Basically the wireless is there because otherwise the laptop would be useless. Each laptop will have a very small and cheap hard drive (or flash memory?), and won't store much information. Instead, students will be able to share files easily, and the teacher will be able to send information to the students, without the need for expensive hardwired infrastructure. It also makes the "classroom" very portable.
If these have minimal storage on each unit, where do these files that they pick up from other machines (which themselves have minimal storage) get stored?
The concept still doesn't add up to me. Count me among the uneducated masses (do I qualify for a $100 laptop now?)
So... you're saying there should only be laws about sucking up, pandering, money grubbing, and backstabbing?
Can anyone say "Campaign Finance Reform"? They can't even write good legislation on the subjects mentioned.
I thought the reason for choosing to be a representative republic (rather than a pure democracy) was that the common man wasn't educated enough to make critical decisions. Oh wait - that's the electoral college. The congress was supposed to represent the interests and concerns of the public who elected them.
I grew up in a rural area of a third world country. All communication infrastructure is bad. There were no phones, the roads bad and public transportation almost non existent.
Parent has a good point.
So, um, how does the UN propose to form this mesh of laptops with little to no wired or wireless infrastructure?
companies exist to serve the consumer, not visa versa
Not really. Companies exist because somebody had an idea that might earn money. The goal is to make money - nothing more. Non-profits may exist to serve the customer, but I don't see too many non-profit music vendors.
the point is: you are the consumer, you are king
No argument here. Given the Company's existence to make a profit, it only comes through some form of sales (ignoring profit models based on litigation or scams). If your product doesn't meet a customer desire at the price they are willing to pay - no sale... no income... no profit.
don't agree to any arrangement that makes you subject to something proprietary
Good advice. It ultimately leads to a choice:
1. Purchase the product and accept the terms.
2. Find another vendor with terms you accept.
3. If #2 is not possible, Do without.
4. Obtain the product illegally.
you pirate until the companies figure out that trying to own you is a turn off
Doesn't work. They end up sueing some poor sap (maybe not you) who they can get charges to stick to, and the settlement earns more than makes up for the sales lost to all piracy.
The other problem with this... No income from legitimate sales means less variety in what they can offer. In the music industry example, Insteady of dying the companies focus on the biggest revenue artists, creating the lack of variety that those who opt for piracy often use as an argument.
Looking at it another way...
More Piracy yields Less Variety, which yields More Piracy, which Yields... ,... which yields 5 copies of Brittany Spears, rather than 5 unique and diverse artists.
More Piracy yields Higher Prices, which yields More Piracy, which Yields... ,... which yields CDs that cost more than movies.
More Piracy yields Lower Revenue, which yields Cutbacks, which yields outsourcing your job to India.
More Piracy yields Lower Revenue, which yields executives looking for new income streams, which yields revenue models based on litigation, which yields the argument that Piracy lowers Revenue.
No argument here, you didn't say that... the heading did (poor wording on my part perhaps?). My point was if it had not been under the Suspension Calendar rule it would have been easier to pass, if that was the goal. Under the rule it was harder to pass, conversely, easier for one (either) party to block.
It was the democrats who stopped this, in this case. Under your premise, if a simple majority were required the bill would have passed the House. According to the heading, the voting was pretty much along party lines, so let's assume that simple majority vote was republican.
If only a simple majority was needed, the bill would have passed. Instead, the rules required a supermajority, which meant that it would need support from BOTH parties, not just the republican majority. Since the democrats apparently opposed it, that super-majority was not met, thereby blocking the bill by the democrats' action.
The supermajority requirement actually enabled the minority party to stop the bill, rather than make it impossible.
Is the call really free if you have to pay for wireless connectivity?
In the past my local phone calls were "free" by paying a monthly fee for service to connect my device (a phone) to the network (the telco switched network)
Today my long distance calls are "free" by paying a monthly fee to connect my radio device (labeled a cel-phone) to a wireless network of similar phones
Tomorrow my voice and data transmissions will be "free" by paying a monthly fee to connect my radio device (now labeled a computer or WiWhatever device) to a wireless network of similar devices.
Ah, but some will posit MUNICIPAL WiFi will make it "free"... Sorry, "Free" as in roads is still not "free as in beer". I will pay TaxMan then instead of the local TelCo or the regional ISP/CableCo or the national CelPhone provider.
There is no law that says that two companies in the same industry can't have the same abbreviation, and it's up to them to make sure they're differentiated from each other).
In other words, it's OK to say "Product X" if you're selling things made for Product X since you need to be able to describe your item and its design use to your buyers, but you can't use the product maker's logo or any manufacturer-designed or trademarked "made for product X" logos.
Too bad this didn't work for Lindows.
Come on, with the education listed in The Fine Article, can these people REALLY be that clueless?
Sure, it is possible to regulate radio equipment using OSS to use finer and finer pieces of spectrum. That's really irrelevant. If I decide I want to use 97.111 MHz for my open-source-audio-blog, and the local radio station wants to use 97.111 MHz for teeny-bop-around-the-clock and Motorola wants to use 97.111 MHz for emergency radios, who gets to use that frequency? The FCC's role is critical to keeping the airwaves organized and prioritized. No matter how thin you slice the bandwith someone has to make the call to say "you use 97.111 - you use 97.113 - you use 97.115".
