensive parts to lighten weight only where this maintains/improves safety and make as much of the car as possible easily maintained, the TCO drops, even compared to current cars as they are not especially easily maintained. The safety features of most vehicles are not often used, and typically when they are, the repair bills are quite high anyway. If all the normal wear and tear parts are of standard costs, TCO should not rise, and might actually fall.
Remember that the very expensive safety systems in the racing world are meant to not be used, they just have a higher likelihood of being used.
I've seen pics of hummers losing the argument with quite a few things. Bigger is not necessarily better, especially in this case.
A/C and DVD players can just be in expensive highly taxed models of vehicles. Everyone with more sense than money can do without them on the way to work. Certainly not every luxury has to be forgone, but some should be expensive. Some should be highly taxed.
The air-assist transmission, regenerative braking, and similar inventions should not be overlooked.
Unfortunately, the government is responsible for making quite a few of these changes happen by modifying existing laws and enacting others. I say unfortunately because technology is not the start and finish of the complete set of answers.
Anyone know where to find the right group to lobby congress/senate for the right changes? Like and EFF for automobiles?
This is logically true. But if placing bets, it is a sound and likely-to-be-correct basis for betting, for some definition of wise.
You seem to have forgotten that not all students are acne faced 17 year olds. Not all places of learning are called classrooms, and all teachers did NOT graduate at the top of their class. There are bad teachers, bad policemen, bad doctors, bad fireman.
Actually, you are probably right. More porous and stronger? Sounds like a new paper towel to me. Hmmm what other paper products do we use that might benefit?
Saturated paper products: Tar paper, sheetrock, and other products that are basically using paper to contain some other product, etc.
Non-saturated: string spindles et al, books, food and product packaging materials, shipping materials...
If it turns out that thicker pieces constructed with pressure or other methods, perhaps we'll finally get a throwaway computer or dvr case? Perhaps we'll find that a lot of carbon based plastics might be better created with nanopaper processes? How much oil would that save? How much cleaner could commercial enterprises become?
There are a lot of things that paper is only just a bit less suitable than some other product that creates pollution or distributes toxins either during creation or after it's use.
Obviously, I'm not the expert, but if this can make some of that come true it will be a very good thing.
Perhaps I'm confused, but what he said made perfect sense. There are NO terrorists. As described, when they get on a plane, they are simply passengers with the correct credentials to fly. They are merely tourists when they wander around the lake that is your water supply dropping little vials of poison.
All of this airport security is misguided, confoundedly ineffectual, and does absolutely nothing (or very close to it, if not negative effects) to protect you from terrorists that want to harm you.
You might as well be talking about the capabilities of magical elves since by definition, you will NOT know where a terrorist is going to strike. That is sort of the point. You can guess, you can try to predict based on historical events, but since the 9/11 event was a one-off (as far as I know) it is STUPID to believe that this is the new and improved international terrorist mode of operation. Did I say stupid? Sorry, I meant FUCKING STUPID!! with lots of exclamatory punctuation marks.
For anyone that needs some schooling, terrorists, the originals, were the government. It has come to be used to describe those that would strike fear in an enemy with little use of resources, and attacks on the civilian population. Even the definitions used by government agencies is fubar. Check http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.
Where in that definition does it say specifically and limited to airplanes? It doesn't. Where in the laws enacted in the USA (or other countries) since 9/11 have they accounted for terrorist acts not committed via air transportation?
Swap dunce cap for tinfoil hat. Why are they so hung up on air transport? If you control it, you can slow commerce and businesses to less than 1/10th of their current speed/capabilities, enabling extra taxation, control, and suppression.
Tinfoil hat off: It makes them look like they are doing something good while conditioning you to hand over your papers to travel between states. This BTW is prohibited in the USA.
Back to magical elves. What are their powers? Well, we also don't know the powers or intent of future possible terrorists. The really great part about that is that the US Government DID know what the intentions of the 9/11 attackers was. Did that help? No. Why?
No, this is not conspiracy, look at CIA documents to find more. Google it, I won't guide you.
Now, if they knew before 9/11, why do we need more air transportation laws and security?
To assume that any possible future terrorist (as if they actually exist) would use air transportation as the weapon of choice is to also assume that you know why they would not use something else to create terror, political advantage, and media prominence. So... why is it that they would not use something else? Perhaps kill the electric grid during summer heatwave. Maybe poison water supplies. Maybe poison food stuffs imported from a foreign country. Perhaps mail some anthrax around the country. Perhaps, gasp, disrupt the fuel supply BEFORE it gets to this country? How about a bit of anthrax and a fscking weather balloon?
