Be careful, youve apparently come to accept that anything you see that agrees with your preconceptions, regardless of whether it agrees with chemistry or chemists.
As I said, the other major HFCS blend has LESS fructose than glucose. This is the major problem with every single comparison between "HFCS" and "sugar" ive ever seen: they completely ignore that there are two different blends, and no matter how you look at it one SHOULD be slightly better than sugar, and one slightly worse, if there is any difference whatsoever.
Its not clear (because theres no clear link to the actual study), but from what Im reading it has gotten a lot of criticism because it did not actually do a proper comparision between sucrose and HFCS, but rather extrapolated from an earlier study ( ) Maybe Im not reading that properly, however.
More problematic for this comparison, they werent actually comparing HFCS to sucrose:
Hoebel: The goal of this paper was not exclusively to compare HFCS to sucrose. Rather, we were interested in assessing 1) limited vs. continuous access to HFCS, as our previous research has focused on binge eating of sugars, 2) differences in body weight gain as a results of access to HFCS that might result in males vs. females, and 3) the effects of long term access to HFCS on parameters such as triglyceride levels and fat accrual.
Theres also no mention of whether it was a blind study on the part of the experimenters or not, which tends to be pretty important ( I dont know if the term "double blind" would be appropriate here, as Im sure the rats neither know nor care what they are eating).
My issue is that the only studies I have seen on HFCS have tended to be "inadequate" for comparing sucrose and HFCS; when the research head says thats not their goal, thats kind of a problem.
Paying $X per Y gbps means, practically, that you are paying $X for (Y * day * 30) GB of traffic. Divide that by your subscribers, and you have a cap per user.
There is, practically speaking, only a semantic difference between paying for X gbps and paying for X GB during a set period.
So you want a pay-per-GB system then? Because thats the net effect of paying $X for Y gb of traffic, and then getting refunded for unused gb of traffic.
The reality is that youre always going to be on an over-sold line unless you really feel like paying for a dedicated link. They make those, you know; the only thing is the price is substantially higher.
Im not generally one to stick up for ISPs, but it really does sound like you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Agreed that they probably shouldnt be advertising unlimited, but common sense has to intrude at some point. Most restaurants advertise unlimited refills, but I can assure you that not only would the restaurant prevent you from filling up a water cooler on "unlimited refills", but they would be backed up by basically any court in the country. Common sense would dictate that "unlimited" in that case is for "normal use".
The analogy breaks down because while most adult humans are going to have a pretty similar capacity for soda, internet usage varies wildly by customer. What is "normal" or "reasonable" for one person is not for another.
That people are suprised that the internet has finite capacity doesnt really change the fact that it does, in fact, have finite capacity.
Average connection speed in the US is 7.2mbps. The absolute top is South Korea, with 14; I believe we're somewhere around 10th place, but you have to knock one or two places off since theyre counting Hong Kong as a country, which it really isnt.
A transatlantic connection likely is going through one hop. Your measurement completely ignores the fact that MOST latency is caused by routing delays in urban areas, with speed-of-light delays only becoming significant on long hauls.
All of that aside, you completely mis-interpret what that link is saying. The latency for a single pixel to change on an LCD monitor is generally, worst-case, going to be sub-15ms, and usually sub-10ms. The speed of light in fiber crossing the atlantic on its SHORTEST span would take ~13ms, but I challenge you to fire up a BGP looking glass and actually find nodes which get data across the atlantic that fast-- particularly since I dont believe any links take that "shortest path". Its significant that looking at straight "speed of light" usually gets you nowhere close to the actual network latency once you add in all the router delays.
Even ignoring that stupid comparison, every additional bit of latency adds up. When you inject a full 50+ms of latency (which will be VERY common for connections to game servers)-- and not just net latency, but input latency-- you can make a game very frustrating to play. Gamers are used to pressing a button and seeing their character respond immediately, with some network delay for characters around that; with onlive they will press a button, and have a delay (latency x 2, for round trip) before they see their character jump, plus additional delay (latency to onlive + latency from onlive to game server) before they see everyone else move.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with latency, what causes it, and how it effects gaming before you start spouting off again.
Latency (forget bandwidth, its irrelevant here) has been steadily decreasing over the years. I rather imagine that getting business-class latencies for residential customers would be cost-prohibitive.
The problem is that your keyboard / mouse latency to the OnLive center, and the graphical latency coming back, add up; on a residential line you are looking at ~30ms each minimum, and likely more; this means that each of your input commands is 30-60ms behind what you're seeing, which is itself 20-50ms behind what is actually happening on the game server.
From your link, that was the british: Having destroyed Washington's public buildings, including the White House and the Treasury, the British army next moved to capture Baltimore, a busy port and a key base for American privateers.
