I must admit to a mistake in my post. The article doesn't mention how the interference impacts WiFi signals. It interfered with the technicians' Bluetooth headsets. So, MS implemented a protocol that doesn't cooperate with Bluetooth. The WiFi, apparently, functions, but they're not sure how well. So, to be sure we know who is blaming what, the network admins are blaming the XBox 360 for interfering with their bluetooth headsets. Given their relative signal strengths, I'd say it is unlikely for the headsets to interfere with the 360 to the same degree.
As I mentioned before, your argument about PS3 controls sucking has no bearing on my post whatsoever. I'm talking about the protocol of the device, you're talking about the device generally. I'm talking about Microsoft's chronic NIH, you're saying, "Well, it works, so it's cool," but that's the reason they get away with it. Had Microsoft played nicely in the first place, we wouldn't be having this argument. And that still doesn't change the fact that the PS3 is a tangential concern of my original statement.
That's what I meant when I said "plays nicely". I didn't feel like going into technical detail. Apparently, WiFi and the 360 coexist as well. The article notes it smothers Bluetooth. (I read the article over the weekend, and crossed my memory of it).
The PS3 bluetooth implementation may be spotty, but that doesn't change the crux of the argument:
Bluetooth is designed to play nicely with WiFi
The PS3 uses the bluetooth standard, so it plays nicely with WiFi.
MS designed a proprietary protocol, which happens to break WiFi.
MS could have used Bluetooth as well, thus averting this problem.
Thus, MS reinvented the wheel, poorly. (At least, given this metric)
This is not out of the ordinary. MS has quite a history of breakingthings.
Your comments about the battery have no context in this conversation. I'm not discussing the pros & cons of a PS3, merely the technologies used in various controllers.
Your comments concerning WiFi interfering with other devices is likewise irrelevant. Again, I wasn't discussing the console, but the controller.
And I'd have some sympathy with them. I work hard and pay my taxes. My time is worth more to me, to the economy and to the tax office when it's invested in what I'm most skilled at. Why should I not pay others to clean my environment for me?
I understand your position as well, but I feel that the middle and upper class have the most to learn from this: humility and respect of others.
the onerous idea of tracking every conceivable device right down to bullets fired (look it up) is staggeringly senseless overkill.
I tried to look up the result on Googlemultipletimes and wikipedia, finding nothing. Interestingly enough, your post is the first quote in the first google search.
If you're going to ask us to research something ourselves, please have the courtesy to provide enough information for the search.
Could you please explain how the price of oil fully explains that we've hit peak oil? That chart doesn't differentiate between supply and demand, it only lists the price oil is selling at... and demand has increased dramatically over the past several years.
Well, my ideas don't preclude you from voicing an opinion during service, albeit I realize that's how our military works at present. I hadn't thought of that particular ramification, though. I'll have to ponder it for a while.
But make it a legal one and you're crossing the line to something other than participatory democracy and the right of man to self determination, IMHO.
In my opinion, democracy is not participatory, it is not something you should choose to do. Participatory democracy falls to apathy, and the state of my country is a testament to that. Most people bitch about our two party system, bitch about the incompetence of our leaders, but don't have the cojones to back up their words. They don't care enough to reach for the polls, or investigate how duplicitous the media is. This is due partly to our educational system(s), but it's also because these people have never made a difference themselves, or at least seen the effects of it.
For example: I live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. I love this city, but it has a great deal of problems. Recently, we've been hitting the news for our murder rate, the amount of refuse in the streets, and other such things. If each person in the city worked for 2 hours a week (that's 12 million man-hours a month) on community service projects, we could change the city around in short order. Just living in the city would be a testament to your efforts, and the whole community would improve as a result. Better digs, better self-esteem.
It builds community, as the means of coordination require teamwork, etc. It increases work-ethic, because you're required to put in time & you see results. It could increase health, depending upon your role in the project. Finally, it will increase the attraction of the city, and justify our motto--what better says "The city of brotherly love" than working together to improve it? If it were instituted only on a local level, you still get your choice--if you don't like it, move.
