...and spending more on headphones also has it's rewards - I recommend any headphones from Grado Labs http://www.gradolabs.com/ (and I dont make recommendations often).
The SR325 headphones I have are something special.
Do yourself a favour - check them out, including their "budget" models;)
Always preferred Crash myself (not that it matters much after 20+ years). I always dug the cover art by Oliver Frey (I think was his name) - he also did the "the terminal man" comic strip inside.
For a reminder...
http://www.crashonline.org.uk/
(FYI - I work onsite at Telcos and ISPs, designing and installing Customer Care and Billing systems)
This is basically wrong - I will try and explain, or at least give some examples...
"...In VoIP, the burden is already being paid for by the backbone ISPs who provide overseas network connections over their fat pipes."
Wrong - you pay for the network which you are running VoIP on. No Telco or ISP pays for you, because if they did they would be out of business.
The real difference between VoIP and POTS is the charging model:
> POTS is distance based
> VoIP is not distance based (VoIP is a free service, supported by an underlying packet switching network which is not distance charged).
This difference is the core of the paradigm shift that is taking place.
"A general rise in prices charged to ISPs will find their way down to the end subscriber and all those pennies saved using VoIP vanish in a puff of logic"
Rubbish - for loads of reasons, including...
Telcos are regulated, and exist in a competitive market - they cannot just hike the price of bandwidth to cover the loss in POTS revenue.
A large cost of POTS is having to individually price each call a customer makes, then invoice them, collect the money, provide call centres, provision switches...etc.
Broadband (which is driving VoIP) is a significantly simpler model, for example one fixed recurrent charge every month (and no complex infrastructure).
What is far more likely to happen is that the Telcos will either change voluntarily, or be brought out and forced to change, or go bust, be brought up at a yard sale, and change.
"Add to this that once consumer groups figure out that the burden of *your* high VoIP usage is borne by *all* subscribers, they will start demanding tiered service and your delightfully cheap long distance calls will suddenly be just as expensive as they were on the old POTS program"
This doesnt actually make any sense - A consumer group that lobbies for higher prices for everyone?
VoIP, at the most simple level, is not even detectable by the telco. They supply a broadband connection to you. What you do with it is up to you. Take a long hard look at Skype and their business model (www.Skype.com).
Also - what does it matter for you how much I am using VoIP, if you are paying a fixed monthly fee for your broadband?
I shall stop going on about this as I should be working. Here are some interesting articles which might help...
I would welcome such a scheme if I still had my car - I finally got rid of it about a month ago. Actually the council kindly stuck some "abandoned car" stickers on it, then towed it away a few weeks later, but that is another story:D
It was costing me 500 GBP per year to insure a 15 year old Ford Sierra for 3rd party fire and theft. The car was only worth a few hundred max.
I rarely drove it - maybe 500 miles a year.
Under these conditions, I would welcome only being charged for how far I drive.
"Am I the only one that sees this as buying out the competition?"
I am sure other people will share your view. However that doesnt make your view correct (or incorrect:D ).
For example, I can easily rewrite your comment...
"Let's see, some guy successfully beat us at selling a competitive O/S. Let's hire him so that never happens again."...in this way...
"Let's see, some guy successfully beat us at selling a competitive O/S. Lets hire him to sell our O/S."...and I think it is an equally valid possibility.
Same goes for...
"Let's hire him so that our C++ becomes the only stardard the world must follow."...becoming...
"Let's hire him to make our C++ standards compliant."
Finally, as one more thought - none of these options are mutually exclusive anyway. My guess is that the truth consists of a little of each.
...which I feel is the Middle Way in Buddhism. (For anyone who may not know or be able to work it out, Middle Way is simply to take a path between 2 extremes).
'he has "...been unable to find any record of a higher resolution photographic (i.e. non-scientific) digital image that has been created without resizing a smaller, lower resolution image or using an interpolated image."'
Uncanny that - perhaps its because we dont need them yet.
