I use my internet connection to back up my computers at home. While that doesn't require 300gb every month, it does require a large amount of bandwidth. Also game companies are increasingly turning to digital distribution for games sales and video streaming from Netflix is more and more common. You might not need 300gb every month, but knowing that it's there if you need it is really important.
The issue is that metered internet doesn't encourage the ISPs to figure out how to decrease the cost of providing service or provide more bandwidth as they have a get out of jail free card for over promising their capacity. The major problem is that ISPs haven't been investing in their networks up until now, which is why I'm stuck paying $50 a month for 5mbps when Qwest my ISP charges similarly for a 40mbps connection in some other areas.
If it were a competitive market and there were some assurances that the money would be spent providing better service and upgrading the capacity, it might work, but this is the US, so you can pretty much bet that the money will be going to pay for a lavish lifestyle for the executives or increased payout to the shareholders for successfully figuring out how to rip off the customers even more than now.
That article doesn't say what you think it says. An understanding is not a license, and that's the point. Generally when there is a license that gets explicitly stated. You're quite literally the first person I've ever seen try to claim that Apple licensed the technology. It's not unusual for there to be some wheeling and dealing when it comes to IPOs, individual investors rarely if ever get in on the IPO because the assets are spoken for before they hit the market.
It's unlikely that Chrome will over take Firefox any time soon. Firefox just has too much of a lead and hasn't allowed the browser to stagnate the way that MS did with IE. The problem is that it's just not as good a browser over all as the competition. Google isn't leaving it as the minimalist browser that they started with, and as soon as they make a browser that has the sort of broad appeal that Firefox does, they're going to face the same challenges that Firefox does in pleasing the userbase. Additionally, Google has to be careful when competing given that they're also in related markets and could easily find themselves in antitrust territory if they're not careful. Not that it hasn't been willing to violate antitrust regulations in the past.
Additionally, with the way that the web has been evolving Javascript has been getting more and more important.
That was what I was wondering. Properly designed OOP should result in modular code that can readily be taken into a new program or modified. Sure, you don't have to program your Java using the objects and OO aspects of the language, but you could also write in C without the use of libraries or various defines as well, doesn't mean that it's fair to say that it's anti-modular though.
Everything? Anybody that claims the iPod is better than other MP3 players of the day hasn't ever actually used the competition. The organization system was ripped off of Creative who had both patented and implemented it before the iPod was released. Granted it's easier to just plug in a player to the USB port and move music over, but that is a trade off and results in the player having to search for new content every single time it turns on.
Xerox filed suit against Apple because Apple had never licensed anything related to PARC. The suit was largely in response to Apple suing MS so as to ensure that if Apple was able to win their case that the prime beneficiary would be Xerox. MS ended up winning which mooted the suit which was eventually dismissed. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation
That's either a bad controller or your OS isn't properly dealing with it. I had to get a utility to allow for it to work in Win XP. FreeBSD and Linux should allow for hotswapping with little trouble. Presumably that's changed with Vista or 7.
This is what I use when I need to hot swap an esata drive in XP. HotSwap!
That is true, but Firewire is less secure than USB2 is because it allows you to access the memory directly. Sure that does have advantages at times, but it means that you have to trust anything you plug into that port because it has the potential for doing weird things. I remember briefly messing around with that and I plugged a device into one computer and it didn't show up there, it showed up on the other computer, even though I didn't see any reason why it should.
But, if you did trust the device, firewire was great.
Because there's a huge mountain of materials that could be requested and much of it has to be reviewed before it's released. Some materials can be provided via a FOIA request but have to be redacted in order to be released.
The US bars and prosecutes people for cannibalism when it comes up, but in the past their have been societies that engaged in it from time to time as a part of the culture. I'm not sure if any still exist, but that's definitely a moral call and one that has the full force of law.
The relevant question is at what point it becomes reasonable for a government to regulate it or ban it or has to just deal with people having other morals.
