I just read some of the comments in this tread, and it seems like the real fear is that ISPs will start demanding that content providers pay for perfered access to the "last mile". That is something I would oppose, unless they weren't allowed to call it the Internet, because it wouldn't be that anymore... if someone was trying to sell such a service, I think there would be a case for what ever agency takes care of advertising standards and consumer protection.
Although, I'm not convinced that more regulation is needed, existing laws and "market forces" might take care of things.
Originally I was all for net neutrality, but now I'm thinking differently about it (not because of this story, I haven't even bothered to RTFA):
I think multiple "cloud"s (you know, the cloud that represents the Internet on your network diagrams) are the next logical step for the commercial Internet. Currently, users and content providers pay for the amount of bandwidth they desire along the "last mile", but once data goes into the "cloud" all packets are equal. Now I don't understand why the government has to do anything, but if I were a network owner, I would build a second "cloud", faster than the first, and try to charge a premium to content providers to send their info into that "cloud" instead. This seems perfectly fair to me.
Now the problem is that the "public" Internet is largely run by private companies, and if they go build this second "cloud" maybe they'll neglect the first. But probably they won't. There will still be lots of groups who won't want to pay the tolls to send their data on through "express cloud".
I don't have a problem if this is what they want to do. But, if they want to take the existing "cloud" and start partitioning it, I wouldn't want to see that. Still, I'm not sure what I would like the government to actually do on this issue; nationalization wouldn't work (or be good), and regulation makes us dependant on the current players and politicizes the whole thing.
I think that when something gets regulated, the industry tends to become more concerned with complying with the regulations to make the government happy until the next time they can convince them to give them a better regulation deal, than they are about improving service for their customers. Regulation also seems to have the strange effect of allying the companies who should be competitors and making their customers their opposition. And then we expect the government to be a neutral third party and oppose a "fair" solution.
Anyway, so I guess I'd say let backbone owners do what they like to try to improve their business in competition with each other, and let content providers and consumers keep the owners in check with their dollars. I only see a need for the government in this if someone develops a monopoly, or some sort of collution starts going on.
"The point is this: leaks, crime, terrorism, etc. are a REQUIRED side effect of freedom. Americans will never get that, and will be happy to toss liberty away in order to prevent nebulous bad things from happening."
Very true, but I don't think that this only applies to Americans. Given the right circumstances this can (and has) happened in most (all) Western democracies (even if it was only a minority group that has been repressed).
People are always willing to make some sacrifices of freedom for added security, and when politians can get them whipped up about a particular threat they are willing to give up more (especially if they think they really aren't the ones who are losing freedom). I think it is wholely expected that Americans are trading in freedoms for security given 9/11 and the general trend in society to avoid any sacrifices or pain (especially on a personal level).
I wonder what the people will have to do to get these freedoms back once they decide they are no longer warrented by threats to their security? Of course, as I think we already see in many respects, the government will continue to tell the people that the next threat is even worse than the previous one, and they just need the people to give up a little more freedom. It really is like 1984.
"I would definitely reconsider purchasing the console if I could run linux on it and I think many other people would reconsider too. $599 isn't too bad for a console+linux PC."
- right on, I haven't had a console since my SNES. I've already decided to buy a Wii (they had me when they announced the virtual console and the rest is just bonus), but if I can use the PS3 as a desktop computer as well... that might be a great buy too... imagine, 2 consoles in my house.
Of course the PS3 would just be for running Linux... I can't imagine that would make Sony too happy... hey even better! Although that is probably the reason why the PS3 won't turn out to be a very good linux platform.
In Canada they are trying to get CIPS (Canadian Information Processing Society) up to speed with their ISP (Information Systems Professional) designation.
There are other things like that around the world too (I don't know about the US).
Still, while being an ISP might help you get a job, I think it is best if it remains that the only way you keep your job is to perform.
I can't bother RTFA; my own personal view of things makes me not want to be part of a union.
But larger than that, for a software developer (which is what I am) you usually don't need the company any more than it needs you, and often times it is the other way around. If I were to get "right-sized" and couldn't find any other work (which doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment) I could always start my own company. The barriers to entry in the software field are relatively low (just look at Google, or even Microsoft).
Unions have played an important role in society (although the value they add in the western world may be questioned at present), but that doesn't mean that just because some group of workers who is largely un-unionized needs to become unionized.
Early coverage seems to show that after Sony's belly flop yesterday, Nintendo hit a perfect 10 today.
I can't wait to read the reviews tomorrow after everyone has got to play the games!
