Nintendo's no longer just a "kiddy" company - their products are aimed at everyone, particularly non-gamers. Nintendo might not win the console wars, but they'll infiltrate the homes of everyone else.
I think their products have been aimed at everyone for a long time. Look how many NES' Nintendo shipped (over 60 million). Tetris on the Gameboy was HUGE! Nintendo sold over 100 million Gameboys. The original Mario Brothers was an arcade like game that worked with two players. Their products are not aimed at "non-gamers". Their products are designed to *create* gamers. Maybe not the gamers the "hardcore" or the "game industry" thinks of (M-rated of course), but gamers none-the-less.
Do we really need the government involved with this? I have fiber to my house. How can you get better than that? Verizon is spending a huge amount of money on their fiber network. AT&T is going about it in a slightly more conservative way. They are putting in fiber to the neighborhood. That seems like progress to me. I live in Los Angles, It is dense, but HUGE. Lots and lots of square mileage to cover. Rural areas will always be difficult, but eventually those areas will be covered also.
The office building I'm working in is now lit. We can get anywhere from 2mbit to 1000mbit service. I can subscribe to a point to point Ethernet connection to any other of the ISP's lit buildings. Pretty nice.
Could you publish the list of ISP's that cripple people's connections? That would be good information to know. I personally have not heard of any ISP's in the US that have completely cut off specific protocols. Lowering the priority of P2P connections doesn't count if the P2P app continues to function.
My understanding is that you only get the full document text search when the data is backed by a real SQLServer license. The person was looking for a full search solution. This is built into Alfresco.
SQLServer is per CAL even though the app is a web app.
SharePoint is $$$$. Try Alfresco. Alfresco can look like a file share (support SMB, DAV, FTP, etc). The indexing is built is and does not require a separate SQL Server license.
I have been making this point forever. There was an article years ago that stated that Yahoo! was only being charged for half of its Internet costs. In other words, only half of their traffic at the time travelled over a transit link. The other half of their traffic travelled over peering links to ISP's with large subscriber numbers. They wanted to get their content to eye balls in the least expensive and most efficient way. This should be normal business on the Internet. Transit links can cost serious money. If a large ISP can peer with a large content provider it save both parties lots of money.
So is this a violation of net neutrality rules? I certainly hope not! All traffic is being treated equally. If the ISP's transit link it being filled up with P2P traffic, it may seem to the user that Yahoo! is getting preferred treatment. Is it?
For all of you worrying that peering means that only large content providers like Yahoo! get quick access to users, note that large hosting companies also peer to ISP's. You don't have to be a large web site to take advantage of the peering.
I think they might be, otherwise they wouldn't need to block some numbers. They would be paying a flat fee. They blocked the numbers because those numbers are apparently costing them more than a normal number. Why?
Google Voice doesn't just receive calls, it also makes outgoing calls. The outgoing calls could be forwarded call or they could be initiated by the Google Voice user. The Google Voice user is make the call not only via their local provider, but by Google Voice's phone services. It would be like dialing a 10-XXX prefix and then a number. In this way, Google Voice is *exactly* like a 10-XXX long distance provider.
AT&T has been paying those fees. That's the problem. AT&T has to pay the fees because they are a phone company and a phone company *has* to connect those calls. Google is setting itself up as a phone company, but is excluding itself from the rules that phone companies have to play by. The reason there isn't "neutrality" on the phone network is because it really did cost more money to connect to different parts of the world. It wouldn't make sense for a phone company to charge back the same amount to connect the call from US to Canada or US to Moldova. If long distance companies couldn't charge differing rates then there would be parts of the world that be even farther behind in their communication networks.
AT&T is in a situation right now where they unleashed the iPhone on their wireless data network. Wouldn't it be better if they could classify the network traffic so they can mange the growth? Eventually they will have their network built out to support the devices, but until then, wouldn't better if you got some service rather than no service?
I just see issues with network neutrality over reaching. There are times where an ISP may have to mange their network and de-prioritize some types of traffic. Who is to say they can't do this as long as the classes of traffic are treated equally? What happens if an ISP just builds a separate network for traffic they want to prioritize. No QoS, just straight routing rules. Would this violate network neutrality? Yahoo does this all the time by direct peering their content network with consumer networks. They are able to bypass potential bottlenecks so that their traffic gets to end users fast. Would these peering agreements violate net neutrality?
The problem is that there are regulations for phone companies. These would have to be completely revamped for your idea to work. What is happening with Google is that they are thinking like you are. The problem is that Google has made themselves into a phone company, but don't want to play by phone company rules. They want to treat some phone numbers different than other numbers. A real phone company can't do that. They have to pay the charge back rules no matter what. They have to charge the customer as regulated by the utility commissions. AT&T wants Google to play by the same rules they have to.