Please please please tell me what these terrorists that your sure of are going to do, and why they are not going to do any of the other really easy acts of terrorism?
Since you don't know, I don't know, and the government doesn't know, we MIGHT AS WELL BE TALKING ABOUT THE CAPABILITIES OF MAGICAL ELVES.
I know I rambled a bit there, but you get the point. Just tell me what the terrorists are going to use as a weapon next time, why they will, and where these terrorists are and I will think about it, if it makes sense, I might concede that there ACTUALLY are some terrorists plotting to harm US Citizens.
When is the US going to "Cyber invade" China?... Put on the tin foil hat. To properly cyber-invade the country, the U5 will need some advance search teams on the ground there. Some folks to ensure that targeted data attacks hit the right spots. These advanced search and spotter groups will be sent in the form of Olympic "trainers", cooks, security, and flunkies. Once the Olympics is done, then we'll see some interesting fiber cable cuts and one or two odd DNS issues, then the spynetwork installation will be complete, and the only person that will know more about China than the US government will be Mr Chan who sells noodles on a side street in Beijing.
Tinfoil hat off: They are already spying on them with satellites and anything that you might think of plus a few other things that are so outrageously expensive and impractical that you would not imagine that they are using them.
The cold war is not over, it simply moved to the Intarwebtubes.
Slashdot Mirror
that no version of this story seems to try to point the source of these plans to the US? They probably should be. I can think of no better reason to understand why they found out about it than knowing the source of the material. Color me cynical.
Interestingly (or not) you demonstrate a logical understanding of the technology marketplace. To paraphrase you, if I may, Intel and AMD are fighting about who gets to piss on the idea of competition creates value for the consumer. Any space where AMD and Intel are competing is full of this, and not inconsequentially, lawsuits. Intel has been partnered with MS for a long time, and they worked hard to be the hardware version of what MS was to software.
We can detail the lawsuits ad nausea, but my point is that anyone that was a healthy partner with MS has done to their industry what MS did to software. Like that or not, it is true. In the end, we have Mr Gates to thank for this, no matter how philanthropic he may try to be these days. I wonder sometimes how far exactly he has set the human race back from what will eventually, and necessarily be.
Though that is sort of scifi philosophy, it is true. In the name of riches, the advancement of technology has been slowed, deliberately, and with malicious intent against the betterment of mankind. In this way, I find his generosity a bit pale these days.
Open standards are indeed the ONLY way to create technology and advancement that will last and actually advance mankind in a direction that betters all of us. Despite the socialist sounding tone of that, it is true. We are all better for the sharing of technology from the space race. Technology, and specifically computing/networks are still in the hands of those that would derail it's benefits if there is profit in it. There are those that are trying to change this situation, but it is slow going. Even hardware manufacturers are hobbled by things like the DMCA and it's ilk around the world. Sometimes I'm sad to say I'm American.
Fighting against the 'right thing to do' for the sake of money is not in the best interests of the community, and in the end, it hurts your business. Customer is king, so they say, and when you put hurdles in the way of a complete and exemplary experience by the end user, you harm your business in some way, if not in big ways. It's unfortunate that not enough people will understand that the competitions in the technology markets have hurt them, and they will not understand how to express their frustration that older USB devices won't work with new USB hosts. It will be just one more black magic thing they don't understand about technology type things. They will go to PCs R Us and buy whatever the best they can get happens to be, hoping that it works for a couple of years, not unlike car buyers. So for profits, businesses promote the throw-away society. When there is something new, throw the old away, don't upgrade, don't re-use. How is this helpful to the human race?
Well, just some late night thoughts about this whole thing, and the absolutely ignorant waste it makes of the world.
BTW, there is hardware space competition.... if you are willing to build your own and not buy what the idiot^H^H^H^H^H salesman tells you at worstbuy.
sigh
I agree... the battle just heating up, how can you be biased? Not until there are two definitive sides can you get behind one or the other.
... even if some of them have been OOXML'd lately. (that's not even valid in Roman Numerals)
This does point out one thing, there is a lot to be said for open standards
No matter which version is better technically, if there is one that is not backwards compatible they will have an uphill slog trying to sell it. Yeah, I know, CDs were not backwards compatible with floppy drives, but this is a bit different. If the connector is the same, it MUST be compatible or my aunt nelly will kill someone.
whether this is in England or North America. Cable companies and large ISPs in general have the same problem in most places.
