Most MMO's involve walking around doing stupid stuff without much real point.
In WoW and such, it's gaining levels. There's no end game, so there isn't really a "point" to it other than entertainment and distraction.
In Second Life, there are actually I'd say a lot more ways to entertain yourself, and a "point" that is a lot closer to reality than other MMO's. CAD type folks would enjoy the modeling aspect of it - SL started as just flat land boarderd by water, Avatars, and the basis for an economy, i.e. Lindens which were based on the US dollar. Everything else (outside the tutorial area) was built by SL players.
This was the basis for litterally, a "second life" with its own economy, only it was primarily design and modeling skills that allowed one to become "rich" in SL. The cool thing was, making millions a year in SL meant making hundreds of thousands a year in the real world. Not a bad gig really. That is until the Second Life Banking Crisis of 2007.
Tell your boss the wireless mouse you have is a problem and have him get you a wireless mouse/keyboard that dock.
If your boss is spending that kind of cash just for looks (all glass tables aren't cheap, and I'd wager he got tempered glass for the table top since plate glass scratches easilly), he'll probably go for it, because docked wireless mice/keyboard combos tend to look pretty slick.
I don't know if you've used a calculator recently, but most calculators that cost more than $20 or so can give you a remainder instead of a decimal. I've got two that do it - one is my good TI graphing calculator, and one was a cheapo depo calculator I got for a non-calc physics class because I thought I lost my graphing calculator. The first was around $100, the second around $20, or less I can't remember for sure.
Plus, if you're regularly doing long division and carrying the remainder, chances are you're doing those calculations on a computer where the calculators are much more robust.
Wow, you got modded Informative for reading the parent incorrectly? Quality modding there.
The parent didn't say the C++ map was faster, he said it was clearer and easier to understand what it was doing.
He then said that if the map is significantly slower, you've probably got other issues in your code. The obfusticating array should only be used as a last resort and if performance is critical.
Only a fool can't recognize the advantages of many years of experience for those in a position of power.
That said, just cause you're experienced doesn't mean you aren't still a fool, and I agree with your sentiment that pretty much everyone, or at least a large majority, up on capitol hill are old fools who need to be replaced with people outside the political system.
I wouldn't replace them with young 20-somthings though, my god have you seen our generation? I'd rather keep who we have, thanks.
His idea is akin to exploding gas vapor: too little in the air and it just burns well, over-saturate the air and it just burns, or may not burn at all. But if you get just the right mix of gas vapor in the air, it's explosive.
He's applying that concept to the age issue and industrial pollutants, like the pollutants are some sort of catalyst: Not enough pollutants and the virus can't do its thing, too many pollutants and the virus suffocates. Just the right amount though, and it thrives.
If this hypothesis has any merit, you'll see different age range averages for different countries that correlate to the relative polution.
The point about the salt was not a dosage issue. NA is incredibly dangerous even in at small levels (consuming a few salt grain sized bits of NA would do serious damage to your mouth and throat), and Cl is deadly at very low levels, it was used as a WMD for a little while. NaCl doesn't become harmfull until you consume very high levels relative to its constituent parts, and you can swim in it if you want. As long as you don't choke, and try not to swallow too much (you've got tons of leeway), you'll be unharmed.
The point was, just because something is toxic, doesn't mean it can't be used in beneficial ways when paired with the right ingredients at the right levels. The hair product example isn't exactly the same as salt, as salt is molecule and the hair product is a mixture of molecules, but the concept is similar. Same idea as alloys, really. Though I personally recomend not eating them.
An alternative to copyright would be some sort of exclusive right to sell.
The work could be put in the public domain, but only the author would have the right to package and sell that work.
That would give incentive, as the only persons permitted to profit off the work would be the original author, but I don't know that the incentive would be as high as the original copyright term of 14 years exclusive right to copy.
Beyond that, I don't see how you could encourage the production of creative works.
The GP was assuming a Patent didn't apply. Most designs cannot be patented because they are either A.) Not unique enough, or B.) Don't significantly improve an existing Patent. The specific criterea are more involved than that, but that is basically it.
There is no patent on a regular style handbag, the companies that make variations on that design must compete in the market based on quality and/or price.
There are a hell of a lot of pieces of literature and media that should be in the same category as that handbag, with 90%+ of their commercial viability already past in just a few years. And yet, the copyright term is what, about 100 years? That's absurd. 15 years covers 99.9% of all the commercial value of 99.9% of literature and music and cinema. For that last 0.1%, 95% of the comercial value has been gained.
The original copyright terms were reasonable, I mean, they weren't even short! It wasn't like you got 6 months or a year to peddle your copy and that was it, it was a significant amount of time. But then your works entered the public domain, and the rest of the country could be enriched by them, since you would have gotten your due compensation by then.
Charge more for your service, or offer less bandwidth, or cap monthly usage (only if you make it plain as day that it is capped though!). Good QoS delivery is important as well, and you can prioritize packet types (with disregard to where they were generated) to optimize bandwidth usage. Note that if done correctly, QoS improves internet service all-around, it does not restrict it.
