I agree with you on that, you might not be able to get an absolute perfect measure of reliability, but you can measure things like dropped calls, average through put, distance between towers and repair records, sure it's not perfect, but if you're doing those things better than the competition, I think that's a pretty reasonable way of demonstrating superior reliability.
Didn't you notice that they wanted speed excluded? You can get a "reliable" pretty much anywhere if you drop the speed requirement low enough. Being able to depend upon a reliable amount of bandwidth is definitely a part of reliability.
AT&T around here isn't going to be winning any reliability contests, but they seem to have a point in this case.
And don't forget that the shoulders are supposed to be available for emergency workers should there be a serious accident. The emergency crews can use the shoulder to get to the problem and possibly to move some of the stuck cars to get at the problem point if need be.
Filling the shoulder with people driving or worse having an accident causes so many problems.
That's what I'd like to know. This seems like one of those no duh studies where we discover that breaking the rules that everybody else is supposed to follow comes with benefits. What's next a study where we find out that pretending to be a war hero can get people chicks? Or how lying about how you conduct business gets you bailout dollars?
Except that in most cases there's a legitimate reason to reference the actions of the Bush Administration. For instance in this case the Bush administration consider anti-trust violations in an extremely narrow range which was virtually impossible to violate. And that's really how it's relevant to the topic at hand.
It's perfectly clear that the behavior of Apple with the apps store is damaging to consumers as they arbitrarily prevent users from buying or using free apps on their iPhone. And are refusing to allow users to download apps which might make the phone more useful to a minority of iPhone users.
I don't think the public, at least in the US, would be willing to accept a robot that could actually make its own decisions. We'll accept things that can choose how precisely to stay upright or how exactly to best handle air currents in flight, but much beyond that would tend to freak people out.
Sort of on top of that, I think there's a huge amount of work necessary to actually have a robot that can properly tackle a building fire.
It's not stupid, that's been pretty solid for sometime. Ever wonder why so few crackers target anything other than Windows? The smaller the segment of the market a bit of software takes up the smaller the reward for breaking it.
Benefits to monoculture? You mean the benefits to MS and Apple for not really having to properly compete with platforms that Adobe doesn't support? Or the benefit of being largely left to the mercy of a company whose software regularly crashes, freezes and randomly covers parts of the screen?
I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing any particular benefit to allowing a monoculture to develop. Sure you don't need millions of implementations, but it's kind of hard to justify trusting one company when they seem to care so little about the trouble they cause.
Capable? I'm sure they could, I just get the distinct feeling that they don't feel like doing it. Which would be fairly typical, MS for instance likes to get angry when people mention the fact that they've been taking months to patch a serious vulnerability. Admittedly you don't want a patch to cause another vulnerability, but how long does it really take to get a proper fix?
That's incorrect. It is carbon neutral if you hedge around pretty much everything except for the fuel itself. In this day and age you don't really get to do that, and for all forms of biofuel that I'm familiar with you end up putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere.
Now, one might quibble about whether the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere via production and distribution is substantial in size, but it is present and until somebody comes up with a way of dealing with that in a real concrete way it's still not carbon neutral.
Also I love how somebody modded me off topic for pointing out that biofuels are not carbon neutral by default that there's extra work and research that has to go into it to make it so.
So, you're one of those pirates that destroys the industry by not handing over the prote... er not buying CDs. How are they supposed to stay in business with you refusing to pay for their poorly recorded garbage?
Biofuels aren't carbon neutral, I'm not sure where you got that information from, but they aren't. You can potentially produce them in a way that minimizes the emissions, but as long as you're talking about burning them you're still emitting them.
Now, if we want to start using them as the basis for hydrogen fuel cells then you might see carbon neutral, but at that point you're involving a lot of technology that's not really even available. You'll notice that they're talking about producing things which are known to not be carbon neutral. The fact that you don't drill for it is not sufficient to make it green. It just means that you're not drilling for it.
They were better and then they sucked horribly, now they're getting better because there's some competition. You can argue all you like, but the fact of the matter is that they've wasted a huge amount of other people's money.
The sluggishness is definitely real, I definitely get far better performance elsewhere, you can claim otherwise, but unless you're willing to plunk down extra cash for utilities to tweak it or do that yourself it's definitely sluggish.
Also, that's not a valid way of measuring security problems, it actively encourages companies like MS to not patch things or to make massive patches of multiple things into a single patch. Of course Linux is going to have more updates, they've got things broken down to a much finer level, they can't patch all of those as service packs like MS does.
Perhaps you should go back to your job at MS and stop making things up.
That's the way it works, meta-modding gives you a somewhat increased chance of getting mod points, as does having people meta-mod the use of those mod points as being appropriate. And there's no particular penalty for mismetamodding or for skipping ones that you don't agree with. And somehow that results in trolls being given plenty of mod points, go figure.