It's a pity that it's not a pragmatic solution. Try to institute mandatory community service and you'd see a riot.
And only giving the franchise to people who have previously served in the military? Screw you! What gives you the right to decide that? What gives those citizens the right to decide how everyone else gets to live? Nothing whatsoever.
In theory, democratic legitimacy grants those citizens the authority to prompt everyone for military service. In the case of the US, our constitution would need to be rewritten to award citizenship after service, but nothing prevents forced participation in the military (save public opinion).
I also share he viewpoint that service in the public sphere, particularly the armed forces should be the duty of each citizen. Service imbues several values that I believe would serve our citizenry well, a sense of duty and honor. If we tie civic responsibility to patriotism in that manner, I believe that civic participation would benefit as a result. That said, the armed forces should not only fight wars. There should be branches dedicated to community service, "state building", & disaster recovery, and these branches should vastly supersede the "war" branch. (particularly in public perception and numbers. Yes, we fight wars, but 3/4 of our forces are used for "light-side" activities).
The military split needs to occur for several reasons. One is mentioned in the TED presentation listed above. Another is to remove the objections raised by pacifists and conscientious objectors. The final reason is to prevent conflation of powers, purpose, & jurisdiction between them.
--
*However, everyone receives proper military training--physical, emergency, weapons, etc. This is for two reasons. If "shit goes down", we're better prepared for it. Less people will lose their heads, coordination will increase (increased teamwork), and improved response quality. More importantly, the government needs to put more tools necessary to overthrow itself in the hands of the citizenry. Our government isn't afraid of the people, which allows them to get away with more than they should.
I doubt it would only work well for their programs. Rather, the interface to it would likely be needlessly obtuse. They could say to regulators "we provide the tools necessary to tie-in", but it would be too expensive for small vendors to do so.
As a parent post said, it may not be wise to do so as it blurs the purpose of Wikipedia. If I were involved in Wikimedia, I'd create a wiki solely to hold proofs and explanations, and reference them from the Wikipedia article.
Since our colleagues insist on being pricks, I found this on the Security Now site:
Leo: Well, ironically, they've made it more susceptible to malware. These tilt bits - talk a little bit about the tilt bits, Peter.
PETER: Right. So what tilt bits are is - the name's taken from pinball machines. We had tilt sensors to monitor physical interference with the device.
Leo: Yeah, if you pick up the machine and get the ball in the hole, it's tilted, and it fails.
PETER: Right. And so Microsoft have done or required that hardware manufacturers do pretty much exactly the same thing. The nasty thing with this is that, well, to put it bluntly, it makes your hardware in your system a lot less reliable. The typical PC is thrown together out of all sorts of random bits and pieces with different tolerances; and half the parts are made by the cheapest possible manufacturer, so a lot of them are cheap and nasty. So they're designed to have a certain amount of tolerance for voltage fluctuations and strange bus signals and bugs in device drivers that set hardware bits wrong and so on and so forth. The problem is that, if you do get these strange voltage fluctuations or strange noise on the system bus or whatever, that could also be a sign of attack. And so Microsoft have said that hardware has to monitor for any of these peculiarities. And if they're found, then it sets these tilt bits in a register somewhere. Vista polls these tilt bits; and if any of them are set, it reacts in some vaguely specified but somewhat drastic manner.
Adding this to the fact that there are widely available patent-free implementations of Ogg technology, there is really no excuse for Apple and Nokia to say that they couldn't in good faith implement HTML5 as previously formulated.
HTML 5 is designed to be a pragmatic markup language, and neither Apple nor Nokia felt that Ogg was of practical use. The "intellectual purity" of ogg pales in comparison with the benefits of MPEG-4 and H.26x codecs. (To name a few: superior compression, less processing power for decoding, specialized chip support, and DRM hooks).
Insofar as it is accepted by the federal courts of appeals, yes. It's an incredibly stupid interpretation, but no less valid because of it. That is, until one or more cases make it to SCOTUS, then we shall see.
I don't suppose they'll agree, though. The Supreme Court enjoys federalism and open interpretation of the Constitution. After all, it's how they snagged Judicial Review.
