The bigger issue though is that with the Chinese blowing up satellites to puff up their defense it's gotten quite crowded up there, and I'm guessing that there will be limits to that sort of behavior in the future. At least until such time as somebody finds an efficient way of removing the shrapnel from space.
Putting them underground is pretty much always better than stringing them along poles. The only reason we string them along poles is that we're too cheap to pay for it to be done right in most parts of the US. There are a few places like Alaska where putting them underground is essentially a non-starter due to the distances and the permafrost, but in general it's because we're too cheap to pay for it to be done right.
Sort of like why our roads are crumbling and our bridges are falling down, but God help any politician that actually wants to raise taxes or cut programs to pay for it.
I'm guessing he doesn't mean replaced so much as resurfaced. Blacktop typically needs to be replaced every 5 or so years depending upon the weather. Or at least that's what happens in places that are interested in maintaining their infrastructure. Around here we haven't done that in at least 30 years and by the time we do maintain it we mostly have to go to more extreme measures.
I'm surprised that the town thought they could get away with that, I thought that the electric company typically owned the poles and received some money to cover maintenance and replacement by the other utilities that use the poles.
Stringing it on poles means that you have to have loops to handle when the poles move and any stretch that might occur due to temperature fluctuations and wind.
You also then have to go to a lot more trouble to fix it if there's a tree that falls across the line. And don't forget about the electronics that are needed to keep the signal going and handle splitting off to the home.
I do, if they abandon it maybe they'll come here. Knowing some of the details I'm more than a little bit shocked that we got passed over by cheaters. I'm not really sure how it is that they thought this was going to work or that it would be somehow desirable versus using preexisting dark fiber to kickstart the project.
If there's already a provider in KC that provides the same public service as Google, then why exactly is Google needed there? Here in Seattle we have tons of fiber available for use and internet speeds max out at like 12mbps if you're willing to put up with crappy service and caps from Comcast. In much of the city the limit otherwise is 1.5mbps.
Why? What precisely is wrong with building hoses out of wood? It's relatively cheap, easy to put up, it doesn't bend or twist if there's a fire and if something happens where the firefighters need to cut somebody out of it because they've become stuck, it's easy to do.
Steel has advantages as does concrete and stone, but none of them are really appropriate for even sizable homes.
There is no requirement that you dominate the market to be guilty of antitrust violations. Agreements between companies to lock out other companies to this extent are going to be in violation of antitrust regulations. This isn't just an exclusivity agreement between the companies, this is an exclusivity agreement that also involves the end user and prevents access to the device by other companies.
If MS contracted them to build the devices that would be a completely different situation. That's well established and Apple, for one, has been doing that for decades. What isn't well established is the practice of withholding certification if the product is capable of running a competitors product.
In that case any copies made prior to becoming protected again would be fine, but those made after the change wouldn't be. However, the big problem is one of ownership, once something goes into the public domain you can't just take it out of the public domain as in many cases nobody would have legal right to assume ownership of it.
But, as far as corporate governance goes, it was a mistake at the time and everybody except for the board at Yahoo knew that. I was personally astonished that MS was willing to offer that much for the firm.
For the people at large, it probably would have been the best thing other than forcibly breaking up Google.
The problem is the same as those designed for Windows devices in the mid to late '90s. You would pay about double for that logo even though what you were buying was typically stripped of the usual chips so that the functionality could be run through Windows only drivers. Except in this case it's even more insidious as the devices themselves will have all the capabilities needed to run something else, but because of MS will be rendered incapable of doing so.
It's clear there's antitrust violations involved with this. You cannot force companies to lock out competitors in this fashion. And you cannot use such phony certification requirements as a way of punishing manufacturers that don't go along with the anti-competitive behavior.
Apple isn't a good influence on the industry, but what they're doing is significantly less evil in this respect from what MS is doing.
Because there are limits to what you can require. Requiring that third parties only allow your OS to be installable is significantly worse than bundling a web browser with your OS. Ultimately this sort of multi-corporation misconduct is likely to be a violation of Sherman in so far as it stymies competion and prevents the user from having the full choice of OS on the device.
This is very different from the iPad where Apple pays for the entire development process and sells it to consumers.
Tablets won't be able to be fully certified by MS if they don't have secure boot enabled with no way of disabling it. There may be some manufacturers that opt to have a second line for Linux, but I doubt that will be very common. The problem is one of logistics it's not that much cheaper to have a second line that supports Linux, you have to support it and QA it. But, if you just ship hardware that's supported by Linux then you lose no money on that and sell more units. Of course MS is the party here that's misbehaving.
The issue is that ultimately, they're selling these devices that can't have other OSes installed without cracking them, that's inherently a freedom issue.