Part of the issue is that the registrar for the.xxx TLD has neither the mandate nor the resources to ensure that the sites registered are legal sites. Meaning that the various sites feature consenting adults doing whatever freaky stuff the site features. If having a.xxx site provided some assurance that the materials were legal that might be a competitive advantage, at least in places where sex laws are serious business.
As it is the.XXX TLD is basically just a.com TLD for porn.
It's already easy to block the above board porn sites as they're already listed on the major web filter lists. They do it because it's not in their interest to have to deal with the additional charge backs that would occur, not to mention the extra regulatory attention that it would provide. If the industry voluntarily places itself on a filter list, that's that much less reason for congress to step in and mandate it.
Religion doesn't put people up to that, they do it on their own. Islam, Christianity and Buddhism in particular do not allow for that sort of behavior as a route to the goal. It's something which the ignorant amongst them do, and if you actually study up on the theological aspect it's really clear that such individuals are not in keeping with the religion.
One it's India, so unless you were saying that India would ban it it's not exactly what some people said. Secondly, I doubt very much that this really changes much because all reputable porn purveyors already voluntarily have themselves added to various blocking programs anyways. There's also the issue of the.xxx TLD not being compulsory, if that happens, then I think we need to really worry, at this point it's just optional.
Plus there are ways in which it could be useful for all parties involved, I just know better than to expect that level of discourse and negotiation.
It's fundamental different when it's an isolated incident versus the standard operating procedure. MS wouldn't be getting anywhere near as much crap if it was just one vulnerability from time to time as they now that it's pretty much every vulnerability.
Plus, MS doesn't typically admit screwing up for doing it either.
I'm guessing it's so that they can charge some sort of convenience fee for watching the same programming on a different device. And they might cut the commercials down by one per commercial break.
Aside from the DoD, the government really isn't spending too much money. The real issue is that they aren't taxing sufficiently to maintain a viable government without going into debt. Things like roads, schools, law enforcement and other things cost money, you can't continually to cut them without damaging or eliminating the tax base.
But, the other bit of it is that the voters reward the politicians that are willing to go into hock to start pointless wars and cut taxes for the rich and for corporations. We've got the money to pay, it's just that we're penny wise and pound foolish.
Plus, it's got basically nothing to do with government workers, they aren't the ones that pass these insane ideas or sign them, that's your politicians work.
The issue is that as super efficient vehicles and ones that use no gas at all become more popular, the wear and tear on the infrastructure doesn't magically disappear. Consequently, somebody has to pay tax to maintain the infrastructure.
The big problem with this is that it's too soon. We're no where near the point where the gas tax is high enough or the demand for electrics is great enough to justify such a move.
Arkansas presumably takes federal funds for the portions of interstate and some of the highways that are located there. Hence how the federal government can do it. Now, if there's a state which doesn't receive any funds for transportation from the federal government, then we can worry about this sort of hypothetical, but as long as the federal government has infrastructure in a given state, it has to be paid for in some fashion.
My main complaint about this is that it's too soon. At this point the number of electric vehicles and others that use a small enough amount of gas to be problematic are just not common enough to worry about. And given the amount of money we're spending to encourage it, this is counterproductive.
However, when they make up a bigger portion of the market or we no longer need to subsidize the sale, then would be the time to start making adjustments like this.
The problem is that they might think that they owned the device. Remember just because you were told you were paying to own something, doesn't mean you actually bought anything. Or at least that's what a lot of companies want you to believe. Consequently, why would they let you damage their property by modding it?
I kind of liked the Backflip, the only problem was that it was only available in a locked down form and the processing power was anemic. But in terms of the idea it was inspired.
That being said, AT&T ruined it sufficiently to make it mostly unusable with the processing power munching apps that you couldn't uninstall.