You are wrong about one thing though, corporations were never invented to serve the public, they have no other purpose than to make money for their owners (which in a lot of cases are stock holders). That's it. They can have statutes and whatnot that say that they should give back to the community and serve the countries they work in or whatever but that's just dressing on top of the one basic tenet: make money for your owners.
Incorrect, sir. Exhibit A: The not-for-profit corporation. Such corporations include the EFF, FSF, OSI, and SourceForge among many others.
Maybe I wasn't being specific enough, or the mods are unfamiliar with the movie. The 'quotable' portions of the movie are composed of incredibly stupid statements (for instance, the "it's got what plants crave" quote FTS). The people who quote this part of the movie are, in effect, committing one of many atrocities that the movie rails against--repeating something they heard, just because it sounds funny.
The rest of my post, e.g. "the only redeeming quality" remark, was a statement of opinion (IMHO: in my humble opinion). Presented in a somewhat abusive manner? Yes, but certainly not a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeh, I noted that my argument was wrong. The 360 was interfering with BT signals according to the article.
I must admit to a mistake in my post. The article doesn't mention how the interference impacts WiFi signals. It interfered with the technicians' Bluetooth headsets. So, MS implemented a protocol that doesn't cooperate with Bluetooth. The WiFi, apparently, functions, but they're not sure how well. So, to be sure we know who is blaming what, the network admins are blaming the XBox 360 for interfering with their bluetooth headsets. Given their relative signal strengths, I'd say it is unlikely for the headsets to interfere with the 360 to the same degree.
As I mentioned before, your argument about PS3 controls sucking has no bearing on my post whatsoever. I'm talking about the protocol of the device, you're talking about the device generally. I'm talking about Microsoft's chronic NIH, you're saying, "Well, it works, so it's cool," but that's the reason they get away with it. Had Microsoft played nicely in the first place, we wouldn't be having this argument. And that still doesn't change the fact that the PS3 is a tangential concern of my original statement.
P.S. Does your friend own an XBox 360 and an PS3?
That's what I meant when I said "plays nicely". I didn't feel like going into technical detail. Apparently, WiFi and the 360 coexist as well. The article notes it smothers Bluetooth. (I read the article over the weekend, and crossed my memory of it).
I understand your position as well, but I feel that the middle and upper class have the most to learn from this: humility and respect of others.
The PS3 uses the bluetooth protocol to transmit data, which was designed to share 2.4 GHz with WiFi. MS, as usual, has reinvented the wheel, poorly.
I tried to look up the result on Google multiple times and wikipedia, finding nothing. Interestingly enough, your post is the first quote in the first google search.
If you're going to ask us to research something ourselves, please have the courtesy to provide enough information for the search.
Could you please explain how the price of oil fully explains that we've hit peak oil? That chart doesn't differentiate between supply and demand, it only lists the price oil is selling at... and demand has increased dramatically over the past several years.
In my opinion, democracy is not participatory, it is not something you should choose to do. Participatory democracy falls to apathy, and the state of my country is a testament to that. Most people bitch about our two party system, bitch about the incompetence of our leaders, but don't have the cojones to back up their words. They don't care enough to reach for the polls, or investigate how duplicitous the media is. This is due partly to our educational system(s), but it's also because these people have never made a difference themselves, or at least seen the effects of it.
For example: I live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. I love this city, but it has a great deal of problems. Recently, we've been hitting the news for our murder rate, the amount of refuse in the streets, and other such things. If each person in the city worked for 2 hours a week (that's 12 million man-hours a month) on community service projects, we could change the city around in short order. Just living in the city would be a testament to your efforts, and the whole community would improve as a result. Better digs, better self-esteem.
It builds community, as the means of coordination require teamwork, etc. It increases work-ethic, because you're required to put in time & you see results. It could increase health, depending upon your role in the project. Finally, it will increase the attraction of the city, and justify our motto--what better says "The city of brotherly love" than working together to improve it? If it were instituted only on a local level, you still get your choice--if you don't like it, move.
It's a pity that it's not a pragmatic solution. Try to institute mandatory community service and you'd see a riot.