For emulation to work properly and accurately you need a beast of a computer. To use BSNES to run SNES games you need a computer that would run modern games, and if you don't then it has to start cheating to work. But the results are quite good.
Precisely, often times you really need to use the hardware that the title screen shows otherwise it won't work right. I remember an article awhile back where they did some analysis of poor performance on, IIRC it was AMD GPUs, and they found that what was going on was that the hardware didn't deal well with tessellations and water, but that the developers had put water everywhere even when it couldn't be seen because it was under ground and included tessellations on surfaces even when there was no reason to do so. Had the devs bothered to do any optimization at all, the game should have run just fine on those cards, but they didn't and performance sucked as a result.
You have to realize that the PS came out in 1994 and the Xbox came out in 2001. The point is that games aren't typically marketed to PC gamers and the opportunities for PC gaming have shrunk compared to the opportunities provided to console gamers. I have a hard time thinking of any PC exclusive games these days where there's a ton of games that are console only.
Ultimately, the PC market is huge compared with the console market, but unless the developers make efforts to take advantage of it, it's a moot point. Plus, if you haven't noticed, there are tons of ridiculous hoops to jump through to game on PC which aren't reasonably related to the platform. Things like intrusive DRM and efforts to prevent resale that haven't really affected console gaming much.
Yes, but then you have to do some math to figure out if you're getting a good deal. It's a similar calculation to the ones done to decide how high the jackpot needs to rise to make buying a ticket a worthwhile endeavor. The problem is ultimately coordinating usage.
Historically that's how it worked. Just because Nintendo or Sega released a new revision of their console didn't mean that I had to research to make sure that I could still play all the games I used to be able to play. Sony, decided to start cutting features from new revisions of their PS3s without mentioning it anywhere on their packaging and probably made a shit load of money as a result. Nintendo for instance maintained compatibility in the Gameboy line with the original Gamebody for a decade or so after launch.
As for the firmware you're being obtuse, one didn't technically have to upgrade, but if one didn't upgrade one wasn't going to be able to continuing installing all the new games as lots of them do require current firmware for one reason or another.
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds like an expansion of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty which the US and most of the world has already signed onto.
The bigger issue though is that with the Chinese blowing up satellites to puff up their defense it's gotten quite crowded up there, and I'm guessing that there will be limits to that sort of behavior in the future. At least until such time as somebody finds an efficient way of removing the shrapnel from space.
Putting them underground is pretty much always better than stringing them along poles. The only reason we string them along poles is that we're too cheap to pay for it to be done right in most parts of the US. There are a few places like Alaska where putting them underground is essentially a non-starter due to the distances and the permafrost, but in general it's because we're too cheap to pay for it to be done right.
Sort of like why our roads are crumbling and our bridges are falling down, but God help any politician that actually wants to raise taxes or cut programs to pay for it.
I'm guessing he doesn't mean replaced so much as resurfaced. Blacktop typically needs to be replaced every 5 or so years depending upon the weather. Or at least that's what happens in places that are interested in maintaining their infrastructure. Around here we haven't done that in at least 30 years and by the time we do maintain it we mostly have to go to more extreme measures.
I'm surprised that the town thought they could get away with that, I thought that the electric company typically owned the poles and received some money to cover maintenance and replacement by the other utilities that use the poles.
Stringing it on poles means that you have to have loops to handle when the poles move and any stretch that might occur due to temperature fluctuations and wind.
You also then have to go to a lot more trouble to fix it if there's a tree that falls across the line. And don't forget about the electronics that are needed to keep the signal going and handle splitting off to the home.
Yes, but we offered to give Google most of that infrastructure and we got passed over.
I do, if they abandon it maybe they'll come here. Knowing some of the details I'm more than a little bit shocked that we got passed over by cheaters. I'm not really sure how it is that they thought this was going to work or that it would be somehow desirable versus using preexisting dark fiber to kickstart the project.
If there's already a provider in KC that provides the same public service as Google, then why exactly is Google needed there? Here in Seattle we have tons of fiber available for use and internet speeds max out at like 12mbps if you're willing to put up with crappy service and caps from Comcast. In much of the city the limit otherwise is 1.5mbps.
Why? What precisely is wrong with building hoses out of wood? It's relatively cheap, easy to put up, it doesn't bend or twist if there's a fire and if something happens where the firefighters need to cut somebody out of it because they've become stuck, it's easy to do.
Steel has advantages as does concrete and stone, but none of them are really appropriate for even sizable homes.
There is no requirement that you dominate the market to be guilty of antitrust violations. Agreements between companies to lock out other companies to this extent are going to be in violation of antitrust regulations. This isn't just an exclusivity agreement between the companies, this is an exclusivity agreement that also involves the end user and prevents access to the device by other companies.
