But shouldn't VOIP users if they are technically savvy to use VOIP also be responsible and be sure that they can dial (ie have phone number handy) an emergency service?
The big VoIP providers are targeting Joe Averages now, not Slashdot regulars. Take a look at some of their recent ads: It's a phone, it just cost less!
Regarding 911, I think it is simply a logical presumption by most everyone that it will work, in the same way that you presume that when you slam the brakes on your car the wheels aren't going to pop off (I don't check the manual to ensure that the tires don't pop off when I buy a car). It only makes sense.
Telephone service is one of the most regulated industries, but it's also an unbelievably reliable and predictable infrastructure - how long of a phone outage have Slashdotters had? I don't believe I've ever had a minute of phone troubles (you know, apart from complaining that my 56K modem wouldn't connect at above 33.6): It just works. This is because the government mandates that it must, or else the provider will face sanctions and stiff penalties. Things like 911 simply must work. If VoIP providers can't do this, then they should advertise it as a novelty, and not as a credible replacement for the telephone.
When mankind establishes a colony on Mars, will you be there cleverly retoring "1950 called! They want their space colonies back!".
NetPCs are a great idea, they were just an idea before their time. Not only were there far fewer worthwhile internet services, but the internet world was far more fragmented than it is today (today I can browse 99% of the web will full functionality in Firefox. Then it was IE or the highway at most websites), and most thin PCs had shoddy, minimalist web clients that could barely manage.
If that's all you're doing with your PC, maybe thin-client computing is for you. I'm using mine in environments where...
Well congratulations to you. Would you like a biscuit?
Obviously power users aren't the target of this initiative, and nowhere did I say that this is a universal solution. However there are loads of casual computer users that use their PC to read emails, and to browse websites, and that's pretty much it. For these people it's a worthwhile simplification.
I think they envision a world where we can interact with discussion boards, access our banking information, send and receive emails, and even read newspapers, all through a thin client interact tool, which I believe they call a "web browser".
I, for one, look forward to this day when PCs don't need a swath of fixed-purpose thick-client software. Hopefully it happens within our lifetime.
Re:Can Microsoft even legally sell Windows in Cuba
on
Cuba Switching to Linux
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Microsoft obviously also has distributors outside the United States, and it's perfectly legal for them to sell to Cuba.
Or even Microsoft Canada. We don't buy into the isolationist argument up here, and we don't get our knickers bent out of shape trying to "prove" that communism doesn't work but undermining Cuba at every opportunity.
I personally used a 20+ sensor cyberglove on an SGI IR
Yeah, but did you use it on a chicken? I think all of you naysayers are missing the truly original, patent worthy use of this technology "...on a chicken".
I'm going to invent reading email "...on a chicken".
The main threats come either from dictatorships (think N. Korea) or terrorism. Neither kind of enemy can be deterred with nuclear weapons.
The propaganda has you believing that the leadership of North Korea is a bunch of nutbars that crave destruction, but I think reality has shown that to be entirely not the case: L'il Kim has been flexing his tiny muscles and showing off his paper maché nukes, all in hopes of averting an invasion (he started this after Gulf War I, and realizing that the US had the capability and the willpower to invade whoever they wanted). I think his actions clearly show that he has no death wish, nor does he want his little world threatened.
Terrorists, on the other hand, you can split into two camps - the suckers, and the leaders. The leaders do everything they can to remain alive: They have the normal fear of death that everyone has, and if they felt they could be located (the invasion of Afghanistan was a great war, by the way, in that it made known to the world that there is no sanctuary) they would do everything they can to avoid retaliation. The suckers you really can't do much about.
Well, the US textile and manufacture industries have seen a tremendous decline due to overseas competition (primarily China where it's a lot easier manufacturing if you don't have silly environmental or human rights laws to contend with). Perhaps they should protect these domestic industries by applying massive tarriffs on Chinese products.
It compresses text and HTML by up to 75%. Unfortunately, MP3, GIF, MPEG, and JPEG are already compressed, so it can't compress them at all!
Right, but you generally start "consuming" the content once the base HTML arrives - the rest fills in while you're reading. I don't sit waiting until the activity monitor stops before I start reading. This isn't going to help something like Flikr, but if I'm reading a large review it certainly will. My comments about speed aren't from a "gross throughput" perspective, they're from a usability of an average user perspective.