XML's reach extends beyond just websites. The business savvy amongst you will of course recognise its 2 major uses in projects...
1. "Extracting more money from the customer" - We must implement these system interfaces in XML.
2. "Protecting the money you have already extracted from the customer" - We have problems implementing these system interfaces in XML. This tactic can only be used once the customer is dependent on you.
LINE 1: Online, hostile environments are driving almost every social group other than techno-savvy young white men away from coherent public discussion of technology.
Not true. The other social groups just don't discuss it on the online, hostile environments you describe. Take my non-technical friends: They discuss it down the pub....and yes, they do it coherently!
LINE 2: These men are invariably smart and skilled, but almost unable to communicate civilly or tolerate disagreement or difference.
On what EVIDENCE is this sweeping statement based? I would guess that it is your perception. You are not, by your own admission, qualified to do this.
OK. So there are a number of issues with Internet voting, as noted in other posts here. But they are not impossible to overcome (IMHO).
So why are ALL governments dragging their heels on implementing this?
Well, the instant you have online voting, the next obvious question to ask is:
Hey, why don't we use this all the time, instead of just for elections?
Instant polling of the electorate's opinions would render large areas of Government redundant (or maybe obviously redundant *smiles*). Consider...
Ban abortion YES/NO
Invade Iraq YES/NO
The funniest aspect for me is wondering what the 4 million Sun readers in the UK would vote for. (For those who don't know, The Sun defines tabloid journalism in the UK).
Slashdot Mirror
The SR325 headphones I have are something special.
Do yourself a favour - check them out, including their "budget" models ;)
Brought to mind this link (which I originally saw on the front page of Joel on Software):
http://blogs.apress.com/archives/000449.php?author =gary_cornell/
Always preferred Crash myself (not that it matters much after 20+ years). I always dug the cover art by Oliver Frey (I think was his name) - he also did the "the terminal man" comic strip inside. For a reminder... http://www.crashonline.org.uk/
This is basically wrong - I will try and explain, or at least give some examples...
"...In VoIP, the burden is already being paid for by the backbone ISPs who provide overseas network connections over their fat pipes."
Wrong - you pay for the network which you are running VoIP on. No Telco or ISP pays for you, because if they did they would be out of business.
The real difference between VoIP and POTS is the charging model:
> POTS is distance based
> VoIP is not distance based (VoIP is a free service, supported by an underlying packet switching network which is not distance charged).
This difference is the core of the paradigm shift that is taking place.
"A general rise in prices charged to ISPs will find their way down to the end subscriber and all those pennies saved using VoIP vanish in a puff of logic"
Rubbish - for loads of reasons, including...
Telcos are regulated, and exist in a competitive market - they cannot just hike the price of bandwidth to cover the loss in POTS revenue.
A large cost of POTS is having to individually price each call a customer makes, then invoice them, collect the money, provide call centres, provision switches ...etc.
Broadband (which is driving VoIP) is a significantly simpler model, for example one fixed recurrent charge every month (and no complex infrastructure).
What is far more likely to happen is that the Telcos will either change voluntarily, or be brought out and forced to change, or go bust, be brought up at a yard sale, and change.
"Add to this that once consumer groups figure out that the burden of *your* high VoIP usage is borne by *all* subscribers, they will start demanding tiered service and your delightfully cheap long distance calls will suddenly be just as expensive as they were on the old POTS program"
This doesnt actually make any sense - A consumer group that lobbies for higher prices for everyone?
VoIP, at the most simple level, is not even detectable by the telco. They supply a broadband connection to you. What you do with it is up to you. Take a long hard look at Skype and their business model (www.Skype.com).
Also - what does it matter for you how much I am using VoIP, if you are paying a fixed monthly fee for your broadband?
I shall stop going on about this as I should be working. Here are some interesting articles which might help...
