Print drivers on modern printers should be under 5MB MAXIMUM...Often...are in excess of 200MB
That extra 195MB is for the AI that determines how often you need to buy more ink and which retail chain (that paid the printer manufacturer the largest sum of protection money) to buy it from.
VISA and Mastercard are owned and operated by their member banks, which is pretty much every bank in existence. If all (or nearly all) banks have interest in both companies (as all banks will offer merchant services that accept both card types)... what would you call it?
That's exactly like the monopoly banks have on electronic transactions through VISA and Mastercard.
10 years ago, you could do a debit transaction to pay for things with a card at a store... but that was bad, because it costs you money. Now, you can do a credit transaction to pay for things with a card at a store... but that is okay, because it costs businesses money.
People would be all upset if they had to add $1 to the cost of every purchase they made because they used the debit system to pay for things... meanwhile, they utilize the VISA and Mastercard systems, which costs every business they visit an extra fixed rate or percentage... which gets passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
If only people could stop buying coffee with plastic.
Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
I know that out of all of the MegaBillionCorps that exist out there, Google's kool-aid certainly tastes the best. That doesn't however mean that they shouldn't be questioned.
Shit... I love Microsoft and I believe the anti-trust suit against them was warranted. Don't necessarily think the outcome was the best, but that's a different story.
How about online backup services for small businesses that generate more data daily than could be pushed over a T1 during the backup cycle?
And why not streaming HD content at a minimum of 20 Mbit/s? Why not 1 Gbit/s? We always know the connection will never be fast enough... but for god's sake... all we ever seem to do here is talk about it. If we just sit here and bitch about how slow it is, and the super wealthy assholes that own stake in the current infrastructure bitch about how fiber rollout will prevent them from buying their third airliner, nothing will ever get done.
It's about time the phone company spent some money for once, instead of just absorbing tax credits and making more money doing the same thing.
they meant "What they [Google --content provider--, Vonage --service provider--, and others --various providers--]
You forgot the fact that Google and Vonage pay for their linkups too, which would make them, directly or indirectly, a paying customer of AT&T.
If they happen to be "peered" to AT&T and aren't paying by the bit, then AT&T considers access to those content providers' networks, and content demand from their own to be important enough for a settlement free interconnect.
It's the nature of the beast. Google's services are demanded by AT&T's paying customers. If you couldn't get to Google on an AT&T line, then there's no point in having AT&T.
I look forward to the day when we can look at 20Mbps and classify it the same way you do 20Kbps now. And that classification of 20Kbps did not hold true 10 years ago. 20Kbps was near 40% of a common internet pipe (or tube, whichever you prefer).
Re:A couple of annoying things I've found so far
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
No, it's not just you. Crossing DNS and HTTP is historically a very, very bad idea. Unfortunately though, it does improve ease of use for Joe "PEBKAC" Sixpack. Therefore, it'll probably end up being the more popularly desired behavior...
That said though, when I'm creating static links for use in a shortcut, document, nslookup or whatnot, I tend to use FQDN's myself. It's pretty much only in the browser that I cheat like that.
I speculate, however, that this conflict of interests is simply a result of the underlying technologies (dns/http) simply being used today for purposes beyond the scope of their original design.
...there's no reason why a POS system shouldn't run on Windows.
I have found that, as my understanding of Windows grows, the only reason I can find *not* to use it is the cost of the license (hardware limitations notwithstanding, though ARMWindows would be cool).
Oh please. Phone calls use something in the neighborhood of 20 kilobits per second of bandwidth. They are utterly insignificant consumers of network resources.
His point is quite valid.
Remember when that was your entire internet pipe? It was 10 years ago. I see no reason that the same statement shouldn't apply to current byte hogs, such as IPTV, in another 10.
So a 250GB cap does not seem way out of line for even substantial usage.
What I want is for Comcast to actually deliver untrhottled bandwidth during prime time. The cap I'm fine with.
I can't believe that anyone actually agrees with this.
The way to solve these problems is for Comcast to realize it's either put up or shut up time.
If you don't have the capacity to deliver what you sell, then stop trying to fucking sell it. The problem is that most people don't realize that Comcast is full of shit and is trying to fix their problem (yes, this is their problem, which they caused) with a solution that doesn't apply to the problem's cause.
Further, I'm sure you just love watching those streaming Netflix movies which require 3-4Mbits. Personally, I like to use NZBPlayer to stream 1080p. Which requires about 12-15Mbits. Some very, very rough math indicates that, under Comcast's new policy, if you would like to enjoy the high quality, on demand experience that I enjoy, well, you're fucked. Sure, you could get a business connection, but how long will the escalation continue?
Bandwidth caps serve no purpose but to continually fuck consumers over and stifle the innovation and evolution of the internet and the services which over it can be provided. These caps serve to forever keep technology in its place.... I still remember back in the day when I thought IPTV would never happen... because it was a waste of precious, precious bandwidth.
how about all manufacturors agree on a single plug for their power supplies
This doesn't even happen within a single manufacturer. Every time LG makes a new phone, for example, the charging port changes.
