Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:It's the medium - Re:It's the distribution chan (Score 1) 516

I totally agree. And also I guess people is less inclined to buy the same thing again because they release it under a new media, when they can get it "cheaper" some place else. The hole equation does not make sense.

Say I have a DVD, paid some 20 bucks. The "industry" is saying that is loosing lots of money because others copy the DVD without paying. Conclusion, so DVD Movie product cost= Movie rights cost + DVD media costs. Movie rights should be a lot you say, as other people are offering even similar packaging for much less, if they don't pay "Movie rights" portion of the equation.

But then it comes BluRay. Now I want my movie library in glorious HiDef. You'll think a BluRay Movie = Movie Rights + BluRay media costs. As you already own the Movie Rights for home use, you'll think you can get a better price. Well, you don't! Movie Rights now seems like a cheap thing that costs 0, as the "Industry" wants me to pay full fare again.

So, guess they shouldn't have it both ways.

Submission + - Dennis Ritchie has died. (google.com)

yorugua writes: As a long time Unix user, I'm suddenly out of words for this loss in the Tech World. RIP Dennis, and my condolences to his family.

Comment Re:Who are they reaching out to? (Score 1) 95

Microsoft has a huge developer base, they are Nokia desperately needs and what MS is bringing to the table in this deal. MS can evidently count on these developers to give their platform a shot, historically not a bad gamble. The foundation has been laid, now comes the critical part: converting these available apps into actual sales and a viable business financially. So far the only platform where users consistently spend a lot of money is iOS with Android a distant second.

Nokia needs people buying their phones. My family has 6 Nokia phones (3 symbian). Our first buy after the announcement has already been a Droid. It's cool with Nokia, but MS? Thanks, but no thanks.

In the team I work in, there are some 5 E71. All are thinking about other brands after Nokia commited suicide (Again, I work with DBA's, Sysadmins, Network Admins. NO WAY they're buying MS *).

Comment Re:Who are they reaching out to? (Score 1) 95

http://windowsteamblog.com/windows_phone/b/wpdev/archive/2011/03/30/a-year-later-the-windows-phone-7-numbers-that-matter.aspx

I don't know how this compares to iPhone and Android, but 1.5 million SDK downloads, 36k developers, and 13k apps is impressive for a 6 month old platform that, by Slashdot's account, has 4 users.

That's great!. But considering symbian had about 10% market share last time I checked (and going down), MS some 2% maybe? then it's great someone is downloading all that!. Now, they need people to buy their phones, and that's were the hard part comes. Even old nokia users (such as myself) see nokia-wp as something to stay away from, and people already on other platforms don't feel as going back to WP (even more Samsung or HTC). So, the actual question is, what's the market they're after?

Comment Re:what is... (Score 1) 406

I'm a programmer, not a sysadmin/network guy. While I like to think I have a reasonable understanding of networking just as a result of being "in the neighbourhood", my first reaction to "public IP" was, "the device will be publically accessible". After thinking about it and doing a little reading, I understood that this wasn't the case (it all still goes through one point, and that one point gets to say "nope", at least in most setups). .

Hello I worked with companies with networks of +5000 desktops. The "public IP address" fear doesn't come from the fact that the device will be publically accessible, but that their action can be "publically recorded". One of the selling points of IPv6 is that you can have your own IP address. Good. Now, Companies such as [google, ms that provide advertising and services like webmail and talk to identify you] will be able to track your IPv6 address and map it to the few users of your desktop/laptop on your company. Now, imagine, what possibilities does that open?

Yes, there are cookies to track a certain users with a certain browser. But you can delete them. Your whole company might look to the external world as a few IPv4's addresses now (and you could do the same on IPv6 using application proxies, but that just adds costs). Now... can you do the same with all of the browsers of all of the users on your desktop and even succeed if you are getting a few ip addresses? and if not, then what possibilities are available to those tracking you?

Comment Re:what is... (Score 1) 406

And God no, please, NO MORE NAT. Definitely not in IPv6. We don't need it, and don't want it. It's a crock.

I want NAT as my customers wants NAT. Let's do this: Let's agree on a protocol that allows you to enable NAT if you so desire, and disable if you so desire. We'll be both happy!. I'm sure that a protocols that enables both types of users will have good success.