Or course this'll probably be modded off topic for being a waste of time, which would be sort of ironic given the topic at hand.
It's not crazy, that sounds a lot like what happens to me around the TV aisle of stores, well before the digital switch I haven't been in one since, as well as certain stores that use those metal detector looking devices to check for tagged goods being snuck out of the store.
And yes, it's extremely uncomfortable to say the least. I'm personally somewhat skeptical though of Wi-Fi being high enough energy and plentiful enough to do that though.
I know I'll get modded troll or flamebait for pointing this out, but there is a very definite tendency for looks and smarts to go together. Despite stereotypes and Hollywood scripts to the contrary, good looks get one a better selection of dates and have a much better shot at not having to compromise. Hence the suggestion that's been made that we'll probably end up with a fork eventually between the good looking geniuses and everybody else. Admittedly that's highly theoretical and could definitely turn out wrong in many ways, but it's not exactly baseless either.
Also, humans mostly just seem stupider these days than in the past. It's mainly an issue of confirmation bias, we know more about the people living right now than in the past, we also don't have a full accounting for all the hidden genius that is likely around and we still don't necessarily have a good grip on the implications of the work people are doing right now. There's always been a huge number of incomprehensibly stupid people, it's just that most of the ones from the past have been forgotten and the ones from now we run into everywhere.
That's mostly unrelated. Height is primarily dictated by nutrition, not genetic factors. Facial features, symmetry and proportion are the primary driver of aesthetics. Height wasn't something that was that useful until relatively recently, in fact for a long time it was probably more of a liability than a benefit. Think about doorways, armor, the size of the target that a tall man represents and similar.
Plain was always a euphemism when you didn't want to appear to be callous. Realistically actual plain is what men settled for when they couldn't get beautiful and didn't want to settle for ugly. Sure that's probably sexist, but it's not like women are particularly known for giving us much else to go by.
Looks are always going to have a huge impact when the decisions about who to talk to are made without actually knowing the person and when there are too many options to investigate. Which is coincidentally probably the main reason why men tend to have the upper hand in dating, there is a very real first mover advantage.
It's easy to assume that the money wouldn't have been donated otherwise, but it's really hard to say for sure, and Gates' fortune is chump change compared with the many, many billions that have been lost to the products bugs, sluggishness and security problems.
The answer to your rhetorical question is definitely not. The only copies that would be seized in that situation would be any remaining books on shelves or in warehouses. The customers would still get to keep the copies as they didn't violate any laws. Which is a significant reason why this whole copyright infringement as theft argument is so dangerous. Under that line of reasoning the end users through no fault of their own are suddenly being accused of receiving stolen property when they aren't.
The logical extension of it would be going into people's private devices and stealing things back. Apology or no apology, this'll definitely hurt Amazon, at least in the tech familiar world. Yet another reason to avoid companies that use DRM in that sort of fashion. With any luck Apple and Valve have learned something from this and won't do it themselves ever.
Personally I'm probably not ever going to be affected by this sort of thing because I refuse to buy from companies that could reasonably do that sort of thing.
I've noticed that as well, I forget what site I was trying to go to, but it wasn't an infected site and firefox just wouldn't let me go there without changing settings that really shouldn't be changed.
A lot of this is the end user's fault, but there is significant culpability on those that run websites, it's wholly unacceptable that certificates will be filled out to cover www.example.com and not example.com and for them to be expired as frequently as there are. And probably worse than pretty much any of the certificate problems is that a huge number of sites allow cross site scripting but don't bother to inform the users which companies are allowed to do so or a convenient way of handling it.
It's not a crazy idea it's the logical extension to capitalism. If we're supposed to rely upon market forces to ensure us the best deal, then it follows that there needs to be somebody making sure that it's a balanced playing field.
Just because there's a lot of Libertarians and free market junkies that don't understand the system they're opining about does not mean that the assumptions work. A market run in that fashion will never serve the customers well because quite frankly it's not in the best interest of a company to serve its customers well. It's always more profitable to monopolize the market space and deliver the sheer minimum quality necessary to maintain. Theoretical arguments to the contrary just don't bear out in any sort of consistent or reliable fashion.
In this case, they're not being required to ship a competitors product, they're being forced to provide a fair playing field between the different web browsers. Having dealt with the consequences of MS' incompetent browser business for some time, I think that it's naive to say the least to suggest that it's been in the interest of really anybody else. As long as there are serious constraints to switching based upon the tying of IE into the OS, there's going to be a legitimate reason to demand that MS knock it off and level the playing field.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you on that, you might not be able to get an absolute perfect measure of reliability, but you can measure things like dropped calls, average through put, distance between towers and repair records, sure it's not perfect, but if you're doing those things better than the competition, I think that's a pretty reasonable way of demonstrating superior reliability.