But Google aren't giving away free money, and they have no hope of simply doubling the speed of surfing just with software.
Two things:
Most sites are too lazy, or dumb, to enable gzip compression. GWA compresses such content, which reduces the size up to 75%.
Precaching - grabbing the next article in the web review for instance - can vastly speed up web navigation. Most users aren't endlessly clicking from link to link to link. Instead they follow a link, read some material, click next, and historically sit there, going flaccid, while waiting. Prefetching means that when you click next, the page is instantly available.
Even excluding mega-caching for sites on crappy servers (which can act as an anti-slashdotting), these two things alone can dramatically speed the user's experience. The Google Web Accelerator as it is today is imperfect, but it most certainly is a workable idea.
Can we please stop this crap cliche phrasing?! I know it works for the computer-not-so-literate, but stop this "We will blow your mind for $2.50" and just advertise real-life broadband connections.
He's talking about the Google Web Accelerator. It costs nothing, and is actually geared to users that already have a high speed connection. I have a smoking 5Mbps connection, and personally I find GWA pretty effective with a lot of sites.
No one can say who Bill said this to (you know, someone on the record), or even specifically when - that alone discredits the quote. It isn't "he said/she said" when there's no one else actually standing up and saying that Bill said this (well, apart from I'm sure a couple of whackjobs born in 85).
It's funny, no one seems to have any proof if it is true or not
It's impossible to disprove that Gates said it without specific attribution (e.g. interviewing witnesses to confirm or deny). Of course that isn't provided, and instead it's always been some vague, ethereal thing, sometimes attributed to a year, sometimes not.
The simple fact is that the quote never appeared in any credible journal until far later when it was "proof through repetition".
Ha ha ha! Too bad that Bill never actually said that, but the myth of ignorance pervades. (Wow, you found it on a webpage? It's GOTTA be true then!)
10 years from now I'm sure someone else will reference Bill Gates saying "The iPod is on the way out"
You mean like the cursory review by CmdrTaco here?
Let's face it - the iPod is not a special snowflake. It is yet another mp3 (aac) player in a sea of players. It is popular because it looks cute, and it has an air of cliquishness about it.
I guess that would also include all other forms of portable devices. Cigarette lighters replaced by cell phones...
Portable electronics devices, yes - there is somewhat more of an overlap between a PDA and an iPod than there is between a PDA and a cigarette lighter.
What Bill (yeah we're on a first name basis) is saying here is hardly a risky prediction - for instance the merging of cell phones and PDAs was an absolute no-brainer. PDAs and MP3s - well PDAs have been full featured MP3 players for years. Taking on the iPod has far more to do with cultishness and simplicity than it does technical capacity.
All powered by Microsoft Windows Mobile 5.0
OMG...the Chairman of Microsoft pushing the Microsoft option...what an outrage.
Has anyone ever done any reseach on how often Bill Gates has been right in his predictions?
Bill Gates is not a columnist for ZDNet - he's a large shareholder and chairman of Microsoft Corporation. Of course he's going to push, and probably believe, the Microsoft vision of things. This surprizes you?
Not to mention the fact that there is little guarantee that Microsoft will continue to be able to rake in the kind of money that they are currently pulling in.
Of course there is no guarantee - tomorrow OSX might come out for the x86, it's such a cult hit that everyone switches over, and Microsoft closes shop. Is that likely? Of course not. Is it possible? Sure. Back in the net revolution Microsoft was proclaimed down and out because they came to the party late, and then virtually overnight they became dominant. Microsoft tends to do these things in cycles.
Eventually MSFT investors are going to get tired of waiting for the growth to return and MSFT is going to drop like a rock.
Do you imagine that Microsoft stock is static, staying in the same hands it's always been in? Some old lady attending the holder's meetings to bitch and complain about the lack of advertising for Flight Sim 2004?