Once again, the commonly touted sucrose is broken down in your body into what is basically an odd-ratio HFCS mix (Sucrose would become 50-50 glucose-fructose, while HFCS is usually 42-55 or 53-42 plus 3-5% "other sugars")
He never said this, and I dont think anyone would support that right. It is, I believe, illegal; I believe there have been numerous cases which establish the legality of aftermarket parts.
What is in question is whether anyone has the right to tell either this small hobbyist or the gigantic Nikon that they MUST provide parts-- which to me seems like a gross overreach of government power. A businesses right to do what business they want with whom they want has been recognized for a very long time.
The point is, a manufacturer should be obligated by law to provide repair parts for reasonable prices
But this I believe would be dangerous. If a manufacturer does not wish to provide a product, I do not think it is anyone's business to tell them they must. If that's not good enough for you, consider that that may place considerable burden on smaller shops that dont really produce extra parts, and whose manufacturing process may not make it easy to get individual parts.
There are problems with the line of thought that would espouse a "right to repair" as it is being stated here. You certainly have a right to do whatever you want with your own property once purchased; but it sounds a lot like what is being proposed is that manufacturers be forced to provide additional services (in the form of parts resale) that they may not want to, or else be forced to sell to consumers that they may not want to.
I think most people would agree that such regulation would be awfully convenient for the consumer. I would argue that thats irrelevant, and that there is no good justification for such regulation, and that it would remove long-recognized business rights (the right to sell to whom they want, the right to refuse to offer certain products).
Slashdot Mirror
It was meant to be a joke, but apparently noone got that.
Be careful, youve apparently come to accept that anything you see that agrees with your preconceptions, regardless of whether it agrees with chemistry or chemists.
As I said, the other major HFCS blend has LESS fructose than glucose. This is the major problem with every single comparison between "HFCS" and "sugar" ive ever seen: they completely ignore that there are two different blends, and no matter how you look at it one SHOULD be slightly better than sugar, and one slightly worse, if there is any difference whatsoever.
Oops, links should have been
1) http://soursaltybittersweet.com/content/hfcs-follow-what-rats-princeton-can-and-can%E2%80%99t-tell-us , among others.... it looks like maybe I did misread and that what was not controlled for was how much rat chow they ate. Still a fairly big problem; perhaps the HFCS group ate more chow for whatever reason, either related or unrelated to HFCS.
2) http://grist.org/article/interview-with-princeton-hfcs-researcher-dr-bart-hoebel/
Its not clear (because theres no clear link to the actual study), but from what Im reading it has gotten a lot of criticism because it did not actually do a proper comparision between sucrose and HFCS, but rather extrapolated from an earlier study ( ) Maybe Im not reading that properly, however.
More problematic for this comparison, they werent actually comparing HFCS to sucrose:
Hoebel: The goal of this paper was not exclusively to compare HFCS to sucrose. Rather, we were interested in assessing 1) limited vs. continuous access to HFCS, as our previous research has focused on binge eating of sugars, 2) differences in body weight gain as a results of access to HFCS that might result in males vs. females, and 3) the effects of long term access to HFCS on parameters such as triglyceride levels and fat accrual.
Theres also no mention of whether it was a blind study on the part of the experimenters or not, which tends to be pretty important ( I dont know if the term "double blind" would be appropriate here, as Im sure the rats neither know nor care what they are eating).
My issue is that the only studies I have seen on HFCS have tended to be "inadequate" for comparing sucrose and HFCS; when the research head says thats not their goal, thats kind of a problem.
Just buffer some of the packets for ~12 hours and send them out at non-peak times. Problem solved!
Paying $X per Y gbps means, practically, that you are paying $X for (Y * day * 30) GB of traffic. Divide that by your subscribers, and you have a cap per user.
There is, practically speaking, only a semantic difference between paying for X gbps and paying for X GB during a set period.
It does not credit you for unused bandwidth.
So you want a pay-per-GB system then? Because thats the net effect of paying $X for Y gb of traffic, and then getting refunded for unused gb of traffic.
The reality is that youre always going to be on an over-sold line unless you really feel like paying for a dedicated link. They make those, you know; the only thing is the price is substantially higher.
Im not generally one to stick up for ISPs, but it really does sound like you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Agreed that they probably shouldnt be advertising unlimited, but common sense has to intrude at some point. Most restaurants advertise unlimited refills, but I can assure you that not only would the restaurant prevent you from filling up a water cooler on "unlimited refills", but they would be backed up by basically any court in the country. Common sense would dictate that "unlimited" in that case is for "normal use".
The analogy breaks down because while most adult humans are going to have a pretty similar capacity for soda, internet usage varies wildly by customer. What is "normal" or "reasonable" for one person is not for another.