In theory, democratic legitimacy grants those citizens the authority to prompt everyone for military service. In the case of the US, our constitution would need to be rewritten to award citizenship after service, but nothing prevents forced participation in the military (save public opinion).
I also share he viewpoint that service in the public sphere, particularly the armed forces should be the duty of each citizen. Service imbues several values that I believe would serve our citizenry well, a sense of duty and honor. If we tie civic responsibility to patriotism in that manner, I believe that civic participation would benefit as a result. That said, the armed forces should not only fight wars. There should be branches dedicated to community service, "state building", & disaster recovery, and these branches should vastly supersede the "war" branch. (particularly in public perception and numbers. Yes, we fight wars, but 3/4 of our forces are used for "light-side" activities).
The military split needs to occur for several reasons. One is mentioned in the TED presentation listed above. Another is to remove the objections raised by pacifists and conscientious objectors. The final reason is to prevent conflation of powers, purpose, & jurisdiction between them.
--
*However, everyone receives proper military training--physical, emergency, weapons, etc. This is for two reasons. If "shit goes down", we're better prepared for it. Less people will lose their heads, coordination will increase (increased teamwork), and improved response quality. More importantly, the government needs to put more tools necessary to overthrow itself in the hands of the citizenry. Our government isn't afraid of the people, which allows them to get away with more than they should.
I doubt it would only work well for their programs. Rather, the interface to it would likely be needlessly obtuse. They could say to regulators "we provide the tools necessary to tie-in", but it would be too expensive for small vendors to do so.
In my experience, the iPhone is about providing useful functionality in a usable way. Eye candy is merely the icing on the cake. :)
As a parent post said, it may not be wise to do so as it blurs the purpose of Wikipedia. If I were involved in Wikimedia, I'd create a wiki solely to hold proofs and explanations, and reference them from the Wikipedia article.
Since our colleagues insist on being pricks, I found this on the Security Now site:
Further, who would admit they were wrong when they do get help? Online?
Businesses whose products depend on dealing with big media. For instance, streaming media providers.
HTML 5 is designed to be a pragmatic markup language, and neither Apple nor Nokia felt that Ogg was of practical use. The "intellectual purity" of ogg pales in comparison with the benefits of MPEG-4 and H.26x codecs. (To name a few: superior compression, less processing power for decoding, specialized chip support, and DRM hooks).
(IANAL) My reading suggests that the original copy is fair use, and thus legal, but nonetheless is unauthorized.
Insofar as it is accepted by the federal courts of appeals, yes. It's an incredibly stupid interpretation, but no less valid because of it. That is, until one or more cases make it to SCOTUS, then we shall see.
I don't suppose they'll agree, though. The Supreme Court enjoys federalism and open interpretation of the Constitution. After all, it's how they snagged Judicial Review.
Whoops! strike that example, then. :)
It's quite easy to explain. They don't sue the person, they sue the person's property (e.g. The United States of America vs $124,700 in United States Currency). Where does it say that property has the right to be secure in itself? (Quite similar to a Scam in Nomic)
Furthermore, they bridge over the others using civil, rather than criminal, court.
Incorrect, sir. Exhibit A: The not-for-profit corporation. Such corporations include the EFF, FSF, OSI, and SourceForge among many others.
Maybe I wasn't being specific enough, or the mods are unfamiliar with the movie. The 'quotable' portions of the movie are composed of incredibly stupid statements (for instance, the "it's got what plants crave" quote FTS). The people who quote this part of the movie are, in effect, committing one of many atrocities that the movie rails against--repeating something they heard, just because it sounds funny.
The rest of my post, e.g. "the only redeeming quality" remark, was a statement of opinion (IMHO: in my humble opinion). Presented in a somewhat abusive manner? Yes, but certainly not a troll.
Which points out, IMHO, the only redeeming quality of the movie: People who quote it identify themselves as idiots.
It could be Fox's idea of cross-marketing for a new, as-yet-unannounced RoboCop movie.
Another thing worth noting, the site mentions a lack of high fructose corn syrup.