Comment Re:what is... (Score 1) 406

I hear things like "every device gets a public IP" and freak out

Why? Why on earth? There are these things called firewalls, right....

I'll hijack a 2003 post:

One of the primary uses of NAT is to provide provider (and registry) independence. It also provides a way to get around ISP restrictions on the number of devices customers can connect to a network.

Off the top of my head, I believe as long as any of the following are true: - you must renumber if you change service providers - renumbering requires any effort whatsoever from the end user - renumbering interrupts services in any way - requesting addresses requires any formal process or procedures

you will have NAT, regardless of whether it is IPv4 or IPv6.

Attempting to legislate behavior through non-binding standards activities contrary to customer desires is a waste of everyone's time.

Comment Re:what is... (Score 1) 406

I hear things like "every device gets a public IP" and freak out

Why? Why on earth? There are these things called firewalls, right....

Yes, there are fierwalls!. Only thing,a lot of people want them to keep operating in the same way (Fw + NAT). They don't want to get assigned an IPv6 address that can be tracked at the IP level and mapped to a specific user or set of them.

Comment Re:Those who should get 97 months... (Score 4, Interesting) 195

You mean to do this: http://www.cpeterson.org/2011/03/10/why-gas-is-so-expensive-today-hint-its-not-libya/

from TFA:

in 1991, J. Aron—the Goldman subsidiary—wrote to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the government agency overseeing this market) and asked for one measly exception to the rules.

The whole definition of physical hedgers was needlessly restrictive, J. Aron argued. Sure, a corn farmer who bought futures contracts to hedge the risk of a glut in corn prices had a legitimate reason to be hedging his bets. After all, being a farmer was risky! Anything could happen to a farmer, what with nature being involved and all!

Everyone who grew any kind of crop was taking a risk, and it was only right and natural that the government should allow these good people to buy futures contracts to offset that risk.

But what about people on Wall Street? Were not they, too, like farmers, in the sense that they were taking a risk, exposing themselves to the whims of economic nature? After all, a speculator who bought up corn also had risk—investment risk. So, Goldman’s subsidiary argued, why not allow the poor speculator to escape those cruel position limits and be allowed to make transactions in unlimited amounts? Why even call him a speculator at all? Couldn’t J. Aron call itself a physical hedger too? After all, it was taking real risk—just like a farmer!

On October 18, 1991, the CFTC-in the person of Laurie Ferber, an appointee of the first President Bush—agreed with J. Aron’s letter. Ferber wrote that she understood that Aron was asking that its speculative activity be recognized as “bona fide hedging”—and, after a lot of jargon and legalese, she accepted that argument. This was the beginning of the end for position limits and for the proper balance between physical hedgers and speculators in the energy markets.

To look at this another way—just to make it easy—let’s create something we call the McDonaldland Menu Index (MMI). The MMI is based upon the price of eleven McDonald’s products, including the Big Mac, the Quarter Pounder, the shake, fries, and hash browns. Let’s say the total price of those eleven products on November l, 2010, is $37.90. Now let’s say you bet $1,000 on the McDonaldland Menu Index on that date, November 1. A month later, the total price of those eleven products is now $39.72.

Well, gosh, that’s a 4.8 percent price increase. Since you put $1,000 into the MMI on November 1, on December 1 you’ve now got $1,048. A smart investment!

Just to be clear—you didn’t actually buy $1,000 worth of Big Macs and fries and shakes. All you did is bet $1,000 on the prices of Big Macs and fries and shakes.

But here’s the thing: if you were just some schmuck on the street and you wanted to gamble on this nonsense, you couldn’t do it, because your behavior would be speculative and restricted under that old 1936 Commodity Exchange Act, which supposedly maintained that delicate balance between speculator and physical hedger (i.e., the real producers/consumers). Same goes for a giant pension fund or a trust that didn’t have one of those magic letters. Even if you wanted into this craziness, you couldn’t get in, because it was barred to the Common Speculator. The only way for you to get to the gaming table was, in essence, to rent the speculator-hedger exemption that the government had quietly given to companies like Goldman Sachs via those sixteen letters.

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...