They did not invest in infrastructure of the future at any point in the past. That is to say that they have never done what was needed to build a network that would support heavy usage.
An example of this is the cable company that I have to use (there are no options. Satellite is not a viable option for broadband IMO). I have three cable boxes on digital cable. If I rent a movie in the living room I can't move to the bedroom to watch it without having to pay twice. This means there is NO infrastructure built to know I have two boxes and which they are so that I can rent a movie once and watch anywhere in the house. This is not just ignorant of the capabilities of technology, it is blatantly ignoring them at the cost of value to the consumer.
There are a few people that would defend this situation with various excuses, but they won't work IMO because of the complaints that ISPs make regarding network usage, and the balance of guilt when you see what they were given as incentives to build a viable, usable network already.
Their business plan has been designed to steal as much money from the user's pockets and the government as possible. They have done nothing less.
This business of throttling traffic because of bandwidth usage is criminal in nature. If you rented a car to drive to your aunt's house but found that you weren't able to drive the expected speeds on all roads because of crippling by the rental company, would you sue? would you rent from them again? would you complain to the appropriate regulatory agency?
Go ahead, tell me about the fine print in the contract. meh. I pay for xyz MBits/second and I have more than reasonable expectation that this is what I'll be able to get regardless of protocol, end destination, or content.
The fact that I can't and that ISPs are throttling the service that I paid for is criminal. Their business model is broken. period. They have oversold their network to steal money from you and I, and now they got caught. It is convenient for them to blame the BPI and **AA, and there may indeed be collusion, but the fact remains that they did NOT use the money they were given to produce a usable network and are now trying, AGAIN, to get the users or government to pay them extra to build one.
Why, yes, I do have a solution. I'm glad you asked. The last mile should never belong to a private enterprise. It should belong to co-operatives or the local council or some group that is directly responsible to the local public. By responsible, I mean by order of a vote, they can be replaced and the performance of the cooperative is judged on whether they keep their jobs in a way similar to how AT&T boardmembers are responsible to the share holders.
Yes, all that AT&T, Virgin, Verizon, Comcast et all can do is provide network services. They can only hook up their big pipes to the local WAN and provide backbone network services. You can subscribe to their email etc. or you can subscribe to someone else's email and home page portal. You would be able to access Google via any of them network service packages. Like emergency services, email services would be possible without having long distance.
Once network services are separated from last mile and provisioning services, their worth will be seen in the correct light, and all this throttling will become a thing of the past, a memory of bad times when criminals ran the board meetings and made marketing decisions for cable companies.
When consumers have the right to choose and can do so with a phone call, then the market place will work as it should.
In short, Fuck Virgin! and all their warlord comrades around the world.
I guess hanging around with scotsmen taught me a thing or two. I very rarely get fooled by marketers anymore... word
I think the intent of the OLPC is good, and there are tangential benefits to such a program, however I think this justifies all the people that in the beginning asked one simple question: Why?
... well, not how things work really.
If you have a better way to build a mousetrap, build it and see if people will buy it. Trying to tell them they need it before you build one is
The whole rent thing is just a bit of a bad idea in the case where you get a physical object that cannot be returned, and the leasing company does not ever want it back. If in fact you are leasing it, the repairs of such should be free of charge if they are not due to normal use, and you as a lease holder are due a proper and functioning unit while the lease is current.
If the cost of an xbox is a lifetime lease, then the product should be accompanied by lifetime warranty, lifetime repair as well. When leasing a house or car, you are responsible for damage to the property, normally paid on termination of the lease. This process is not in use for the xbox, indicating that it is NOT a lease, but a sale. Where lifetime == term of the lease.
I've not explained that correctly, but under the law MS has not acted like someone renting out games consoles. They behave like someone selling them. Until that changes, doctrine of first sale applies.
The movie rental place by my house 'rents' games consoles, and they act like they are renting it. MS does not do that, and charges a different price as well. Intent has a lot to do with how many judicial processes look at things. Intent to murder and accident are two different things as an example.
Just how I see it.
You might as well do it... at the rate that AI development is proceeding, the earth is more likely to be hit by an life ending asteroid than be overtaken by AI lifeforms unless they show up in spaceships and demand to see McGyver.
It's common knowledge that what we call the Internet was suckled by the military. Black-hat and white-hat security conferences and practices have been an active part of Internet security for over a decade.