Didn't you notice that they wanted speed excluded? You can get a "reliable" pretty much anywhere if you drop the speed requirement low enough. Being able to depend upon a reliable amount of bandwidth is definitely a part of reliability.
AT&T around here isn't going to be winning any reliability contests, but they seem to have a point in this case.
And don't forget that the shoulders are supposed to be available for emergency workers should there be a serious accident. The emergency crews can use the shoulder to get to the problem and possibly to move some of the stuck cars to get at the problem point if need be.
Filling the shoulder with people driving or worse having an accident causes so many problems.
That's what I'd like to know. This seems like one of those no duh studies where we discover that breaking the rules that everybody else is supposed to follow comes with benefits. What's next a study where we find out that pretending to be a war hero can get people chicks? Or how lying about how you conduct business gets you bailout dollars?
Except that in most cases there's a legitimate reason to reference the actions of the Bush Administration. For instance in this case the Bush administration consider anti-trust violations in an extremely narrow range which was virtually impossible to violate. And that's really how it's relevant to the topic at hand.
It's perfectly clear that the behavior of Apple with the apps store is damaging to consumers as they arbitrarily prevent users from buying or using free apps on their iPhone. And are refusing to allow users to download apps which might make the phone more useful to a minority of iPhone users.
My wife gave birth to one, you insensitive clod.
I don't think the public, at least in the US, would be willing to accept a robot that could actually make its own decisions. We'll accept things that can choose how precisely to stay upright or how exactly to best handle air currents in flight, but much beyond that would tend to freak people out.
Sort of on top of that, I think there's a huge amount of work necessary to actually have a robot that can properly tackle a building fire.
It's not stupid, that's been pretty solid for sometime. Ever wonder why so few crackers target anything other than Windows? The smaller the segment of the market a bit of software takes up the smaller the reward for breaking it.
Benefits to monoculture? You mean the benefits to MS and Apple for not really having to properly compete with platforms that Adobe doesn't support? Or the benefit of being largely left to the mercy of a company whose software regularly crashes, freezes and randomly covers parts of the screen?
I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing any particular benefit to allowing a monoculture to develop. Sure you don't need millions of implementations, but it's kind of hard to justify trusting one company when they seem to care so little about the trouble they cause.
Capable? I'm sure they could, I just get the distinct feeling that they don't feel like doing it. Which would be fairly typical, MS for instance likes to get angry when people mention the fact that they've been taking months to patch a serious vulnerability. Admittedly you don't want a patch to cause another vulnerability, but how long does it really take to get a proper fix?
That's incorrect. It is carbon neutral if you hedge around pretty much everything except for the fuel itself. In this day and age you don't really get to do that, and for all forms of biofuel that I'm familiar with you end up putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere.
Now, one might quibble about whether the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere via production and distribution is substantial in size, but it is present and until somebody comes up with a way of dealing with that in a real concrete way it's still not carbon neutral.
Also I love how somebody modded me off topic for pointing out that biofuels are not carbon neutral by default that there's extra work and research that has to go into it to make it so.
So, you're one of those pirates that destroys the industry by not handing over the prote... er not buying CDs. How are they supposed to stay in business with you refusing to pay for their poorly recorded garbage?
He's here. He just modded you funny.
Biofuels aren't carbon neutral, I'm not sure where you got that information from, but they aren't. You can potentially produce them in a way that minimizes the emissions, but as long as you're talking about burning them you're still emitting them.
Now, if we want to start using them as the basis for hydrogen fuel cells then you might see carbon neutral, but at that point you're involving a lot of technology that's not really even available. You'll notice that they're talking about producing things which are known to not be carbon neutral. The fact that you don't drill for it is not sufficient to make it green. It just means that you're not drilling for it.
They were better and then they sucked horribly, now they're getting better because there's some competition. You can argue all you like, but the fact of the matter is that they've wasted a huge amount of other people's money.
The sluggishness is definitely real, I definitely get far better performance elsewhere, you can claim otherwise, but unless you're willing to plunk down extra cash for utilities to tweak it or do that yourself it's definitely sluggish.
Also, that's not a valid way of measuring security problems, it actively encourages companies like MS to not patch things or to make massive patches of multiple things into a single patch. Of course Linux is going to have more updates, they've got things broken down to a much finer level, they can't patch all of those as service packs like MS does.
Perhaps you should go back to your job at MS and stop making things up.
Wait, they let you play rugby where you work? Are they hiring?
Or better still, meetings be limited to people that know nothing. Then you structure layoffs by people who spent the most time in meetings first.