Slashdot Mirror
I use my internet connection to back up my computers at home. While that doesn't require 300gb every month, it does require a large amount of bandwidth. Also game companies are increasingly turning to digital distribution for games sales and video streaming from Netflix is more and more common. You might not need 300gb every month, but knowing that it's there if you need it is really important.
The issue is that metered internet doesn't encourage the ISPs to figure out how to decrease the cost of providing service or provide more bandwidth as they have a get out of jail free card for over promising their capacity. The major problem is that ISPs haven't been investing in their networks up until now, which is why I'm stuck paying $50 a month for 5mbps when Qwest my ISP charges similarly for a 40mbps connection in some other areas.
If it were a competitive market and there were some assurances that the money would be spent providing better service and upgrading the capacity, it might work, but this is the US, so you can pretty much bet that the money will be going to pay for a lavish lifestyle for the executives or increased payout to the shareholders for successfully figuring out how to rip off the customers even more than now.
You must be knew here. If it isn't literally in the US Constitution and mean what the poster wants it to mean it's clearly unconstitutional.
That article doesn't say what you think it says. An understanding is not a license, and that's the point. Generally when there is a license that gets explicitly stated. You're quite literally the first person I've ever seen try to claim that Apple licensed the technology. It's not unusual for there to be some wheeling and dealing when it comes to IPOs, individual investors rarely if ever get in on the IPO because the assets are spoken for before they hit the market.
It's unlikely that Chrome will over take Firefox any time soon. Firefox just has too much of a lead and hasn't allowed the browser to stagnate the way that MS did with IE. The problem is that it's just not as good a browser over all as the competition. Google isn't leaving it as the minimalist browser that they started with, and as soon as they make a browser that has the sort of broad appeal that Firefox does, they're going to face the same challenges that Firefox does in pleasing the userbase. Additionally, Google has to be careful when competing given that they're also in related markets and could easily find themselves in antitrust territory if they're not careful. Not that it hasn't been willing to violate antitrust regulations in the past.
Additionally, with the way that the web has been evolving Javascript has been getting more and more important.
That was what I was wondering. Properly designed OOP should result in modular code that can readily be taken into a new program or modified. Sure, you don't have to program your Java using the objects and OO aspects of the language, but you could also write in C without the use of libraries or various defines as well, doesn't mean that it's fair to say that it's anti-modular though.
Everything? Anybody that claims the iPod is better than other MP3 players of the day hasn't ever actually used the competition. The organization system was ripped off of Creative who had both patented and implemented it before the iPod was released. Granted it's easier to just plug in a player to the USB port and move music over, but that is a trade off and results in the player having to search for new content every single time it turns on.
Xerox filed suit against Apple because Apple had never licensed anything related to PARC. The suit was largely in response to Apple suing MS so as to ensure that if Apple was able to win their case that the prime beneficiary would be Xerox. MS ended up winning which mooted the suit which was eventually dismissed. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation
That's either a bad controller or your OS isn't properly dealing with it. I had to get a utility to allow for it to work in Win XP. FreeBSD and Linux should allow for hotswapping with little trouble. Presumably that's changed with Vista or 7.
This is what I use when I need to hot swap an esata drive in XP. HotSwap!
That is true, but Firewire is less secure than USB2 is because it allows you to access the memory directly. Sure that does have advantages at times, but it means that you have to trust anything you plug into that port because it has the potential for doing weird things. I remember briefly messing around with that and I plugged a device into one computer and it didn't show up there, it showed up on the other computer, even though I didn't see any reason why it should.
But, if you did trust the device, firewire was great.
Because there's a huge mountain of materials that could be requested and much of it has to be reviewed before it's released. Some materials can be provided via a FOIA request but have to be redacted in order to be released.
The US bars and prosecutes people for cannibalism when it comes up, but in the past their have been societies that engaged in it from time to time as a part of the culture. I'm not sure if any still exist, but that's definitely a moral call and one that has the full force of law.