Well it isn't. About 1% of the shares change hands every day, moving from a pessimist that thinks we're all going to move to Linux, to a optimist that thinks that Microsoft is on the cusp of a golden era.
and Linux continues to gain marketshare
Boy we've been hearing that one for a long time. While Linux is a threat in the backoffice (moreso to other variants of UNIX), despite all of the "2001 is the year of Linux!" type proclamations Linux is barely a minute blip on most surveys (just checked on one major site where Linux accounts for 0.7% of visitors. Macs account for 2.5%). The great Linux ascension apparently keeps getting delayed a year.
The real threat that Microsoft faces, or at least their Windows platform, is from Apple - Apple has shown a brilliance at being able to understand, deliver, and market their products. If the whole OSX package were available on the x86, I think the operating system universe would be a lot more dynamic.
Hiring someone with no work experience is extremely risky.
This is pretty much what the article takes on - it proclaims that those grads who have demonstrated capabilities, such as through a small startup, get hired at top dollar (sometimes with a headcount acquisition, meaning a big hiring bonus).
Whoopeee. This is the great insight?
This is master of the obvious material here. The math whiz that finds a new way to factor ultra-large semiprimes will probably get a pretty good job off the bat too. University (and even high school) students have been creating businesses, often ultra small businesses, long before we had the interdweeb. Many of them earned some credibility, and when on to join the corporate world at a position much more senior than they would have otherwise.
Whoa. Nasty. Sounds like she's simply blown her career as a journalist for highly unethical behaviour.
I most certainly am not defending Maureen O'Gara, and in fact have never read her work before (and based upon descriptions I doubt I'd ever want to), however really I don't see how there's a great ethics element to this, and it seems that a lot of knee-jerking and disproportionate response because of people's attachment to Groklaw.
Here we have a purportedly very powerful and influential figure behind Groklaw, releasing a large amount of highly distributed commentary and information, working under the cloak of anonymity. It really doesn't seem that hard to believe that some people (such as SCO) might want to know who's behind the curtain (e.g. they find Sam Palmisano in his underwear, furiously pecking away at his keyboard).
I have seen drivers walk away from a roll over in a mini more often than any other car. The fact is that the mini was very solid. Most accidents just cause the mini to bounce off
Wouldn't you be a bit concerned seeing so many mini roll-overs?
Regarding the solid part - you don't WANT the car to be solid (50s cars were built solid, and they were kenetic coffins). You want it to absorb the impact, because the energy has to go somewhere (without putting the occupants through deadly G forces that would tear their head off their neck).
Today we see terrifying accidents where two cars hit head on at amazing amounts of speed, both cars are obliterated, yet somehow the occupants survived. Indeed, almost every traffic fatality these days is either due to grossly mismatched objects (a Honda Civic and a Ford Expedition, or a car and a tree), or idiots that don't wear their seatbelts. There is absolutely no question that today's cars are vastly safer.
The safest car on the road today is the SMART car
Well we have these here in the Toronto area, and they seem to be a bit of a hit (they're "cute", like the VW new beetle once was). I see that they got 3 out of 5 stars by the European safety agency, and that really is tough to fathom. There just doesn't seem to be any crumple zone.
as it is stylish now to bash open source in Slashdot now (because lot of Microsoft/Windows crowd joined recently years) and you will get certanly some mod points
Yeah, with a 4-digit UID I just learned about this Slashdot.org thing.
The remarkable thing, and I've encountered this quite a few times lately, is that the zealots can't read something without automatically trying to assign the writer to a camp (the followup talking about pro-Microsoft posters is just a frickin' riot. Pro-microsoft indeed) - You're either with us, or you're against us. I suppose Bush and pals made this sort of idiotic reasoning the norm (wait...does this make me a Democrat?).
Nothing I said was pro-closed source, or even anti-open source. It was specifically about the presumption of all-encompassing security in OSS projects (and for the other person that questioned whether people make these claims - they make it all the god damn time. Every article about IE faults, which appear on here quite prevalently, invariably includes lessons about why this would never have happened with OSS (or the equally funny "Well it happened, but it'll get fixed quick!". Ignore that people might have been exploiting it for months).
I have no expectation of converting the zealots, and I realize that many here are lost causes - unable to understand that there are grays, and every participant isn't a polarized nutcase.
Slashdot Mirror
But shouldn't VOIP users if they are technically savvy to use VOIP also be responsible and be sure that they can dial (ie have phone number handy) an emergency service?