Can you explain what seems to be the US Military arriving at the game in the third inning?
Having had TSEC and observed security processes and procedures, such as tempest precautions some time ago, I'm having trouble understanding why the 'cyber defenses' of the US Military only now seem to be actually realized.
Is the delay due to funding? Priorities? or simply to underestimation of what the rest of the world was up to all this time?
Please be as specific as you are able to be.
Thank you.
If that starts happening, cellular providers/voicemail providers can simply let you vote to have that number blocked. If they get a trigger value of no votes, it gets blocked network wide. Feedback would be quick, number would be blocked, so when they move to the next number to call from, it too will get blocked.
Groupsourcing the identification of spitters would be easy enough, or so it would seem.
Ideas anyone?
Mr McCain, please go back to sleep. It's nappy time.
And it sounds like MS has found a stack of Popular Science magazines in a second had book store in Redmond somewhere.
Digital Manners? hahahahahahahahaha So much has been written that could be prior art for this in science fiction that it's not even funny. Since the first brick with an antenna on it, people have wanted to control when cell phones could be used. Enforcing driving habits? SciFi has it covered. In fact, I'm not certain, but I don't think there is anything you can call novel or non-obvious about it. It's just always been impractical or unpopular. Getting a patent on it won't make either of it.
Imagine a person at the movies. The theater forces phones to be shut off. The email from someone's alarm system saying there is a fire is never received. When they get home the fire and police departments take them to the hospital so they can watch their two small children die of burns. Yeah, that will work out nicely in the papers.
Say you try to control these things anywhere, there is a scenario not unlike that which could happen. Controlling speed of vehicles? Good fucking luck with that one pal. The remote kill switch functions some people have tried for stolen vehicles have NEVER passed muster for insurance companies. Why would MS get to do it?
All it would take is one fatality and the class action law suit begins.
In fact, where ever there is a human involved in controlling a machine or gadget there has never been any successful method to wrest control from the human in favor of a machine as far as I know. The cruise control is the best attempt that I know and that is a simple assistive technology.
Sure, alarm system replaces security guard, but does not take control from a human over a machine. There are gray area examples, but you see what I mean. Getting a patent for doing so is like trying to get a patent on breathing air.
If MS tries for the breathing air patent, I give up.
Better question that that is:
... uhhh who the fuck is going to pay for the kill switches? This OCD focus on air transport for anti-terrorism is a ploy as there is no reason to believe that there are MORE terrorists who WANT to use planes.
What the hell are they going to do with it? Once they are installed and there is no longer any use in trying to use a plane for terrorist activities and the terrorist turn to the much easier alternative that they already have
It's all a ruse to continue the 'war on terror' and the multibillion dollar boondoggle of the American populace. $4/gallon is nothing once we start paying for all these unnecessary anti-terrorism measure it will be up to $15/gallon or higher.
Actually the only word that I can think of for the focus on air transport is criminal. Nothing less is behind it.
As myself and many others will point out, there are PLENTY of other worthy methods of terrorism. Picking the most guarded of them is hardly filed under 'surprise attack' in the terrorist's field manual.
Back to basics here:
Where are the terrorists? Prove it!
What will they use to attack? Prove it!
Why won't they use other, simpler methods? Prove it!
If you can answer those three in support of beefing up air transport security I will quickly ask why you have not gone out and apprehended them already since you know who is guilty of what and why, and apparently have the fucking proof.
I'm so tired of these ineffective and inconvenient excuses for the government to steal my rights in the name of protecting me. Fuck off already. At the rate things are going, the next round of so called 'terrorists' will actually be citizens revolting against the protective measures.... arrgghhhh
No, apparently I'm REALLYBadAnalogyGuy today... Blame it on Canada!
But that is similar to a police person taking a 'girl' out on a date, drinks, home for sex, then offering to pay for the sex and arresting her when she refuses and claims that is not why she dresses up nicely, and didn't know it would attract that kind of attention.
For quite a while now, I've had a somewhat perverse desire to know why no OSS antivirus group named their product after condoms?
You could call the daemon a 24 hour condom, and the jokes keep going....
"Why can't I install software on this machine?"
"Why do I need a different login to surf the web?"
"Why is the computer so slow at 3:30 a.m.?"
Even after explaining rights/permissions and how to keep from giving the wrong ones to malicious websites, I still get those questions. After explaining that protection/scanning software is running while you are supposed to be asleep and that is why it's slow at 3:30 a.m. I still get the complaint.