When Nintendo anounced the virtual console last year, I starting thinking about buying my first console since my SNES (which I still have and play occationally).
Everything they've done since then has shown me they are serious about closing that deal.
Bringing lapsed gamers like me back into the market is just half their plan though, if they can get my mother gaming, or my grandma (that Joy of Painting game might be something she'd really enjoy - if it gets released) then they're going to blow Sony and MS out of the water. I don't even think the so-called "industry experts" have thought about the impact the addtion of lapsed, PC-only, and new gamers will have on the market. Sony may well keep 40-60% of the current market base, but if that market grows, I think it will all go to Nintendo... and there are significantly more non-gamers than gamers.
There would sure be a lot of people who would compain about loss of sovereignity, but it would probably* lead to a better system if there was an internation patent office, maybe run through the WTO, or completely independent.
*Good luck merging each countries patent laws... software patents alone... it could lead to a much worse system for those of us outside the US.
I think patent applicants already have to cover costs, even if they aren't successful. And while I don't think it is fair to force patent holders who lose their patents through this process to pay a fee, after all it is not their fault the the orginal clerk didn't do a good enough job, I think it would be important for there to be some sort of bounty paid out for tips leading to the revocation of patent rights.
That might make debunking bunk patents a viable career, and would help ensure this program actually gets used.
It might be that some large companies, whether there is a bounty paid out or not, would employ a few people as debunkers.
<naive type="hope> Just by making the whole system more accessable (and transparent) might make the system a whole lot fairer, at least in the long run. </naive>
level 11?
Nigel: "You see, most blokes will be playing at 10. You're on 10, all the way up, all the way up...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff...Eleven. One louder."
DiBergi: "Why don't you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number, and make that a little louder?"
Nigel (after taking a moment to let this sink in): "These go to 11."
thx spinal tap
When I read the headline I thought this was going to be a way to make VoIP'ing as seamless as a regular phone call, too bad its just another lame TLD.
But imagine how interested I was when I thought they were going to do something like this:
1. I buy a.tel TLD (say swanriversean.tel). 2. I get a hosting service that handles the trafic (this could be done by anyone, Skype, AT&T, MM&I (me, myself, and I), etc.). 3. Any VoIP user could call me using my domain name - it wouldn't matter what clients we use - the service providers could make sure it is properly briged (eventually, you would think, they'd all standardize on something). 4. This could be used for IM as well. 5. When you own a regular telephone or cellphone, you automatically get.tel so that the traditional phone system can link in easily. 6....
I'm still dreaming what a great service this could be!
Oh well, maybe I'll start a company... Does anyone want to pay me?
If people are confussed by Intel's naming convensions, and its causing problems for Intel's sales (say people are just buying AMD instead) then it is only what Intel deserved! They've been peddling the clock speed myth for years and so if it is starting to hurt their bottom line, they made the bed...
Anyway, based on recent talk from the company and Apple's switch, I'm sure the next metric they will be selling everyone on as being the only one to worry about is performance per watt. These awkward names may even be planned to make people forget about how clock speed used to be so important before they start the PPW campaign.
I wouldn't put it past a marketer.
an organic spaceship patch kit?
on
Space Lichens
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
FTA: "Lichens have a tough mineral coating that could shield them from UV rays. They are also made from individual organisms layered on top of one another, so outer layers may provide protection for underlying cells. The organisms have already been shown to be capable of withstand high levels of UV radiation on Earth."
This is interesting, I wonder how well they the outer layers could protect things below? Would it be possible to use some lichen in a pinch to make a repair to part of a ship? Could this be the poor mans self-replicating nano robot patch kit?
I have no idea about these things, just an interesting prospect, I think.
Maybe by not supporting ODF natively and suggesting that 3rd parties will provide the support, Microsoft is actually saving us from an embrace and extend attack on the format, at least for long enough for it to put down some roots.
3rd parties will have no interest other that making the best possible conversion / support software. Given that anyone getting this 3rd party software will be highly interested in it working, any quirks will be attributed to the add-on software or Office itself.
Of course I wouldn't want to go into that business only to have Mr. Gates decide that he missed another train, catch up by bundling it with Office and push me off to the sidelines with Netscape and RealPlayer. Although...:
create ODF add-on for Office
sell the product to some people and make back my costs
wait for Microsoft to add support directly to Office and undercut me with anti-competitive practices
???
Profit!
... Anyway, I think things will turn out for everyone. Microsoft may try to embrace and extend, but the world is a much different place than it was back in the mid 90s during the browser wars, I think they'll be watched very closely as soon as they actually itegrate ODF.