This is similar to net neutrality. The difference is that the Internet has a flat rate model already. AT&T wants to be able to differentiate traffic if they need to, but Google says that they should have to handle all traffic the same way. Okay, fine, then Google must handle all phone traffic the same way.
The FCC could fix this by changing how "long distance" companies that terminate domestically charge back the phone company. I don't know what this would look like though.
I talked to someone that has been in the audio text business (aka 976 or 900 numbers) for years. He explained how this works.
The ability to make money on a number and charge it to the phone company goes back to old traditions in how phone systems work. When your phone company cannot connect a call directly they pay another company to do it for them. For example, if you called another country and your phone company did not operate in that area, your company would pay the company operating in that area to route the call. The company that completed the call would charge back to your phone company. Your phone company would charge a rate that would generally cover those charges. Since everyone was paying per/min it was pretty easy to figure out rates. As more and more long distance companies popped up over the years this tradition continued.
What audio text businesses discovered is that they could register themselves as long distance companies and terminate calls in their down systems (no real routing was happening). The numbers were non-explicit chat lines or up-sell ads to adult numbers. They could *still* make money even if the person never uses the 900 adult content number they are upselling.. As it has become easier and easier to purchase equipment to qualify as a long distance carrier people have setup "free" services. Many times these companies are heavily into the audio text business and the "free" services are simply a more "legitimate" way to make money.
As you can see, this can start to become a big problem for companies that sell flat rate service for domestic calls. The calls are terminating within what would normally be a local call, but the audio text company is charging back a fee that would normally be associated with calling a third world nation with limited phone services.
AT&T does have some what of a point. Google is treating some numbers differently than others.
Palm traditionally has let any program from any source run on their OS's. The initial restriction of only allowing programs installed via their app store is Apple thinking, not traditional Palm thinking.
They spent all that money to make all the awesome graphics for a game that many people play once and sell it back to Gamestop. Then the publisher complains about used game sales.
If game companies made games that last as long as say, Pac-man or Super Mario Brothers, then people will not only willing pay $60, but they will hang on to the game forever.
A timeless game is well worth $45 or more. I have been finding old GBA carts that are selling for more than $45 if they are in good condition. Many of the "hardcore" games on modern systems are not nearly worth that price point. Wait a year and you will see how much the game is *really* worth.
It is amusing that game companies want to shut down used game sales. Maybe they should work on making timeless games with good content.
I dunno about that. I would be interested to see the Gamestop sell back stats on the Wii (especially Nintendo titles) compared to the hardcore consoles. Many "hardcore" games are like movies and have limited replay value, so people sell them back. They sell them back at such a rate that the publishers are complaining about it. The publishers want to shut down used sales. It doesn't take very long for the new/unopened version to drop in price from $60 to $50, $40, or $30. A game like Punch Out has huge value to the casual gamer since the game has unlimited replay value.
Originally Palm did *NOT* identify the Pre as an Apple. It only identified itself as a particular iPod. A nice clean hack that people on slashdot.org should appreciate!
They did write their own software. The software resides in the Pre and it parses the iPod DB files. Are you saying that any program that parses iPod DB files is wrong?
This is slashdot.org! I really don't understand why people don't see this as the awesome clean hack that it is! The user is not required to install any software and the device works on Windows iTunes and MacOS iTunes or any 3rd party iPod management software. The hack uses an inherit feature of the Linux gadgetfs. Until Apple checked for the Vendor ID, all Palm had to do was spoof the Device ID. To the user, it is no different than running their own iPod management software since the Pre and the management software both manipulate the iPod DB files directly.
All Apple is refusing to do for Palm is let them integrate Pre into the main iTunes application. That would require Apple to publish and maintain a plug-in API for iTunes which would cost Apple money. Why should they?
That is not the issue. Palm does not touch Apple's API in any way. The Pre doesn't touch any iTunes file at all! Instead the Pre tells iTunes that it is an older iPod. iTunes copies over the files and the Pre reads them. Simple, clean, and no extra installation for the user! Is Apple really going to break the DB files on all their old iPods? That would require them to re-fresh all the firmware across their entire line of iPods.
I hope you never, ever have used a program that imports songs from an iPod. That program is doing basically the same thing the Pre is doing internally. I bet quite a few people would be pissed if their 3rd party iPod management program that has been working since forever broke because Apple is trying to prove something with Palm.
Some people have written programs that manipulate the DB files on the iPods directly (this is what the Pre does). They do this so they can import files from the iPod or other tasks. Are these programs wrong because they bypass Apple's intended use for the iPod?
Slashdot Mirror
I think their products have been aimed at everyone for a long time. Look how many NES' Nintendo shipped (over 60 million). Tetris on the Gameboy was HUGE! Nintendo sold over 100 million Gameboys. The original Mario Brothers was an arcade like game that worked with two players. Their products are not aimed at "non-gamers". Their products are designed to *create* gamers. Maybe not the gamers the "hardcore" or the "game industry" thinks of (M-rated of course), but gamers none-the-less.