That's the way it works, meta-modding gives you a somewhat increased chance of getting mod points, as does having people meta-mod the use of those mod points as being appropriate. And there's no particular penalty for mismetamodding or for skipping ones that you don't agree with. And somehow that results in trolls being given plenty of mod points, go figure.
Or course this'll probably be modded off topic for being a waste of time, which would be sort of ironic given the topic at hand.
It's not crazy, that sounds a lot like what happens to me around the TV aisle of stores, well before the digital switch I haven't been in one since, as well as certain stores that use those metal detector looking devices to check for tagged goods being snuck out of the store.
And yes, it's extremely uncomfortable to say the least. I'm personally somewhat skeptical though of Wi-Fi being high enough energy and plentiful enough to do that though.
I know I'll get modded troll or flamebait for pointing this out, but there is a very definite tendency for looks and smarts to go together. Despite stereotypes and Hollywood scripts to the contrary, good looks get one a better selection of dates and have a much better shot at not having to compromise. Hence the suggestion that's been made that we'll probably end up with a fork eventually between the good looking geniuses and everybody else. Admittedly that's highly theoretical and could definitely turn out wrong in many ways, but it's not exactly baseless either.
Also, humans mostly just seem stupider these days than in the past. It's mainly an issue of confirmation bias, we know more about the people living right now than in the past, we also don't have a full accounting for all the hidden genius that is likely around and we still don't necessarily have a good grip on the implications of the work people are doing right now. There's always been a huge number of incomprehensibly stupid people, it's just that most of the ones from the past have been forgotten and the ones from now we run into everywhere.
That's mostly unrelated. Height is primarily dictated by nutrition, not genetic factors. Facial features, symmetry and proportion are the primary driver of aesthetics. Height wasn't something that was that useful until relatively recently, in fact for a long time it was probably more of a liability than a benefit. Think about doorways, armor, the size of the target that a tall man represents and similar.
Plain was always a euphemism when you didn't want to appear to be callous. Realistically actual plain is what men settled for when they couldn't get beautiful and didn't want to settle for ugly. Sure that's probably sexist, but it's not like women are particularly known for giving us much else to go by.
Looks are always going to have a huge impact when the decisions about who to talk to are made without actually knowing the person and when there are too many options to investigate. Which is coincidentally probably the main reason why men tend to have the upper hand in dating, there is a very real first mover advantage.
It's easy to assume that the money wouldn't have been donated otherwise, but it's really hard to say for sure, and Gates' fortune is chump change compared with the many, many billions that have been lost to the products bugs, sluggishness and security problems.
The answer to your rhetorical question is definitely not. The only copies that would be seized in that situation would be any remaining books on shelves or in warehouses. The customers would still get to keep the copies as they didn't violate any laws. Which is a significant reason why this whole copyright infringement as theft argument is so dangerous. Under that line of reasoning the end users through no fault of their own are suddenly being accused of receiving stolen property when they aren't.
The logical extension of it would be going into people's private devices and stealing things back. Apology or no apology, this'll definitely hurt Amazon, at least in the tech familiar world. Yet another reason to avoid companies that use DRM in that sort of fashion. With any luck Apple and Valve have learned something from this and won't do it themselves ever.
Personally I'm probably not ever going to be affected by this sort of thing because I refuse to buy from companies that could reasonably do that sort of thing.
I've noticed that as well, I forget what site I was trying to go to, but it wasn't an infected site and firefox just wouldn't let me go there without changing settings that really shouldn't be changed.
A lot of this is the end user's fault, but there is significant culpability on those that run websites, it's wholly unacceptable that certificates will be filled out to cover www.example.com and not example.com and for them to be expired as frequently as there are. And probably worse than pretty much any of the certificate problems is that a huge number of sites allow cross site scripting but don't bother to inform the users which companies are allowed to do so or a convenient way of handling it.
It's not a crazy idea it's the logical extension to capitalism. If we're supposed to rely upon market forces to ensure us the best deal, then it follows that there needs to be somebody making sure that it's a balanced playing field.
Just because there's a lot of Libertarians and free market junkies that don't understand the system they're opining about does not mean that the assumptions work. A market run in that fashion will never serve the customers well because quite frankly it's not in the best interest of a company to serve its customers well. It's always more profitable to monopolize the market space and deliver the sheer minimum quality necessary to maintain. Theoretical arguments to the contrary just don't bear out in any sort of consistent or reliable fashion.
In this case, they're not being required to ship a competitors product, they're being forced to provide a fair playing field between the different web browsers. Having dealt with the consequences of MS' incompetent browser business for some time, I think that it's naive to say the least to suggest that it's been in the interest of really anybody else. As long as there are serious constraints to switching based upon the tying of IE into the OS, there's going to be a legitimate reason to demand that MS knock it off and level the playing field.