Forgot your password?

Comment: The premise is idiotic. (Score 3, Informative) 242

by jcr (#48178313) Attached to: Apple's Next Hit Could Be a Microsoft Surface Pro Clone

Microsoft's "Surface" is just the latest round of their "tablet PC" debacle, which had been a continuous failure for over a decade before the iPad was introduced. iPad succeeded because Apple didn't try to shoehorn a desktop OS into a device where it clearly didn't fit.

To suggest that Apple should abandon a successful approach for a failed approach demonstrates that the author should find a different line of work, he's obviously out of his depth writing about the computer industry.


Comment: Re:Can we talk about two things at the same time? (Score 1) 38

by msauve (#48169093) Attached to: Internet Companies Want Wireless Net Neutrality Too
Nothing you do locally prioritizes incoming traffic across the Internet. For that matter, for most (all?) ISPs, your markings won't be honored on outbound, either. The most you can do locally is control which packets are sent out first when there's contention. You only control the single hop in your toy router. There simply is no QoS through the Internet.

But then, you obviously didn't know that, given your basic misunderstanding of how QoS actually works.

Comment: Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes (Score 1) 290

by msauve (#48164849) Attached to: Michigan About To Ban Tesla Sales
That's a non-sequitur. They can do those things only because there are no federal laws preventing them.

Some concrete examples - it's federal law/regulation created using the Commerce Clause which (effectively) prevents the sale and ownership of automatic weapons. It's federal law/regulation which prevents the states from regulating radio frequency spectrum.

Comment: Re:Can we talk about two things at the same time? (Score 2) 38

by msauve (#48164653) Attached to: Internet Companies Want Wireless Net Neutrality Too
They're not necessarily in conflict. If I pay for X bandwidth, I should get that on a neutral basis - I'm in control of which content I ask for. If the ISPs want to charge someone else for bandwidth to me above and beyond what I'm already paying for - so for example, I get still good Netflix while simultaneously maxing out torrents on on the bandwidth I'm paying for - I have no problem with that. Of course, if I limit myself so Netflix has ample bandwidth within my subscribed bandwidth, that should be delivered without interference or cost to Netflix.

Netflix/torrents just as examples, I rarely max out my incoming bandwidth for other than short bursts. But perhaps someone wants to pay for minimal bandwidth (1 Mbps), but still get good Netflix (3 Mbps) and VoIP service. Providers should be able to pay for that additional bandwidth as part of a competitive offering. Similarly with QoS even inside the bandwidth I buy - I'd like my VoIP service to be able to have better QoS treatment, so a phone call doesn't degrade when someone else downloads a file. If all packets are treated equally, that's impossible.

The key, it seems to me, is to find some way to ensure that ISPs don't simply overprice bandwidth to the consumer in order to force providers to pay to deliver their content outside the subscribed bandwidth, and therefore gain a competitive advantage for their own offerings.

Comment: Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes (Score 4, Insightful) 290

by msauve (#48164327) Attached to: Michigan About To Ban Tesla Sales
You've never read the Constitution, have you? Fact is, this would be one of the increasingly rare legitimate uses for Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which gives Congress the power

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

If SCOTUS can claim that growing a garden for personal use is Interstate Commerce, then so to is an automobile company in one state selling cars in another.

Comment: Make a case... (Score 5, Interesting) 280

by msauve (#48163177) Attached to: FBI Director Continues His Campaign Against Encryption
It would help his position if the FBI were to go after Federal agencies (e.g. the NSA) for their illegal violation of citizen's privacy rights, and make it perfectly clear that the only searches of cell phones the FBI is interested in would be supported by probable cause and warrants from legitimate courts.

But I somehow think his reasoning is more on par with "we don't like people protecting their rights, because it makes it harder for us to violate them."

Comment: Re:wow (Score 1) 561

by Xest (#48157183) Attached to: Lockheed Claims Breakthrough On Fusion Energy Project

So what? the point is that if we increase our usage to match the amount we have then we're not suddenly living in a world where there is an abundant supply, we'll just use more and have shortages just as much as always.

With that will be increased heat dissipation also resulting in another set of climate problems to that which we have now with CO2, unless we produce 100% efficient electronics, which isn't going to happen.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing though, I'm saying it's not going to be a magical panacea that lets us create a utopia. We'll still face similar problems to those which we face now, and we'll still have to deal with them.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.