The big VoIP providers are targeting Joe Averages now, not Slashdot regulars. Take a look at some of their recent ads: It's a phone, it just cost less!
Regarding 911, I think it is simply a logical presumption by most everyone that it will work, in the same way that you presume that when you slam the brakes on your car the wheels aren't going to pop off (I don't check the manual to ensure that the tires don't pop off when I buy a car). It only makes sense.
Telephone service is one of the most regulated industries, but it's also an unbelievably reliable and predictable infrastructure - how long of a phone outage have Slashdotters had? I don't believe I've ever had a minute of phone troubles (you know, apart from complaining that my 56K modem wouldn't connect at above 33.6): It just works. This is because the government mandates that it must, or else the provider will face sanctions and stiff penalties. Things like 911 simply must work. If VoIP providers can't do this, then they should advertise it as a novelty, and not as a credible replacement for the telephone.
1997 called. They want the NetPC back.
When mankind establishes a colony on Mars, will you be there cleverly retoring "1950 called! They want their space colonies back!".
NetPCs are a great idea, they were just an idea before their time. Not only were there far fewer worthwhile internet services, but the internet world was far more fragmented than it is today (today I can browse 99% of the web will full functionality in Firefox. Then it was IE or the highway at most websites), and most thin PCs had shoddy, minimalist web clients that could barely manage.
If that's all you're doing with your PC, maybe thin-client computing is for you. I'm using mine in environments where...
Well congratulations to you. Would you like a biscuit?
Obviously power users aren't the target of this initiative, and nowhere did I say that this is a universal solution. However there are loads of casual computer users that use their PC to read emails, and to browse websites, and that's pretty much it. For these people it's a worthwhile simplification.
Oh geez, thin clients again.
I think they envision a world where we can interact with discussion boards, access our banking information, send and receive emails, and even read newspapers, all through a thin client interact tool, which I believe they call a "web browser".
I, for one, look forward to this day when PCs don't need a swath of fixed-purpose thick-client software. Hopefully it happens within our lifetime.
Microsoft obviously also has distributors outside the United States, and it's perfectly legal for them to sell to Cuba.
Or even Microsoft Canada. We don't buy into the isolationist argument up here, and we don't get our knickers bent out of shape trying to "prove" that communism doesn't work but undermining Cuba at every opportunity.
I personally used a 20+ sensor cyberglove on an SGI IR
Yeah, but did you use it on a chicken? I think all of you naysayers are missing the truly original, patent worthy use of this technology "...on a chicken".
I'm going to invent reading email "...on a chicken".
The main threats come either from dictatorships (think N. Korea) or terrorism. Neither kind of enemy can be deterred with nuclear weapons.
The propaganda has you believing that the leadership of North Korea is a bunch of nutbars that crave destruction, but I think reality has shown that to be entirely not the case: L'il Kim has been flexing his tiny muscles and showing off his paper maché nukes, all in hopes of averting an invasion (he started this after Gulf War I, and realizing that the US had the capability and the willpower to invade whoever they wanted). I think his actions clearly show that he has no death wish, nor does he want his little world threatened.
Terrorists, on the other hand, you can split into two camps - the suckers, and the leaders. The leaders do everything they can to remain alive: They have the normal fear of death that everyone has, and if they felt they could be located (the invasion of Afghanistan was a great war, by the way, in that it made known to the world that there is no sanctuary) they would do everything they can to avoid retaliation. The suckers you really can't do much about.
Perfectly reasonable really.
Well, the US textile and manufacture industries have seen a tremendous decline due to overseas competition (primarily China where it's a lot easier manufacturing if you don't have silly environmental or human rights laws to contend with). Perhaps they should protect these domestic industries by applying massive tarriffs on Chinese products.
Ah man that was silly of me. You're right.
Well since the original was "1 to 10", that would really be 3 options (0, 1, 10) as 11 would be above the cutoff.
It compresses text and HTML by up to 75%. Unfortunately, MP3, GIF, MPEG, and JPEG are already compressed, so it can't compress them at all!
Right, but you generally start "consuming" the content once the base HTML arrives - the rest fills in while you're reading. I don't sit waiting until the activity monitor stops before I start reading. This isn't going to help something like Flikr, but if I'm reading a large review it certainly will. My comments about speed aren't from a "gross throughput" perspective, they're from a usability of an average user perspective.