Slashdot Mirror
I just read some of the comments in this tread, and it seems like the real fear is that ISPs will start demanding that content providers pay for perfered access to the "last mile". That is something I would oppose, unless they weren't allowed to call it the Internet, because it wouldn't be that anymore ... if someone was trying to sell such a service, I think there would be a case for what ever agency takes care of advertising standards and consumer protection.
Although, I'm not convinced that more regulation is needed, existing laws and "market forces" might take care of things.
Originally I was all for net neutrality, but now I'm thinking differently about it (not because of this story, I haven't even bothered to RTFA):
I think multiple "cloud"s (you know, the cloud that represents the Internet on your network diagrams) are the next logical step for the commercial Internet. Currently, users and content providers pay for the amount of bandwidth they desire along the "last mile", but once data goes into the "cloud" all packets are equal. Now I don't understand why the government has to do anything, but if I were a network owner, I would build a second "cloud", faster than the first, and try to charge a premium to content providers to send their info into that "cloud" instead. This seems perfectly fair to me.
Now the problem is that the "public" Internet is largely run by private companies, and if they go build this second "cloud" maybe they'll neglect the first. But probably they won't. There will still be lots of groups who won't want to pay the tolls to send their data on through "express cloud".
I don't have a problem if this is what they want to do. But, if they want to take the existing "cloud" and start partitioning it, I wouldn't want to see that. Still, I'm not sure what I would like the government to actually do on this issue; nationalization wouldn't work (or be good), and regulation makes us dependant on the current players and politicizes the whole thing.
I think that when something gets regulated, the industry tends to become more concerned with complying with the regulations to make the government happy until the next time they can convince them to give them a better regulation deal, than they are about improving service for their customers. Regulation also seems to have the strange effect of allying the companies who should be competitors and making their customers their opposition. And then we expect the government to be a neutral third party and oppose a "fair" solution.
Anyway, so I guess I'd say let backbone owners do what they like to try to improve their business in competition with each other, and let content providers and consumers keep the owners in check with their dollars. I only see a need for the government in this if someone develops a monopoly, or some sort of collution starts going on.
"The point is this: leaks, crime, terrorism, etc. are a REQUIRED side effect of freedom. Americans will never get that, and will be happy to toss liberty away in order to prevent nebulous bad things from happening."
Very true, but I don't think that this only applies to Americans. Given the right circumstances this can (and has) happened in most (all) Western democracies (even if it was only a minority group that has been repressed).
People are always willing to make some sacrifices of freedom for added security, and when politians can get them whipped up about a particular threat they are willing to give up more (especially if they think they really aren't the ones who are losing freedom). I think it is wholely expected that Americans are trading in freedoms for security given 9/11 and the general trend in society to avoid any sacrifices or pain (especially on a personal level).
I wonder what the people will have to do to get these freedoms back once they decide they are no longer warrented by threats to their security? Of course, as I think we already see in many respects, the government will continue to tell the people that the next threat is even worse than the previous one, and they just need the people to give up a little more freedom. It really is like 1984.
"I would definitely reconsider purchasing the console if I could run linux on it and I think many other people would reconsider too. $599 isn't too bad for a console+linux PC."
... that might be a great buy too ... imagine, 2 consoles in my house.
... I can't imagine that would make Sony too happy ... hey even better! Although that is probably the reason why the PS3 won't turn out to be a very good linux platform.
- right on, I haven't had a console since my SNES. I've already decided to buy a Wii (they had me when they announced the virtual console and the rest is just bonus), but if I can use the PS3 as a desktop computer as well
Of course the PS3 would just be for running Linux
In Canada they are trying to get CIPS (Canadian Information Processing Society) up to speed with their ISP (Information Systems Professional) designation.
There are other things like that around the world too (I don't know about the US).
Still, while being an ISP might help you get a job, I think it is best if it remains that the only way you keep your job is to perform.
I can't bother RTFA; my own personal view of things makes me not want to be part of a union.
But larger than that, for a software developer (which is what I am) you usually don't need the company any more than it needs you, and often times it is the other way around. If I were to get "right-sized" and couldn't find any other work (which doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment) I could always start my own company. The barriers to entry in the software field are relatively low (just look at Google, or even Microsoft).
Unions have played an important role in society (although the value they add in the western world may be questioned at present), but that doesn't mean that just because some group of workers who is largely un-unionized needs to become unionized.