19 year olds 'know' everything so never have to read about how to protect themselves. As they grow up they only decide they need to read more when their personal computer grinds to a halt and they have to pay someone to fix it. When they are forced to learn a couple things, the big picture and overall practices of security do not sink in because it is inconvenient. Malware will always exist because of this.
sad but true
Actually, thank you...
Reminding me that the media played a large part in the initiation of the 'other war', the war on drugs.
I'm pretty happy to have all media owners drawn and quartered... literally. Well, ok, lets find the ones complicit in hoodwinking the people at large and just do those.
I believe their actions criminal, as much so as Bush's actions/inactions/mistruths etc.
There is no longer any reason to trust the media. Its a sad thing to say that. They used to stand for something better than the thugs that now own them and shake their leashes.
Bloggers are wont to report their own bias, and not check sources so you end up having to do research to find truth, but that is better than trusting those that will stab you when they get the chance to put the knife in.
.......That William Randolph Hearst and his Yellow-journalism fueled the war on drugs in the first place, the Media are the LAST people I trust to provide me with reliable information. There, fixed that for youIn years gone by, you'd have to pay through the nose for that, to have an OS and applications configured and built for installation on a single pc system.
That makes F/OSS awesome. period.
It also means that handset makers, private endeavors, and all sorts can ALSO make their own distribution. No matter what it is based on, they can, and that is totally AWESOME.
I know some will not be impressed, but I've been around awhile and to get that, and have it be free too, well... it just rocks in ways that even senators won't be able to commend high enough.
I actually see a future where you can go to a distro download site and specify the pc make and model and get choices of pre-built distributions for that setup. Why that instead of a one size fits all system?
Simple, if built right it is much faster while containing all the same applications. It's also not cluttered with support files for everything your uncle harry wants but you do not. I hope to see OEMs doing this in the near future. Imagine if Windows were tuned for each OEMs box? oh... what the fuck was I thinking there... it is, but it's tuned to run slow... sorry about that.
Still, I'd like to see it in the very near future. click and go, updates scheduled etc. and have it fit the EXACT hardware that I have (under condition that I bought a specific OEM pc).
Yep, that would make it much easier for ma and pa kettle to use the F/OSS with their internet pc thingy.
But.. but.. but.. if you applied coherent design criteria with materials management there are lots of things that you can do. Well, enough that designing a car for the US market could be more than possible.
Where do you cut weight from? Perhaps the transmission by going manual. How much weight do you lose by going electric? Fuel weight, coolant weight, radiator weight etc. Well, have to add batteries, but new lithium technology is quite light. May not gain that much back. Supercaps don't weigh that much either.
Reduce the biggest drag on a vehicles fuel economy: overcoming inertia. Regenerative braking will add some weight, but also increase fuel economy. Air assisted acceleration: add this compressed air tech to overcome inertia. This adds weight to transmission/drive train and weight for a tank, but tank materials can be expensive ones to allow for lighter materials.
Options to this plugin? 1/2 hp diesel generator set. Once you get to work, click the switch to start charging (or something like that) to augment solar panels built into the vehicle.
The questions are not how to cut weight or increase fuel economy, but how to get the best design for the changes made, where design requirements are not big SUV or luxury vehicle, but instead are safe, fuel efficient, comfortable passenger vehicles that are built for similar or cheaper prices than today's 15-25,000 dollar vehicles.
What are the goals of a nisan sentra? Why would those goals differ if it becomes an plug-in electric.
If you can option it for a 100-300 miles per charge with the generator set, that will cover a huge number of people's driving needs.
If you use expensive parts to lighten weight only where this maintains/improves safety and make as much of the car as possible easily maintained, the TCO drops, even compared to current cars as they are not especially easily maintained. The safety features of most vehicles are not often used, and typically when they are, the repair bills are quite high anyway. If all the normal wear and tear parts are of standard costs, TCO should not rise, and might actually fall.
Remember that the very expensive safety systems in the racing world are meant to not be used, they just have a higher likelihood of being used.
I've seen pics of hummers losing the argument with quite a few things. Bigger is not necessarily better, especially in this case.
A/C and DVD players can just be in expensive highly taxed models of vehicles. Everyone with more sense than money can do without them on the way to work. Certainly not every luxury has to be forgone, but some should be expensive. Some should be highly taxed.
The air-assist transmission, regenerative braking, and similar inventions should not be overlooked.
Unfortunately, the government is responsible for making quite a few of these changes happen by modifying existing laws and enacting others. I say unfortunately because technology is not the start and finish of the complete set of answers.