Two things:
- Most sites are too lazy, or dumb, to enable gzip compression. GWA compresses such content, which reduces the size up to 75%.
- Precaching - grabbing the next article in the web review for instance - can vastly speed up web navigation. Most users aren't endlessly clicking from link to link to link. Instead they follow a link, read some material, click next, and historically sit there, going flaccid, while waiting. Prefetching means that when you click next, the page is instantly available.
Even excluding mega-caching for sites on crappy servers (which can act as an anti-slashdotting), these two things alone can dramatically speed the user's experience. The Google Web Accelerator as it is today is imperfect, but it most certainly is a workable idea.Can we please stop this crap cliche phrasing?! I know it works for the computer-not-so-literate, but stop this "We will blow your mind for $2.50" and just advertise real-life broadband connections.
He's talking about the Google Web Accelerator. It costs nothing, and is actually geared to users that already have a high speed connection. I have a smoking 5Mbps connection, and personally I find GWA pretty effective with a lot of sites.
Correction. Bill Gates claims he never said it.
No one can say who Bill said this to (you know, someone on the record), or even specifically when - that alone discredits the quote. It isn't "he said/she said" when there's no one else actually standing up and saying that Bill said this (well, apart from I'm sure a couple of whackjobs born in 85).
It's funny, no one seems to have any proof if it is true or not
It's impossible to disprove that Gates said it without specific attribution (e.g. interviewing witnesses to confirm or deny). Of course that isn't provided, and instead it's always been some vague, ethereal thing, sometimes attributed to a year, sometimes not.
The simple fact is that the quote never appeared in any credible journal until far later when it was "proof through repetition".
640k Should be enough for anybody
Ha ha ha! Too bad that Bill never actually said that, but the myth of ignorance pervades. (Wow, you found it on a webpage? It's GOTTA be true then!)
10 years from now I'm sure someone else will reference Bill Gates saying "The iPod is on the way out"
You mean like the cursory review by CmdrTaco here?
Let's face it - the iPod is not a special snowflake. It is yet another mp3 (aac) player in a sea of players. It is popular because it looks cute, and it has an air of cliquishness about it.
I guess that would also include all other forms of portable devices. Cigarette lighters replaced by cell phones...
Portable electronics devices, yes - there is somewhat more of an overlap between a PDA and an iPod than there is between a PDA and a cigarette lighter.
What Bill (yeah we're on a first name basis) is saying here is hardly a risky prediction - for instance the merging of cell phones and PDAs was an absolute no-brainer. PDAs and MP3s - well PDAs have been full featured MP3 players for years. Taking on the iPod has far more to do with cultishness and simplicity than it does technical capacity.
All powered by Microsoft Windows Mobile 5.0
OMG...the Chairman of Microsoft pushing the Microsoft option...what an outrage.
Has anyone ever done any reseach on how often Bill Gates has been right in his predictions?
Bill Gates is not a columnist for ZDNet - he's a large shareholder and chairman of Microsoft Corporation. Of course he's going to push, and probably believe, the Microsoft vision of things. This surprizes you?
Not to mention the fact that there is little guarantee that Microsoft will continue to be able to rake in the kind of money that they are currently pulling in.
Of course there is no guarantee - tomorrow OSX might come out for the x86, it's such a cult hit that everyone switches over, and Microsoft closes shop. Is that likely? Of course not. Is it possible? Sure. Back in the net revolution Microsoft was proclaimed down and out because they came to the party late, and then virtually overnight they became dominant. Microsoft tends to do these things in cycles.
Eventually MSFT investors are going to get tired of waiting for the growth to return and MSFT is going to drop like a rock.
Do you imagine that Microsoft stock is static, staying in the same hands it's always been in? Some old lady attending the holder's meetings to bitch and complain about the lack of advertising for Flight Sim 2004?
Well it isn't. About 1% of the shares change hands every day, moving from a pessimist that thinks we're all going to move to Linux, to a optimist that thinks that Microsoft is on the cusp of a golden era.
and Linux continues to gain marketshare
Boy we've been hearing that one for a long time. While Linux is a threat in the backoffice (moreso to other variants of UNIX), despite all of the "2001 is the year of Linux!" type proclamations Linux is barely a minute blip on most surveys (just checked on one major site where Linux accounts for 0.7% of visitors. Macs account for 2.5%). The great Linux ascension apparently keeps getting delayed a year.