Do we really need the government involved with this? I have fiber to my house. How can you get better than that? Verizon is spending a huge amount of money on their fiber network. AT&T is going about it in a slightly more conservative way. They are putting in fiber to the neighborhood. That seems like progress to me. I live in Los Angles, It is dense, but HUGE. Lots and lots of square mileage to cover. Rural areas will always be difficult, but eventually those areas will be covered also.
The office building I'm working in is now lit. We can get anywhere from 2mbit to 1000mbit service. I can subscribe to a point to point Ethernet connection to any other of the ISP's lit buildings. Pretty nice.
I think that had more to do with a company hired by movie studios to kill P2P networks.
Could you publish the list of ISP's that cripple people's connections? That would be good information to know. I personally have not heard of any ISP's in the US that have completely cut off specific protocols. Lowering the priority of P2P connections doesn't count if the P2P app continues to function.
My understanding is that you only get the full document text search when the data is backed by a real SQLServer license. The person was looking for a full search solution. This is built into Alfresco.
SQLServer is per CAL even though the app is a web app.
SharePoint is $$$$. Try Alfresco. Alfresco can look like a file share (support SMB, DAV, FTP, etc). The indexing is built is and does not require a separate SQL Server license.
I have been making this point forever. There was an article years ago that stated that Yahoo! was only being charged for half of its Internet costs. In other words, only half of their traffic at the time travelled over a transit link. The other half of their traffic travelled over peering links to ISP's with large subscriber numbers. They wanted to get their content to eye balls in the least expensive and most efficient way. This should be normal business on the Internet. Transit links can cost serious money. If a large ISP can peer with a large content provider it save both parties lots of money. So is this a violation of net neutrality rules? I certainly hope not! All traffic is being treated equally. If the ISP's transit link it being filled up with P2P traffic, it may seem to the user that Yahoo! is getting preferred treatment. Is it? For all of you worrying that peering means that only large content providers like Yahoo! get quick access to users, note that large hosting companies also peer to ISP's. You don't have to be a large web site to take advantage of the peering.
Apparently I should have left off the last 't' in text. It should have been spelled audiotex:
audiotex
I think they might be, otherwise they wouldn't need to block some numbers. They would be paying a flat fee. They blocked the numbers because those numbers are apparently costing them more than a normal number. Why?
Google Voice doesn't just receive calls, it also makes outgoing calls. The outgoing calls could be forwarded call or they could be initiated by the Google Voice user. The Google Voice user is make the call not only via their local provider, but by Google Voice's phone services. It would be like dialing a 10-XXX prefix and then a number. In this way, Google Voice is *exactly* like a 10-XXX long distance provider.
AT&T has been paying those fees. That's the problem. AT&T has to pay the fees because they are a phone company and a phone company *has* to connect those calls. Google is setting itself up as a phone company, but is excluding itself from the rules that phone companies have to play by. The reason there isn't "neutrality" on the phone network is because it really did cost more money to connect to different parts of the world. It wouldn't make sense for a phone company to charge back the same amount to connect the call from US to Canada or US to Moldova. If long distance companies couldn't charge differing rates then there would be parts of the world that be even farther behind in their communication networks.
AT&T is in a situation right now where they unleashed the iPhone on their wireless data network. Wouldn't it be better if they could classify the network traffic so they can mange the growth? Eventually they will have their network built out to support the devices, but until then, wouldn't better if you got some service rather than no service?
I just see issues with network neutrality over reaching. There are times where an ISP may have to mange their network and de-prioritize some types of traffic. Who is to say they can't do this as long as the classes of traffic are treated equally? What happens if an ISP just builds a separate network for traffic they want to prioritize. No QoS, just straight routing rules. Would this violate network neutrality? Yahoo does this all the time by direct peering their content network with consumer networks. They are able to bypass potential bottlenecks so that their traffic gets to end users fast. Would these peering agreements violate net neutrality?
The problem is that there are regulations for phone companies. These would have to be completely revamped for your idea to work. What is happening with Google is that they are thinking like you are. The problem is that Google has made themselves into a phone company, but don't want to play by phone company rules. They want to treat some phone numbers different than other numbers. A real phone company can't do that. They have to pay the charge back rules no matter what. They have to charge the customer as regulated by the utility commissions. AT&T wants Google to play by the same rules they have to.
This is similar to net neutrality. The difference is that the Internet has a flat rate model already. AT&T wants to be able to differentiate traffic if they need to, but Google says that they should have to handle all traffic the same way. Okay, fine, then Google must handle all phone traffic the same way.
The FCC could fix this by changing how "long distance" companies that terminate domestically charge back the phone company. I don't know what this would look like though.