The other piece the FCC provides is the concept of licensing for the sake of assigning priority on a frequency. If one party interferes with another, who wins? FCC defines those priorities clearly.
If the FCC were not there, any venture onto the airwaves would be a crap-shoot of whether anything is there or not, like SETI. With the FCC in place I know I will get teeny-bop-around-the clock at 97.1MHz, 2M Ham Radio at 146.720MHz, and if I run my RC car at 37MHz it won't interrupt my WiFi connection at 2.4GHz.
I'll bet the Nigerians heard about that Email Tracking Program Bill tested a few years ago. That would be really helpful in seeing who spammed and who got spammed along the way!
What are the chances it is just running OWA with a customized front-end?
That would make an awful lot of sense to just use their existing email server technology to re-launch their online email service.
Too much sense, maybe. Does Exchange scale to the degree HOTMAIL needs? (serious Q., not a troll)
I pointed out the apparent slant of a headline using a satirical form. One can satire a statement without indicating their personal agreement or disagreement. My comment was no more biased than the original posting. My point was that there is no "issue" here needing traction. I hear talk about how a potential justice would review Roe v Wade, but none about Microsoft v US Justice Dept. It's anecdotal at best.
On the personal attorney issue, I honestly don't know how I feel about that, since you brought it up.
The nominee's record is an interesting fact (I don't argue that it IS a fact) but no more significant in itself than "Bush court nominee used to be a lawyer for Apple, or Walmart, or Bob's Fish Market."
The fact that it is posted as "News for Nerds" or "Stuff that matters" on a site that is largely anti-microsoft, and where political discussions often lean to Bush-bashing, is almost meant to incite a Bush-bashing discussion, as demonstrated by the responses to the thread.
A former mail clerk in GWB's oil company once used Microsoft Windows to play minesweeper. Now that mail clerk is the Janitor at Google! Does this mean Google is evil?
I would rather have a central (neutral) authority guard over such systems that trust on a (not so neutral) country to allow me to use my domain
The UN is hardly a neutral body, in my opinion. Unless neutrality is defined as making resolutions and threats of enforcement and never following through on them.
I'd sooner hand control over to the Swiss, who have a much better track record of real neutrality.
Slashdot Mirror
Just down the hall from Research-Research / Development-Development
Basically the wireless is there because otherwise the laptop would be useless. Each laptop will have a very small and cheap hard drive (or flash memory?), and won't store much information. Instead, students will be able to share files easily, and the teacher will be able to send information to the students, without the need for expensive hardwired infrastructure. It also makes the "classroom" very portable.
If these have minimal storage on each unit, where do these files that they pick up from other machines (which themselves have minimal storage) get stored?
The concept still doesn't add up to me. Count me among the uneducated masses (do I qualify for a $100 laptop now?)
So... you're saying there should only be laws about sucking up, pandering, money grubbing, and backstabbing?
Can anyone say "Campaign Finance Reform"? They can't even write good legislation on the subjects mentioned.
I thought the reason for choosing to be a representative republic (rather than a pure democracy) was that the common man wasn't educated enough to make critical decisions. Oh wait - that's the electoral college. The congress was supposed to represent the interests and concerns of the public who elected them.
How did it get all backwards in 200 years??
Why is this moderated as Funny?
;)
You've not had the joy of licensing Oracle Enterprise Edition, have you? Trust me, the mod is fair.
Dell on AMD...
Apple on Intel...
Linux on SPARC...
What's Next? MS on Motorola?...
SCO on PowerPC?...
Armageddon?
I grew up in a rural area of a third world country. All communication infrastructure is bad. There were no phones, the roads bad and public transportation almost non existent.
Parent has a good point.
So, um, how does the UN propose to form this mesh of laptops with little to no wired or wireless infrastructure?
Wouldn't that divert the spaceship more than it would divert the asteroid?
Thanks for comin'. Please try again.
Not really. Companies exist because somebody had an idea that might earn money. The goal is to make money - nothing more. Non-profits may exist to serve the customer, but I don't see too many non-profit music vendors.
the point is: you are the consumer, you are king
No argument here. Given the Company's existence to make a profit, it only comes through some form of sales (ignoring profit models based on litigation or scams). If your product doesn't meet a customer desire at the price they are willing to pay - no sale... no income... no profit.
don't agree to any arrangement that makes you subject to something proprietary
Good advice. It ultimately leads to a choice:
1. Purchase the product and accept the terms.
2. Find another vendor with terms you accept.
3. If #2 is not possible, Do without.
4. Obtain the product illegally.
you pirate until the companies figure out that trying to own you is a turn off
Doesn't work. They end up sueing some poor sap (maybe not you) who they can get charges to stick to, and the settlement earns more than makes up for the sales lost to all piracy.The other problem with this... No income from legitimate sales means less variety in what they can offer. In the music industry example, Insteady of dying the companies focus on the biggest revenue artists, creating the lack of variety that those who opt for piracy often use as an argument.
Looking at it another way...