Early coverage seems to show that after Sony's belly flop yesterday, Nintendo hit a perfect 10 today.
... and there are significantly more non-gamers than gamers.
I can't wait to read the reviews tomorrow after everyone has got to play the games!
When Nintendo anounced the virtual console last year, I starting thinking about buying my first console since my SNES (which I still have and play occationally).
Everything they've done since then has shown me they are serious about closing that deal.
Bringing lapsed gamers like me back into the market is just half their plan though, if they can get my mother gaming, or my grandma (that Joy of Painting game might be something she'd really enjoy - if it gets released) then they're going to blow Sony and MS out of the water. I don't even think the so-called "industry experts" have thought about the impact the addtion of lapsed, PC-only, and new gamers will have on the market. Sony may well keep 40-60% of the current market base, but if that market grows, I think it will all go to Nintendo
There would sure be a lot of people who would compain about loss of sovereignity, but it would probably* lead to a better system if there was an internation patent office, maybe run through the WTO, or completely independent.
... software patents alone ... it could lead to a much worse system for those of us outside the US.
*Good luck merging each countries patent laws
I think patent applicants already have to cover costs, even if they aren't successful. And while I don't think it is fair to force patent holders who lose their patents through this process to pay a fee, after all it is not their fault the the orginal clerk didn't do a good enough job, I think it would be important for there to be some sort of bounty paid out for tips leading to the revocation of patent rights.
That might make debunking bunk patents a viable career, and would help ensure this program actually gets used.
It might be that some large companies, whether there is a bounty paid out or not, would employ a few people as debunkers.
<naive type="hope>
Just by making the whole system more accessable (and transparent) might make the system a whole lot fairer, at least in the long run.
</naive>
level 11? Nigel: "You see, most blokes will be playing at 10. You're on 10, all the way up, all the way up...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff...Eleven. One louder." DiBergi: "Why don't you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number, and make that a little louder?" Nigel (after taking a moment to let this sink in): "These go to 11." thx spinal tap
When I read the headline I thought this was going to be a way to make VoIP'ing as seamless as a regular phone call, too bad its just another lame TLD.
.tel TLD (say swanriversean.tel). .tel so that the traditional phone system can link in easily. ...
...
But imagine how interested I was when I thought they were going to do something like this:
1. I buy a
2. I get a hosting service that handles the trafic (this could be done by anyone, Skype, AT&T, MM&I (me, myself, and I), etc.).
3. Any VoIP user could call me using my domain name - it wouldn't matter what clients we use - the service providers could make sure it is properly briged (eventually, you would think, they'd all standardize on something).
4. This could be used for IM as well.
5. When you own a regular telephone or cellphone, you automatically get
6.
I'm still dreaming what a great service this could be!
Oh well, maybe I'll start a company
Does anyone want to pay me?
Yes, that is true (except for the M) at the moment, but as they announced earlier this year that is the next big thing they are working on.
Just wait, that will be the next way the brand their chips.
If people are confussed by Intel's naming convensions, and its causing problems for Intel's sales (say people are just buying AMD instead) then it is only what Intel deserved! They've been peddling the clock speed myth for years and so if it is starting to hurt their bottom line, they made the bed ...
Anyway, based on recent talk from the company and Apple's switch, I'm sure the next metric they will be selling everyone on as being the only one to worry about is performance per watt. These awkward names may even be planned to make people forget about how clock speed used to be so important before they start the PPW campaign.
I wouldn't put it past a marketer.
FTA:
"Lichens have a tough mineral coating that could shield them from UV rays. They are also made from individual organisms layered on top of one another, so outer layers may provide protection for underlying cells. The organisms have already been shown to be capable of withstand high levels of UV radiation on Earth."
This is interesting, I wonder how well they the outer layers could protect things below? Would it be possible to use some lichen in a pinch to make a repair to part of a ship? Could this be the poor mans self-replicating nano robot patch kit?
I have no idea about these things, just an interesting prospect, I think.
Maybe by not supporting ODF natively and suggesting that 3rd parties will provide the support, Microsoft is actually saving us from an embrace and extend attack on the format, at least for long enough for it to put down some roots.
3rd parties will have no interest other that making the best possible conversion / support software. Given that anyone getting this 3rd party software will be highly interested in it working, any quirks will be attributed to the add-on software or Office itself.
Of course I wouldn't want to go into that business only to have Mr. Gates decide that he missed another train, catch up by bundling it with Office and push me off to the sidelines with Netscape and RealPlayer. Although ...:
what about the unsinkable ship? no, not that one, this one