If MS contracted them to build the devices that would be a completely different situation. That's well established and Apple, for one, has been doing that for decades. What isn't well established is the practice of withholding certification if the product is capable of running a competitors product.
In that case any copies made prior to becoming protected again would be fine, but those made after the change wouldn't be. However, the big problem is one of ownership, once something goes into the public domain you can't just take it out of the public domain as in many cases nobody would have legal right to assume ownership of it.
No, sometimes it means banging the secretary and quitting before that becomes public.
Eh, bonch is a troll.
But, as far as corporate governance goes, it was a mistake at the time and everybody except for the board at Yahoo knew that. I was personally astonished that MS was willing to offer that much for the firm.
For the people at large, it probably would have been the best thing other than forcibly breaking up Google.
The problem is the same as those designed for Windows devices in the mid to late '90s. You would pay about double for that logo even though what you were buying was typically stripped of the usual chips so that the functionality could be run through Windows only drivers. Except in this case it's even more insidious as the devices themselves will have all the capabilities needed to run something else, but because of MS will be rendered incapable of doing so.
It's clear there's antitrust violations involved with this. You cannot force companies to lock out competitors in this fashion. And you cannot use such phony certification requirements as a way of punishing manufacturers that don't go along with the anti-competitive behavior.
Apple isn't a good influence on the industry, but what they're doing is significantly less evil in this respect from what MS is doing.
Because there are limits to what you can require. Requiring that third parties only allow your OS to be installable is significantly worse than bundling a web browser with your OS. Ultimately this sort of multi-corporation misconduct is likely to be a violation of Sherman in so far as it stymies competion and prevents the user from having the full choice of OS on the device.
This is very different from the iPad where Apple pays for the entire development process and sells it to consumers.
Tablets won't be able to be fully certified by MS if they don't have secure boot enabled with no way of disabling it. There may be some manufacturers that opt to have a second line for Linux, but I doubt that will be very common. The problem is one of logistics it's not that much cheaper to have a second line that supports Linux, you have to support it and QA it. But, if you just ship hardware that's supported by Linux then you lose no money on that and sell more units. Of course MS is the party here that's misbehaving.
The issue is that ultimately, they're selling these devices that can't have other OSes installed without cracking them, that's inherently a freedom issue.
For emulation to work properly and accurately you need a beast of a computer. To use BSNES to run SNES games you need a computer that would run modern games, and if you don't then it has to start cheating to work. But the results are quite good.
Precisely, often times you really need to use the hardware that the title screen shows otherwise it won't work right. I remember an article awhile back where they did some analysis of poor performance on, IIRC it was AMD GPUs, and they found that what was going on was that the hardware didn't deal well with tessellations and water, but that the developers had put water everywhere even when it couldn't be seen because it was under ground and included tessellations on surfaces even when there was no reason to do so. Had the devs bothered to do any optimization at all, the game should have run just fine on those cards, but they didn't and performance sucked as a result.
You have to realize that the PS came out in 1994 and the Xbox came out in 2001. The point is that games aren't typically marketed to PC gamers and the opportunities for PC gaming have shrunk compared to the opportunities provided to console gamers. I have a hard time thinking of any PC exclusive games these days where there's a ton of games that are console only.
Ultimately, the PC market is huge compared with the console market, but unless the developers make efforts to take advantage of it, it's a moot point. Plus, if you haven't noticed, there are tons of ridiculous hoops to jump through to game on PC which aren't reasonably related to the platform. Things like intrusive DRM and efforts to prevent resale that haven't really affected console gaming much.
Well, that and giving the shills a chance to go outside and be vaporized by the sun.
They don't need to go completely black. Duckduckgo.com has a prominent link and XKCD did something as well.
And XKCD currently only shows one panel unless you go to a specific one. Unfortunately I can't figure out what number it is for posterity.
Clearly they're going to run these super computers on electricity they produce by burning oil that they themselves drill for. Quite self sufficient.
Yes, but then you have to do some math to figure out if you're getting a good deal. It's a similar calculation to the ones done to decide how high the jackpot needs to rise to make buying a ticket a worthwhile endeavor. The problem is ultimately coordinating usage.
No, I think queue makes more sense, unless of course you really want to hear those comments to which the GP is referring.
Historically that's how it worked. Just because Nintendo or Sega released a new revision of their console didn't mean that I had to research to make sure that I could still play all the games I used to be able to play. Sony, decided to start cutting features from new revisions of their PS3s without mentioning it anywhere on their packaging and probably made a shit load of money as a result. Nintendo for instance maintained compatibility in the Gameboy line with the original Gamebody for a decade or so after launch.
As for the firmware you're being obtuse, one didn't technically have to upgrade, but if one didn't upgrade one wasn't going to be able to continuing installing all the new games as lots of them do require current firmware for one reason or another.