Anyone know where to find the right group to lobby congress/senate for the right changes? Like and EFF for automobiles?
This is logically true. But if placing bets, it is a sound and likely-to-be-correct basis for betting, for some definition of wise.
You seem to have forgotten that not all students are acne faced 17 year olds. Not all places of learning are called classrooms, and all teachers did NOT graduate at the top of their class. There are bad teachers, bad policemen, bad doctors, bad fireman.
Actually, you are probably right. More porous and stronger? Sounds like a new paper towel to me. Hmmm what other paper products do we use that might benefit?
Saturated paper products: Tar paper, sheetrock, and other products that are basically using paper to contain some other product, etc.
Non-saturated: string spindles et al, books, food and product packaging materials, shipping materials...
If it turns out that thicker pieces constructed with pressure or other methods, perhaps we'll finally get a throwaway computer or dvr case? Perhaps we'll find that a lot of carbon based plastics might be better created with nanopaper processes? How much oil would that save? How much cleaner could commercial enterprises become?
There are a lot of things that paper is only just a bit less suitable than some other product that creates pollution or distributes toxins either during creation or after it's use.
Obviously, I'm not the expert, but if this can make some of that come true it will be a very good thing.
Perhaps I'm confused, but what he said made perfect sense. There are NO terrorists. As described, when they get on a plane, they are simply passengers with the correct credentials to fly. They are merely tourists when they wander around the lake that is your water supply dropping little vials of poison.
All of this airport security is misguided, confoundedly ineffectual, and does absolutely nothing (or very close to it, if not negative effects) to protect you from terrorists that want to harm you.
You might as well be talking about the capabilities of magical elves since by definition, you will NOT know where a terrorist is going to strike. That is sort of the point. You can guess, you can try to predict based on historical events, but since the 9/11 event was a one-off (as far as I know) it is STUPID to believe that this is the new and improved international terrorist mode of operation. Did I say stupid? Sorry, I meant FUCKING STUPID!! with lots of exclamatory punctuation marks.
For anyone that needs some schooling, terrorists, the originals, were the government. It has come to be used to describe those that would strike fear in an enemy with little use of resources, and attacks on the civilian population. Even the definitions used by government agencies is fubar. Check http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm
One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.
Where in that definition does it say specifically and limited to airplanes? It doesn't. Where in the laws enacted in the USA (or other countries) since 9/11 have they accounted for terrorist acts not committed via air transportation?
Swap dunce cap for tinfoil hat. Why are they so hung up on air transport? If you control it, you can slow commerce and businesses to less than 1/10th of their current speed/capabilities, enabling extra taxation, control, and suppression.
Tinfoil hat off: It makes them look like they are doing something good while conditioning you to hand over your papers to travel between states. This BTW is prohibited in the USA.
Back to magical elves. What are their powers? Well, we also don't know the powers or intent of future possible terrorists. The really great part about that is that the US Government DID know what the intentions of the 9/11 attackers was. Did that help? No. Why?
No, this is not conspiracy, look at CIA documents to find more. Google it, I won't guide you.
Now, if they knew before 9/11, why do we need more air transportation laws and security?
To assume that any possible future terrorist (as if they actually exist) would use air transportation as the weapon of choice is to also assume that you know why they would not use something else to create terror, political advantage, and media prominence. So... why is it that they would not use something else? Perhaps kill the electric grid during summer heatwave. Maybe poison water supplies. Maybe poison food stuffs imported from a foreign country. Perhaps mail some anthrax around the country. Perhaps, gasp, disrupt the fuel supply BEFORE it gets to this country? How about a bit of anthrax and a fscking weather balloon?
Please please please tell me what these terrorists that your sure of are going to do, and why they are not going to do any of the other really easy acts of terrorism?
Since you don't know, I don't know, and the government doesn't know, we MIGHT AS WELL BE TALKING ABOUT THE CAPABILITIES OF MAGICAL ELVES.
I know I rambled a bit there, but you get the point. Just tell me what the terrorists are going to use as a weapon next time, why they will, and where these terrorists are and I will think about it, if it makes sense, I might concede that there ACTUALLY are some terrorists plotting to harm US Citizens.
Sleep well America... good night
Tinfoil hat off: They are already spying on them with satellites and anything that you might think of plus a few other things that are so outrageously expensive and impractical that you would not imagine that they are using them.
The cold war is not over, it simply moved to the Intarwebtubes.