That people are suprised that the internet has finite capacity doesnt really change the fact that it does, in fact, have finite capacity.
and causing cancer to its employees
Lets not go overboard here, theres a substantial difference between "excessive radiation exposure" and "caused cancer".
Maybe hyperbole is your thing (it appears to be), but it really just brings the level of the discussion down about 3 notches.
It sounds suspiciously unlike a server at this point, and more like "we're renting you a PC".
http://www.akamai.com/dl/akamai/q3_2012_soti_infographic.pdf
http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/
Average connection speed in the US is 7.2mbps. The absolute top is South Korea, with 14; I believe we're somewhere around 10th place, but you have to knock one or two places off since theyre counting Hong Kong as a country, which it really isnt.
A transatlantic connection likely is going through one hop. Your measurement completely ignores the fact that MOST latency is caused by routing delays in urban areas, with speed-of-light delays only becoming significant on long hauls.
All of that aside, you completely mis-interpret what that link is saying. The latency for a single pixel to change on an LCD monitor is generally, worst-case, going to be sub-15ms, and usually sub-10ms. The speed of light in fiber crossing the atlantic on its SHORTEST span would take ~13ms, but I challenge you to fire up a BGP looking glass and actually find nodes which get data across the atlantic that fast-- particularly since I dont believe any links take that "shortest path". Its significant that looking at straight "speed of light" usually gets you nowhere close to the actual network latency once you add in all the router delays.
Even ignoring that stupid comparison, every additional bit of latency adds up. When you inject a full 50+ms of latency (which will be VERY common for connections to game servers)-- and not just net latency, but input latency-- you can make a game very frustrating to play. Gamers are used to pressing a button and seeing their character respond immediately, with some network delay for characters around that; with onlive they will press a button, and have a delay (latency x 2, for round trip) before they see their character jump, plus additional delay (latency to onlive + latency from onlive to game server) before they see everyone else move.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with latency, what causes it, and how it effects gaming before you start spouting off again.
Latency (forget bandwidth, its irrelevant here) has been steadily decreasing over the years. I rather imagine that getting business-class latencies for residential customers would be cost-prohibitive.
The problem is that your keyboard / mouse latency to the OnLive center, and the graphical latency coming back, add up; on a residential line you are looking at ~30ms each minimum, and likely more; this means that each of your input commands is 30-60ms behind what you're seeing, which is itself 20-50ms behind what is actually happening on the game server.
From your link, that was the british:
Having destroyed Washington's public buildings, including the White House and the Treasury, the British army next moved to capture Baltimore, a busy port and a key base for American privateers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
The war of 1812 was between the US and Britain; AFAIK "Canada" didnt exist as a separate entity for quite a while after that war.
Imagine enshrining the idea that the government is responsible for making sure businesses dont need to face the consequences of reckless behavior.
Guess which one I prefer?
This assumes that all of the banks would have gone down in flames; I have read a lot to suggest that is very incorrect.
See below for correction, ratio was slightly off, but not by much.
Once again, the commonly touted sucrose is broken down in your body into what is basically an odd-ratio HFCS mix (Sucrose would become 50-50 glucose-fructose, while HFCS is usually 42-55 or 53-42 plus 3-5% "other sugars")
, but to sue anyone who does.
He never said this, and I dont think anyone would support that right. It is, I believe, illegal; I believe there have been numerous cases which establish the legality of aftermarket parts.
What is in question is whether anyone has the right to tell either this small hobbyist or the gigantic Nikon that they MUST provide parts-- which to me seems like a gross overreach of government power. A businesses right to do what business they want with whom they want has been recognized for a very long time.
at the very least, let others provide them
AFAIK they cannot legally prevent this....
The point is, a manufacturer should be obligated by law to provide repair parts for reasonable prices
But this I believe would be dangerous. If a manufacturer does not wish to provide a product, I do not think it is anyone's business to tell them they must. If that's not good enough for you, consider that that may place considerable burden on smaller shops that dont really produce extra parts, and whose manufacturing process may not make it easy to get individual parts.
There are problems with the line of thought that would espouse a "right to repair" as it is being stated here. You certainly have a right to do whatever you want with your own property once purchased; but it sounds a lot like what is being proposed is that manufacturers be forced to provide additional services (in the form of parts resale) that they may not want to, or else be forced to sell to consumers that they may not want to.
I think most people would agree that such regulation would be awfully convenient for the consumer. I would argue that thats irrelevant, and that there is no good justification for such regulation, and that it would remove long-recognized business rights (the right to sell to whom they want, the right to refuse to offer certain products).
Theres no need to try to cover for the fact that OP is ignorant and his post was a kneejerk reaction, and an attempt at karma whoring.
Really, who read his post and got anything of value out of it?