More Piracy yields Less Variety, which yields More Piracy, which Yields ... , ... which yields 5 copies of Brittany Spears, rather than 5 unique and diverse artists.
More Piracy yields Higher Prices, which yields More Piracy, which Yields ... , ... which yields CDs that cost more than movies.
More Piracy yields Lower Revenue, which yields Cutbacks, which yields outsourcing your job to India.
More Piracy yields Lower Revenue, which yields executives looking for new income streams, which yields revenue models based on litigation, which yields the argument that Piracy lowers Revenue.
No argument here, you didn't say that... the heading did (poor wording on my part perhaps?). My point was if it had not been under the Suspension Calendar rule it would have been easier to pass, if that was the goal. Under the rule it was harder to pass, conversely, easier for one (either) party to block.
It was the democrats who stopped this, in this case. Under your premise, if a simple majority were required the bill would have passed the House. According to the heading, the voting was pretty much along party lines, so let's assume that simple majority vote was republican.
If only a simple majority was needed, the bill would have passed. Instead, the rules required a supermajority, which meant that it would need support from BOTH parties, not just the republican majority. Since the democrats apparently opposed it, that super-majority was not met, thereby blocking the bill by the democrats' action.
The supermajority requirement actually enabled the minority party to stop the bill, rather than make it impossible.
In the past my local phone calls were "free" by paying a monthly fee for service to connect my device (a phone) to the network (the telco switched network)
Today my long distance calls are "free" by paying a monthly fee to connect my radio device (labeled a cel-phone) to a wireless network of similar phones
Tomorrow my voice and data transmissions will be "free" by paying a monthly fee to connect my radio device (now labeled a computer or WiWhatever device) to a wireless network of similar devices.
Ah, but some will posit MUNICIPAL WiFi will make it "free"... Sorry, "Free" as in roads is still not "free as in beer". I will pay TaxMan then instead of the local TelCo or the regional ISP/CableCo or the national CelPhone provider.
He's just bitter 'cuz the Dvorak keyboard setting on the Apple 2c didn't get wider adoption.
In other words, it's OK to say "Product X" if you're selling things made for Product X since you need to be able to describe your item and its design use to your buyers, but you can't use the product maker's logo or any manufacturer-designed or trademarked "made for product X" logos. Too bad this didn't work for Lindows.
Sure, it is possible to regulate radio equipment using OSS to use finer and finer pieces of spectrum. That's really irrelevant. If I decide I want to use 97.111 MHz for my open-source-audio-blog, and the local radio station wants to use 97.111 MHz for teeny-bop-around-the-clock and Motorola wants to use 97.111 MHz for emergency radios, who gets to use that frequency? The FCC's role is critical to keeping the airwaves organized and prioritized. No matter how thin you slice the bandwith someone has to make the call to say "you use 97.111 - you use 97.113 - you use 97.115".
The other piece the FCC provides is the concept of licensing for the sake of assigning priority on a frequency. If one party interferes with another, who wins? FCC defines those priorities clearly.
If the FCC were not there, any venture onto the airwaves would be a crap-shoot of whether anything is there or not, like SETI. With the FCC in place I know I will get teeny-bop-around-the clock at 97.1MHz, 2M Ham Radio at 146.720MHz, and if I run my RC car at 37MHz it won't interrupt my WiFi connection at 2.4GHz.
I predict the vision of voluntary music payments for entertainment will work as well as the shareware pay-if-you-like it concept.
I'll bet the Nigerians heard about that Email Tracking Program Bill tested a few years ago. That would be really helpful in seeing who spammed and who got spammed along the way!
Why, oh why are the threads pointless when I have mod points, and when I really want to mod up, I don't have points.
Grep for any form of l33t-speak.
The Internet... where men are men, women are men, and 14-year-old-girls are FBI agents. (-1, overused... but needed something for the lameness filter)
I still HAVE my 32MB hard disk. My first SCSI hand-me-down, so it was super cool and fast to use as a swap partition in my 486.
What are the chances it is just running OWA with a customized front-end?
That would make an awful lot of sense to just use their existing email server technology to re-launch their online email service.
Too much sense, maybe. Does Exchange scale to the degree HOTMAIL needs? (serious Q., not a troll)
men tend to buy beer and diapers at the time
Just FYI: this is a business school urban legend. The one about pop-tarts and approaching hurricanes is not.
Maybe so, but almost every Walmart supercenter I've been in has the beer and diapers close to each other, off the main isle.
On the personal attorney issue, I honestly don't know how I feel about that, since you brought it up.
The fact that it is posted as "News for Nerds" or "Stuff that matters" on a site that is largely anti-microsoft, and where political discussions often lean to Bush-bashing, is almost meant to incite a Bush-bashing discussion, as demonstrated by the responses to the thread.
CRISIS! DANGER!
A former mail clerk in GWB's oil company once used Microsoft Windows to play minesweeper. Now that mail clerk is the Janitor at Google! Does this mean Google is evil?
The UN is hardly a neutral body, in my opinion. Unless neutrality is defined as making resolutions and threats of enforcement and never following through on them.
I'd sooner hand control over to the Swiss, who have a much better track record of real neutrality.