I talked to someone that has been in the audio text business (aka 976 or 900 numbers) for years. He explained how this works.
The ability to make money on a number and charge it to the phone company goes back to old traditions in how phone systems work. When your phone company cannot connect a call directly they pay another company to do it for them. For example, if you called another country and your phone company did not operate in that area, your company would pay the company operating in that area to route the call. The company that completed the call would charge back to your phone company. Your phone company would charge a rate that would generally cover those charges. Since everyone was paying per/min it was pretty easy to figure out rates. As more and more long distance companies popped up over the years this tradition continued.
What audio text businesses discovered is that they could register themselves as long distance companies and terminate calls in their down systems (no real routing was happening). The numbers were non-explicit chat lines or up-sell ads to adult numbers. They could *still* make money even if the person never uses the 900 adult content number they are upselling.. As it has become easier and easier to purchase equipment to qualify as a long distance carrier people have setup "free" services. Many times these companies are heavily into the audio text business and the "free" services are simply a more "legitimate" way to make money.
As you can see, this can start to become a big problem for companies that sell flat rate service for domestic calls. The calls are terminating within what would normally be a local call, but the audio text company is charging back a fee that would normally be associated with calling a third world nation with limited phone services.
AT&T does have some what of a point. Google is treating some numbers differently than others.
Palm traditionally has let any program from any source run on their OS's. The initial restriction of only allowing programs installed via their app store is Apple thinking, not traditional Palm thinking.
He did succeed, we just call his wireless electricity "radio" and we measure it in microvolts.
They spent all that money to make all the awesome graphics for a game that many people play once and sell it back to Gamestop. Then the publisher complains about used game sales.
If game companies made games that last as long as say, Pac-man or Super Mario Brothers, then people will not only willing pay $60, but they will hang on to the game forever.
Trent Reznor gets it: Joystiq interviews Trent Reznor
Trent Reznor feels the same way about many games these days: Joystiq interviews Trent Reznor
A timeless game is well worth $45 or more. I have been finding old GBA carts that are selling for more than $45 if they are in good condition. Many of the "hardcore" games on modern systems are not nearly worth that price point. Wait a year and you will see how much the game is *really* worth.
It is amusing that game companies want to shut down used game sales. Maybe they should work on making timeless games with good content.
I dunno about that. I would be interested to see the Gamestop sell back stats on the Wii (especially Nintendo titles) compared to the hardcore consoles. Many "hardcore" games are like movies and have limited replay value, so people sell them back. They sell them back at such a rate that the publishers are complaining about it. The publishers want to shut down used sales. It doesn't take very long for the new/unopened version to drop in price from $60 to $50, $40, or $30. A game like Punch Out has huge value to the casual gamer since the game has unlimited replay value.
Originally Palm did *NOT* identify the Pre as an Apple. It only identified itself as a particular iPod. A nice clean hack that people on slashdot.org should appreciate!
They did write their own software. The software resides in the Pre and it parses the iPod DB files. Are you saying that any program that parses iPod DB files is wrong?
This is slashdot.org! I really don't understand why people don't see this as the awesome clean hack that it is! The user is not required to install any software and the device works on Windows iTunes and MacOS iTunes or any 3rd party iPod management software. The hack uses an inherit feature of the Linux gadgetfs. Until Apple checked for the Vendor ID, all Palm had to do was spoof the Device ID. To the user, it is no different than running their own iPod management software since the Pre and the management software both manipulate the iPod DB files directly.
Palm's device would have continued to work fine with no effort from Apple.
Exactly! And Palm wouldn't have had to spoof the Vendor ID, just the Device ID.
The only reason they had to use the Vendor ID is because Apple changed iTunes so that it doesn't accept the DeviceID anymore.
All Apple is refusing to do for Palm is let them integrate Pre into the main iTunes application. That would require Apple to publish and maintain a plug-in API for iTunes which would cost Apple money. Why should they?
That is not the issue. Palm does not touch Apple's API in any way. The Pre doesn't touch any iTunes file at all! Instead the Pre tells iTunes that it is an older iPod. iTunes copies over the files and the Pre reads them. Simple, clean, and no extra installation for the user! Is Apple really going to break the DB files on all their old iPods? That would require them to re-fresh all the firmware across their entire line of iPods.
I hope you never, ever have used a program that imports songs from an iPod. That program is doing basically the same thing the Pre is doing internally. I bet quite a few people would be pissed if their 3rd party iPod management program that has been working since forever broke because Apple is trying to prove something with Palm.
Some people have written programs that manipulate the DB files on the iPods directly (this is what the Pre does). They do this so they can import files from the iPod or other tasks. Are these programs wrong because they bypass Apple's intended use for the iPod?
So you're saying it is a self-selecting group? I can buy that.