The real threat that Microsoft faces, or at least their Windows platform, is from Apple - Apple has shown a brilliance at being able to understand, deliver, and market their products. If the whole OSX package were available on the x86, I think the operating system universe would be a lot more dynamic.
We've been doing the large-scale outsourcing thing for years, yet the average salary here in North America is actually starting to track up.
Hiring someone with no work experience is extremely risky.
This is pretty much what the article takes on - it proclaims that those grads who have demonstrated capabilities, such as through a small startup, get hired at top dollar (sometimes with a headcount acquisition, meaning a big hiring bonus).
Whoopeee. This is the great insight?
This is master of the obvious material here. The math whiz that finds a new way to factor ultra-large semiprimes will probably get a pretty good job off the bat too. University (and even high school) students have been creating businesses, often ultra small businesses, long before we had the interdweeb. Many of them earned some credibility, and when on to join the corporate world at a position much more senior than they would have otherwise.
Whoa. Nasty. Sounds like she's simply blown her career as a journalist for highly unethical behaviour.
I most certainly am not defending Maureen O'Gara, and in fact have never read her work before (and based upon descriptions I doubt I'd ever want to), however really I don't see how there's a great ethics element to this, and it seems that a lot of knee-jerking and disproportionate response because of people's attachment to Groklaw.
Here we have a purportedly very powerful and influential figure behind Groklaw, releasing a large amount of highly distributed commentary and information, working under the cloak of anonymity. It really doesn't seem that hard to believe that some people (such as SCO) might want to know who's behind the curtain (e.g. they find Sam Palmisano in his underwear, furiously pecking away at his keyboard).
I have seen drivers walk away from a roll over in a mini more often than any other car. The fact is that the mini was very solid. Most accidents just cause the mini to bounce off
Wouldn't you be a bit concerned seeing so many mini roll-overs?
Regarding the solid part - you don't WANT the car to be solid (50s cars were built solid, and they were kenetic coffins). You want it to absorb the impact, because the energy has to go somewhere (without putting the occupants through deadly G forces that would tear their head off their neck).
Today we see terrifying accidents where two cars hit head on at amazing amounts of speed, both cars are obliterated, yet somehow the occupants survived. Indeed, almost every traffic fatality these days is either due to grossly mismatched objects (a Honda Civic and a Ford Expedition, or a car and a tree), or idiots that don't wear their seatbelts. There is absolutely no question that today's cars are vastly safer.
The safest car on the road today is the SMART car
Well we have these here in the Toronto area, and they seem to be a bit of a hit (they're "cute", like the VW new beetle once was). I see that they got 3 out of 5 stars by the European safety agency, and that really is tough to fathom. There just doesn't seem to be any crumple zone.
Bah disregard my post I was being a dumbass again.
http://www.answers.com/duplicity&r=67
Of course, maybe that's what you meant...
as it is stylish now to bash open source in Slashdot now (because lot of Microsoft/Windows crowd joined recently years) and you will get certanly some mod points
Yeah, with a 4-digit UID I just learned about this Slashdot.org thing.
The remarkable thing, and I've encountered this quite a few times lately, is that the zealots can't read something without automatically trying to assign the writer to a camp (the followup talking about pro-Microsoft posters is just a frickin' riot. Pro-microsoft indeed) - You're either with us, or you're against us. I suppose Bush and pals made this sort of idiotic reasoning the norm (wait...does this make me a Democrat?).
Nothing I said was pro-closed source, or even anti-open source. It was specifically about the presumption of all-encompassing security in OSS projects (and for the other person that questioned whether people make these claims - they make it all the god damn time. Every article about IE faults, which appear on here quite prevalently, invariably includes lessons about why this would never have happened with OSS (or the equally funny "Well it happened, but it'll get fixed quick!". Ignore that people might have been exploiting it for months).
I have no expectation of converting the zealots, and I realize that many here are lost causes - unable to understand that there are grays, and every participant isn't a polarized nutcase.