Posts by Charles 9 16605 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S"
I'm aware of these SMR (Small Modular Reactors) in progress, but to date none have been actually deployed. They would certainly be appealing for isolated locations (like islands) where obtaining generator fuel is an inherently expensive endeavor.
ONLY if it's possible to get the speedup separately at a price. If bundling cable is the ONLY way to get a speedup, then that's not fair. That's exploiting a captive market and closer to being paid your wages in scrip that can ONLY be used in the company store (a practice which I recall was banned in the past).
"Net neutrality does not apply to something like that, which is very similar to giving you a discount for bundling multiple services. If that was a violation of net neutrality then charging you more for a faster connection also would be."
Not necessarily. At least charging more for a faster connection is germane to the access. Requiring the purchase of an unrelated service (Why do you need cable TV?) could be seen as another matter altogether.
It was entirely possible to take a selfie then. You just did it "the old-fashioned way" using a mirror. Thing was, the cameras were pretty bulky unless you used something like a 110 film so it took up a lot of the picture space. And the shutter timer was pretty much reserved for 35mm cameras which at the time (until around the 90's) were at least semi-professional equipment.
"A single, unified, freely-rewritable storage space might not be such a good idea. For instance, what would happen when something went wrong with data in the OS working memory?"
Even a unified memory architecture can use backups that can use things like rust to help maintain system integrity. It removes a degree of separation, yes, but there are ways around this.
"Demand implies someone wants somewhere to live, not they they can afford to purchases the property."
No, Q (Demand) requires the buyer be able to purchase the property, meaning he/she can afford it. Otherwise, he/she is by definition NOT in the market to buy at that price and is therefore NOT part of the demand (he/she is off the curve). Can't pay, can't play, that simple. Renting simply means they're playing a different game, taking them out of the buyer's game.
Let me put it another way. Why are prices going up unless people are willing to buy the houses AT those prices? If it's not the hoi polloi, WHO is buying up the houses at the increased prices that the sellers are able to command?
"You say that as if it justifies anything. All that fact does is help to drive home how corrupt our political system is."
No, what it REALLY drives home is how corrupt the human condition is. Politics simply bring these problems to the fore and present real dilemma. Frankly, the people best suited for the job are usually too busy to take the job willingly, so you gotta make do with what's left. You got any better ideas that take the human condition into consideration?
"Actually they can. Eminent domain and all that. Look it up."
I have. That only applies to realty, and ONLY if there's a compelling government interest in it. Otherwise, the property owner can sue on those grounds and force a change to the conditions. I don't recall eminent domain being used on a patent or a copyright.
"In any case, they don't need to. All the big customers need to do is specify in $BIG_CONTRACT that "This shall work on XYZ operating system and remain fully supported for ABC years".
Until they get back: "Offers: None at any price." Not even lucrative contracts will mean much if the potential buyer doesn't see a good enough return in the offing due to hidden costs or legal risks.
"The big problem is the effective monopolies that the ISPs have at the local level. This has to do with the sweetheart deals at that level. Eliminate them, and you can get competition amongst the ISPs."
OR you could have NONE of them taking it up because it becomes a money sink. The problem is, the sweetheart deals are about the ONLY reason rural America has Internet in the first place. High infrastructure costs (an INflexible cost owing to geography) combined with generally low incomes in the boonies generally mean something else is needed to tempt people to build all the way out there; otherwise, they'll walk away for fear of not enough RoI to please the investors.
I still think the Feds could step in if they were really evil and overrule the states even there by say using the ICC to cite some compelling federal interest in Internet traffic, meaning even subsidy activity can be countered.
As for speed limits, Texas speed limits can be as high as 80 (probably spurred by having so much rural highway like over one-third of I-10) and Montana once had soft limits but withdrew on its own rather than under federal pressure. I think the biggest push at once time was to make the drinking age no higher than 21.
"Only if you're a smug jerk. Don't blame the users!"
Users who (IRL) pull on doors even though there's a big fat sign on it saying "CLOSED"?
Users who (IRL) pull up to a pump and pull off the BAGGED dispenser, even though there's a big fat sign on the pump saying "OUT OF SERVICE"?
Put it this way. There's a reason the late Sir Terry Pratchett once wrote that if there was such a thing as "END OF THE WORLD BUTTON. DO NOT TOUCH!" the paint wouldn't even have time to dry. YES, there IS such a thing as "too bloody stupid to live, but alive nonetheless."
I think the problem is that the medium here is UNhappy. Even the slightest bit technical, and people ignore it as Geekworld. But oversimplify things and people male rash assumptions. And worst case is something people oversimplify AS Geekworld.
Frankly, I think you'd have better solving the universal energy crisis first.
Yes there is. It's called Stupid User Glossover. The moment they read a catch word like Private, everything beyond it might as well be Gobbledygook for all it's worth; they've all stopped reading at that point, and it's doggedly difficult to train them otherwise because the only way to do so is to threaten them in one of the key areas: their money (so they start paying attention to frauds), their life/health (safety warnings), or their freedom (remind them of court).
Makes you think people should require a license to use the Interner.
Well, certainly not for Bitcoin. That's entirely the realm of ASIC farms these days. Plus the overhead's a killer. Many other e-currencies also tend to get dominated quickly by mining farms as well unless you get in very early. If you want my advice, I wouldn't jump in without testing the waters, so to speak.
I think El Reg itself covered something of the like. It was in China. People were bypassing meters to snap up cheap or free power.
I'm also conditionally for the death penalty, but ONLY for the very worst of the worst. I mean, what else can you do to someone who's an avowed and repeat killer and escape risk (say someone with a reputation like El Chapo's), what options do you have left being as he's a continual threat as long as he's alive?
What makes you think it's actually the TV and not something else impersonating the TV without some kind of attribution, which encryption can provide?
Like it or not, IoT is a thing, and more than likely an undead thing, meaning waiting for it to die may not be an option. Hell, it may even be nuke-proof.
Possibly thinking like bank depositors that are designed to ONLY allow ingress. The delivery man opens the door, puts the delivery in, then closes the door again which opens the trap door or other mechanism that takes the delivery out of reach even if the door is opened again. Thing is, these tend to be small. Much larger and you pretty much need a guard.
Put it this way. It wasn't the atomic bombs that convinced them but the threat of the Soviet, and they'd seen what happened in the Nazi aftermath, so it was fresh in their minds. Even then, there was some arguing before they finally agreed that surrendering to the Americans at that point would at least allow them to continue existing.
@ David Webb:
I believe the previous poster was referring to a scenario when the front door WAS the fire escape because it's the ONLY egress from the flat, being built in a time when a second egress wasn't mandated or possible.
Although, as I do not reside there, I myself question this, as last I checked, most municipal fire codes in the US that I know require ALL points of occupancy to have at least TWO points of egress in case one is blocked by fire. AND that older buildings needed the second egress retrofitted in at some point in the past by way of evolving fire ordinances.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