The relevant question is at what point it becomes reasonable for a government to regulate it or ban it or has to just deal with people having other morals.
Part of the issue is that the registrar for the .xxx TLD has neither the mandate nor the resources to ensure that the sites registered are legal sites. Meaning that the various sites feature consenting adults doing whatever freaky stuff the site features. If having a .xxx site provided some assurance that the materials were legal that might be a competitive advantage, at least in places where sex laws are serious business.
As it is the .XXX TLD is basically just a .com TLD for porn.
It's already easy to block the above board porn sites as they're already listed on the major web filter lists. They do it because it's not in their interest to have to deal with the additional charge backs that would occur, not to mention the extra regulatory attention that it would provide. If the industry voluntarily places itself on a filter list, that's that much less reason for congress to step in and mandate it.
Religion doesn't put people up to that, they do it on their own. Islam, Christianity and Buddhism in particular do not allow for that sort of behavior as a route to the goal. It's something which the ignorant amongst them do, and if you actually study up on the theological aspect it's really clear that such individuals are not in keeping with the religion.
One it's India, so unless you were saying that India would ban it it's not exactly what some people said. Secondly, I doubt very much that this really changes much because all reputable porn purveyors already voluntarily have themselves added to various blocking programs anyways. There's also the issue of the .xxx TLD not being compulsory, if that happens, then I think we need to really worry, at this point it's just optional.
Plus there are ways in which it could be useful for all parties involved, I just know better than to expect that level of discourse and negotiation.
It's fundamental different when it's an isolated incident versus the standard operating procedure. MS wouldn't be getting anywhere near as much crap if it was just one vulnerability from time to time as they now that it's pretty much every vulnerability.
Plus, MS doesn't typically admit screwing up for doing it either.
I'm guessing it's so that they can charge some sort of convenience fee for watching the same programming on a different device. And they might cut the commercials down by one per commercial break.
Aside from the DoD, the government really isn't spending too much money. The real issue is that they aren't taxing sufficiently to maintain a viable government without going into debt. Things like roads, schools, law enforcement and other things cost money, you can't continually to cut them without damaging or eliminating the tax base.
But, the other bit of it is that the voters reward the politicians that are willing to go into hock to start pointless wars and cut taxes for the rich and for corporations. We've got the money to pay, it's just that we're penny wise and pound foolish.
Plus, it's got basically nothing to do with government workers, they aren't the ones that pass these insane ideas or sign them, that's your politicians work.
The issue is that as super efficient vehicles and ones that use no gas at all become more popular, the wear and tear on the infrastructure doesn't magically disappear. Consequently, somebody has to pay tax to maintain the infrastructure.
The big problem with this is that it's too soon. We're no where near the point where the gas tax is high enough or the demand for electrics is great enough to justify such a move.
Arkansas presumably takes federal funds for the portions of interstate and some of the highways that are located there. Hence how the federal government can do it. Now, if there's a state which doesn't receive any funds for transportation from the federal government, then we can worry about this sort of hypothetical, but as long as the federal government has infrastructure in a given state, it has to be paid for in some fashion.
My main complaint about this is that it's too soon. At this point the number of electric vehicles and others that use a small enough amount of gas to be problematic are just not common enough to worry about. And given the amount of money we're spending to encourage it, this is counterproductive.
However, when they make up a bigger portion of the market or we no longer need to subsidize the sale, then would be the time to start making adjustments like this.
The problem is that they might think that they owned the device. Remember just because you were told you were paying to own something, doesn't mean you actually bought anything. Or at least that's what a lot of companies want you to believe. Consequently, why would they let you damage their property by modding it?
I kind of liked the Backflip, the only problem was that it was only available in a locked down form and the processing power was anemic. But in terms of the idea it was inspired.
That being said, AT&T ruined it sufficiently to make it mostly unusable with the processing power munching apps that you couldn't uninstall.
Wouldn't that make a zero-friction liquid, superfluous?