And guess what? They do this to make more money. When you lose (or break) your (very shittily designed) charger, you can't just go to Radioshack and buy a $7 universal one. You have to go back to the manufacturer and pay $30 to get a new one.
Even chargers based on a worldwide standard are locked out on a manufacturer basis as well. Try plugging a Blackberry USB charger into a Motorola USB charged Verizon phone. It'll read "Unauthorized Charger." Not "Incompatible," but "Unauthorized." That means that the manufacturer (and probably Verizon, because they just know you'll show up at a store to buy their overpriced replacement shit) has decided that you'll only charge your phone with equipment that they deem fit to perform the task, despite the device's adherence to a worldwide open standard.
In short, you've got a fantastic idea, but greed-driven economics dictates otherwise.
I've looked into proper certificates multiple times. The cheapest ones have been around $500.
Where do you get these magical $10/year SSL certs (assuming they're from CAs that are included by default in Windows, OSX, and Firefox)? I could use something like 10 of them.
tell me why my company would write and sell complex time stamping encrypting whatchyamacallit software for FTP transfers
Not that it's actually a good idea, but one of my company's clients requires that we make certain files available via FTP. On a public IP address. With a really, really shitty password:P
When I've asked, those fees are charged because they're "services required to make the equipment work." I shouldn't have to pay extra for "DVR Service" when a DVR's recording schedule and capability is controlled entirely through built-in hardware and access to the same programming information that is available for non-DVR capable boxes for -- get this -- no fee.
It's one thing to pay for a service that is provided, but if I were to go to the store, buy video tapes, and put them in my old VCR, I shouldn't have to pay a subscription plan for the convenience of being able to hit the "Record" button.
I understand your point, but in this case, the devil is just an asshole lobbyist working for the cable company.
Slashdot Mirror
Print drivers on modern printers should be under 5MB MAXIMUM...Often...are in excess of 200MB
That extra 195MB is for the AI that determines how often you need to buy more ink and which retail chain (that paid the printer manufacturer the largest sum of protection money) to buy it from.
the increase does not appear to be justified by rising costs in delivering text messages
No shit sherlock.
And all the tens of dollars you bring with you.
It's 'take."
Something that is said to be arriving has been brought. Something that is said to be leaving has been taken.
I've brought something to you. Now I will take it away.
VISA and Mastercard are owned and operated by their member banks, which is pretty much every bank in existence. If all (or nearly all) banks have interest in both companies (as all banks will offer merchant services that accept both card types)... what would you call it?
That's exactly like the monopoly banks have on electronic transactions through VISA and Mastercard.
10 years ago, you could do a debit transaction to pay for things with a card at a store... but that was bad, because it costs you money.
Now, you can do a credit transaction to pay for things with a card at a store... but that is okay, because it costs businesses money.
People would be all upset if they had to add $1 to the cost of every purchase they made because they used the debit system to pay for things... meanwhile, they utilize the VISA and Mastercard systems, which costs every business they visit an extra fixed rate or percentage... which gets passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
If only people could stop buying coffee with plastic.
Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
I know that out of all of the MegaBillionCorps that exist out there, Google's kool-aid certainly tastes the best. That doesn't however mean that they shouldn't be questioned.
Shit... I love Microsoft and I believe the anti-trust suit against them was warranted. Don't necessarily think the outcome was the best, but that's a different story.
How about online backup services for small businesses that generate more data daily than could be pushed over a T1 during the backup cycle?
And why not streaming HD content at a minimum of 20 Mbit/s? Why not 1 Gbit/s? We always know the connection will never be fast enough... but for god's sake... all we ever seem to do here is talk about it. If we just sit here and bitch about how slow it is, and the super wealthy assholes that own stake in the current infrastructure bitch about how fiber rollout will prevent them from buying their third airliner, nothing will ever get done.
It's about time the phone company spent some money for once, instead of just absorbing tax credits and making more money doing the same thing.
Why? They're almost free at 60 cents each
Intel has finally made the Beowulf cluster affordable for all of us!
they meant "What they [Google --content provider--, Vonage --service provider--, and others --various providers--]
You forgot the fact that Google and Vonage pay for their linkups too, which would make them, directly or indirectly, a paying customer of AT&T.
If they happen to be "peered" to AT&T and aren't paying by the bit, then AT&T considers access to those content providers' networks, and content demand from their own to be important enough for a settlement free interconnect.
It's the nature of the beast. Google's services are demanded by AT&T's paying customers. If you couldn't get to Google on an AT&T line, then there's no point in having AT&T.
Dude,
It's $98 and runs Linux.
Dude, everything can run Linux.
I look forward to the day when we can look at 20Mbps and classify it the same way you do 20Kbps now. And that classification of 20Kbps did not hold true 10 years ago. 20Kbps was near 40% of a common internet pipe (or tube, whichever you prefer).