"Rise of the stupid network" by David Isenberg
http://www.hyperorg.com/misc/stupidnet.html
"Customer-owned Networks" by Clay Shirky
http://shirky.com/writings/zapmail.html
I would welcome such a scheme if I still had my car - I finally got rid of it about a month ago. Actually the council kindly stuck some "abandoned car" stickers on it, then towed it away a few weeks later, but that is another story :D
It was costing me 500 GBP per year to insure a 15 year old Ford Sierra for 3rd party fire and theft. The car was only worth a few hundred max.
I rarely drove it - maybe 500 miles a year.
Under these conditions, I would welcome only being charged for how far I drive.
"Am I the only one that sees this as buying out the competition?"
:D ).
...in this way...
...and I think it is an equally valid possibility.
...becoming...
I am sure other people will share your view. However that doesnt make your view correct (or incorrect
For example, I can easily rewrite your comment...
"Let's see, some guy successfully beat us at selling a competitive O/S. Let's hire him so that never happens again."
"Let's see, some guy successfully beat us at selling a competitive O/S. Lets hire him to sell our O/S."
Same goes for...
"Let's hire him so that our C++ becomes the only stardard the world must follow."
"Let's hire him to make our C++ standards compliant."
Finally, as one more thought - none of these options are mutually exclusive anyway. My guess is that the truth consists of a little of each.
...which I feel is the Middle Way in Buddhism. (For anyone who may not know or be able to work it out, Middle Way is simply to take a path between 2 extremes).
Mmmm - I recommend you drink less coffee, and perhaps ration your X-Files DVDs to the weekend only :D
'he has "...been unable to find any record of a higher resolution photographic (i.e. non-scientific) digital image that has been created without resizing a smaller, lower resolution image or using an interpolated image."' Uncanny that - perhaps its because we dont need them yet.
The most obvious ways to spot a "Delphi" application are:
1. It uses the Delphi SQL cursor when running a query.
2. It uses Delphi bitmaps, either on buttons or for application icons.
I would add TOAD to the list of Delphi products.
XML's reach extends beyond just websites. The business savvy amongst you will of course recognise its 2 major uses in projects...
:)
1. "Extracting more money from the customer" - We must implement these system interfaces in XML.
2. "Protecting the money you have already extracted from the customer" - We have problems implementing these system interfaces in XML. This tactic can only be used once the customer is dependent on you.
Fuck - I've become a jaded old bastard
Thanks - that really made me laugh!
(The only reason I include this poor attempt at humour is that I rather like the new light it shines on the rest of the post).
I'm sure the "abbos" dont!
The average length of womens skirts in the last 100 years or so follow (lead?) the economic climate.
He is the man.
I've had programs crash NT say in and day out. Were you only running Freecell?
Respect.
*dunk (sound of knuckle rapping lightly on forehead)*
Wake up Dude - We did nothing of the sort.
You don't need eyes to see, you need vision.
Respect...
JIM.
LINE 1: Online, hostile environments are driving almost every social group other than techno-savvy young white men away from coherent public discussion of technology.
Not true. The other social groups just don't discuss it on the online, hostile environments you describe. Take my non-technical friends: They discuss it down the pub. ...and yes, they do it coherently!
LINE 2: These men are invariably smart and skilled, but almost unable to communicate civilly or tolerate disagreement or difference.
On what EVIDENCE is this sweeping statement based? I would guess that it is your perception. You are not, by your own admission, qualified to do this.
I stopped reading after this!
So why are ALL governments dragging their heels on implementing this?
Well, the instant you have online voting, the next obvious question to ask is:
Hey, why don't we use this all the time, instead of just for elections?
Instant polling of the electorate's opinions would render large areas of Government redundant (or maybe obviously redundant *smiles*). Consider...
Ban abortion YES/NO
Invade Iraq YES/NO
The funniest aspect for me is wondering what the 4 million Sun readers in the UK would vote for. (For those who don't know, The Sun defines tabloid journalism in the UK).
whoa...
"Valkerie shot the food"
Lets hope they divide Bill into three pieces too.
...in space that is!