No, it's not just you. Crossing DNS and HTTP is historically a very, very bad idea. Unfortunately though, it does improve ease of use for Joe "PEBKAC" Sixpack. Therefore, it'll probably end up being the more popularly desired behavior...
That said though, when I'm creating static links for use in a shortcut, document, nslookup or whatnot, I tend to use FQDN's myself. It's pretty much only in the browser that I cheat like that.
I speculate, however, that this conflict of interests is simply a result of the underlying technologies (dns/http) simply being used today for purposes beyond the scope of their original design.
...there's no reason why a POS system shouldn't run on Windows.
I have found that, as my understanding of Windows grows, the only reason I can find *not* to use it is the cost of the license (hardware limitations notwithstanding, though ARMWindows would be cool).
I've always secretly been an ATI fanboy... and a traitor since the 6800GT.
Now, I've got ATI again but recommended everyone I know (up until 48XX by ATI) buy the 8800 or 9600....
I wanted ATI to regain some track to even the market... but this is a little much. Complete flops are not good for competition either.
Oh please. Phone calls use something in the neighborhood of 20 kilobits per second of bandwidth. They are utterly insignificant consumers of network resources.
His point is quite valid.
Remember when that was your entire internet pipe? It was 10 years ago. I see no reason that the same statement shouldn't apply to current byte hogs, such as IPTV, in another 10.
So a 250GB cap does not seem way out of line for even substantial usage. What I want is for Comcast to actually deliver untrhottled bandwidth during prime time. The cap I'm fine with.
I can't believe that anyone actually agrees with this.
The way to solve these problems is for Comcast to realize it's either put up or shut up time.
If you don't have the capacity to deliver what you sell, then stop trying to fucking sell it. The problem is that most people don't realize that Comcast is full of shit and is trying to fix their problem (yes, this is their problem, which they caused) with a solution that doesn't apply to the problem's cause.
Further, I'm sure you just love watching those streaming Netflix movies which require 3-4Mbits. Personally, I like to use NZBPlayer to stream 1080p. Which requires about 12-15Mbits. Some very, very rough math indicates that, under Comcast's new policy, if you would like to enjoy the high quality, on demand experience that I enjoy, well, you're fucked. Sure, you could get a business connection, but how long will the escalation continue?
Bandwidth caps serve no purpose but to continually fuck consumers over and stifle the innovation and evolution of the internet and the services which over it can be provided. These caps serve to forever keep technology in its place.... I still remember back in the day when I thought IPTV would never happen... because it was a waste of precious, precious bandwidth.
What's next? Adware Batteries?
Nothing like avoiding popups... in the middle of the street.
No way! Companies want to make a profit? What a crazy concept.
It's one thing to desire profit. It's a totally different one to go out of your way to DRM a f---ing power adapter.
how about all manufacturors agree on a single plug for their power supplies
This doesn't even happen within a single manufacturer. Every time LG makes a new phone, for example, the charging port changes.
And guess what? They do this to make more money. When you lose (or break) your (very shittily designed) charger, you can't just go to Radioshack and buy a $7 universal one. You have to go back to the manufacturer and pay $30 to get a new one.
Even chargers based on a worldwide standard are locked out on a manufacturer basis as well. Try plugging a Blackberry USB charger into a Motorola USB charged Verizon phone. It'll read "Unauthorized Charger." Not "Incompatible," but "Unauthorized." That means that the manufacturer (and probably Verizon, because they just know you'll show up at a store to buy their overpriced replacement shit) has decided that you'll only charge your phone with equipment that they deem fit to perform the task, despite the device's adherence to a worldwide open standard.
In short, you've got a fantastic idea, but greed-driven economics dictates otherwise.
A proper certificate is around 10 bucks per year
I've looked into proper certificates multiple times. The cheapest ones have been around $500.
Where do you get these magical $10/year SSL certs (assuming they're from CAs that are included by default in Windows, OSX, and Firefox)? I could use something like 10 of them.
The same thing applies to GUIs,
And that's the only feature the iPhone has that I would readily sacrifice a hundred virgins for to obtain on my Blackberry.
So indirectly, cows are solar-powered
This solar-powered Ribeye is delicious.
tell me why my company would write and sell complex time stamping encrypting whatchyamacallit software for FTP transfers
Not that it's actually a good idea, but one of my company's clients requires that we make certain files available via FTP. On a public IP address. With a really, really shitty password :P
In shroud mode, too
Personally, I look forward to more Prey-style game mechanics. And id is very nice to bring this to me outside of the Prey Expansion Pack.
When I've asked, those fees are charged because they're "services required to make the equipment work." I shouldn't have to pay extra for "DVR Service" when a DVR's recording schedule and capability is controlled entirely through built-in hardware and access to the same programming information that is available for non-DVR capable boxes for -- get this -- no fee.
It's one thing to pay for a service that is provided, but if I were to go to the store, buy video tapes, and put them in my old VCR, I shouldn't have to pay a subscription plan for the convenience of being able to hit the "Record" button.
I understand your point, but in this case, the devil is just an asshole lobbyist working for the cable company.