All of those are reasonable methods to improve the bandwidth/cost situation. Some people may think propper QoS is bad, but that is just because they do not understand it. What is NOT appropriate is charging a host external to your own network for prioritized access (effectively lowering the priority of all other hosts on the net for your network). It is also not appropriate to block access to a website for no reason other than your users like to visit it a lot, and so it uses a lot of your bandwidth. That, and especially charging the host to have the block removed, should both be criminal if they aren't already. Lastly it is NOT appropriate to prioritize your own internet content on your own network, unless you sell that as an additional and separate service.
I have NEVER heard any net neutrality argument against using proper QoS to manage limited bandwidth. I expect a competent Network Operations Admin at an ISP to implement some sort of priority queuing. What I should NOT expect from an ISP is for them to launch a man-in-the-middle Denial of Service against me, when I pay for a service that I expect to actually use.
You obviously didn't read all the comments on the way to the bottom of this thread then.;)
Part of the reason QoS is starting to be attacked by less informed people, is that they don't trust the telco's to do any traffic management at all, and it's hard to blame them. It's the "slippery slope" logical fallacy, and it would be easier to discredit if there were not telco's like Comcast actually doing inappropriate traffic shaping, and getting busted for it.
End users are having their internet service fucked over because competing services their ISP offers get special treatment.
That is not the case here. Though it uses similar transmition technologies, cable TV service (including VOD) is significantly cheaper to provide because of the distribution method. The difference between Cable TV/VOD service and full Internet service is equivalent to the difference between serving your own movies/music on your home LAN and accessing the wider Internet. It costs no more than the equipment and time setting up, plus the cost of the content, to serve as many movies as I want on my home LAN. This is the same as a Cable company's TV service. However, as soon as I want to hook into the Internet, I have to pony up the cash because I have to use someone else's lines, switches, and routers to do so. It's -exactly- the same for an ISP. The only difference is an ISP has a "home network" of several hundred thousand devices, instead of 4 or 5 like my personal LAN. They still have to pony up the cash when they want to access another ISP's lines, switches, and routers. That's how the internet works. It's how it was built, it's how it has always worked, and it is how it always will work.
Just because they are on different bands doesn't mean their isn't prioritization going on. The frequency ranges dedicated to voice, net, video, etc. are adjusted and prioritized in relation to each other - the pipe is finite.
The pipe is actually not finite, in the sense of putting more information through them - the amount of electrons going through has always been the same for each type of copper, modulation technology improves to send more data over the same copper. It is the equipment at each end that determines what can be shoved through the pipe. Certain pipes can make this easier or harder, but the pipe itself has little to do with it. Since it's the equipment that makes all the difference, hey guess what? Cable and Internet services use different equipment! OMG! The networks, while they share the same lines, are also completely different in type and structure.
Choosing how to prioritize traffic should N O T take into account the source or destination. Prioritizing Skype over Hulu is fine. Prioritizing Skype over Vonage is not fine. Prioritizing the ISPs own voice service over Skype or Vonage is not fine.
Prioritization on the packet level (known as throttling) is definitely not o.k. It's also not at all what myself, the GP, and the OP were talking about. We were all talking about payment schemes for service. Accessing the internet is a service. Whether or not it should be priced the same as Cable TV is irrelevant and unrelated to Net Neutrality. Whether or not they are each priced fairly is also not related to Net Neutrality. Lumping them together confuses them both and weakens the case for both.
Whether prioritization comes in the form of allowing/blocking, moving things ahead/back in a queue, allocating more/less frequency space to different services, negotiating contracts with other ISPs, broadcasters, etc., it doesn't matter.
Again, not what we're talking about here. And, incidentally, Cable providers don't need to negotiate contracts with other ISPs, that's Internet only. Broadcasting is paid for via advertising. Cable content is paid for once for the entire user-base - though granted it is probably based on the amount of users to be served. The internet, however, is served piecemeal, and negotiations are not for the content, they are for the ACCESS, and can be very expensive because of that.
That still doesn't make it a Net Neutrality issue. It's a pricing issue. They are NOT the same.
Choking out the internet and not choking out your own services is bullshit. There's a reason COX sends weekly flyers about "LAST CHANCE" bundles for their voice service. There's also a reason why my internet
That's idiotic, it's only the same pipe as far as getting to the home base. For regular cable and VOD service, that's as far as it has to go. For Netflix/Hulu/etc it has to cross into other people's pipes, and ISP agreements come into play.
So what do you call it when TW imposes caps which make say Netflix/Hulu/Youtube content more expensive to watch than TW provided content?
Er, sound business practice? It's much cheaper for TW to provide regular cable service because it is a multicast service. What that means is, when 1000 people want to watch HD show X, which requires 2gb total to send to their users, TW only has to send that 2gb once. Total bandwidth used over the course of a 1 hour show: 2gb.
VOD falls somewhere in the middle, but is closer to regular cable in cost. Why? Because even though for 1,000 users they have to send 2gb each (2,000gb if you've been paying attention), TW knows exactly what it offers on VOD, and can cache all of those movies/shows locally. This means they they are sending that 2,000gb only on the legendary "last mile", which costs them almost nill.
Now, when 1000 users want to download from Netflix/Hulu/Etc., they have to receive that 2gb 1,000 separate times, and send that 2gb out 1,000 separate times, that's 2,000gb of bandwidth burned end-to-end, compared to 2gb. Sending the data over their own lines is cheap. Receiving it via another major ISP's lines is expensive, relatively speaking. Granted, caching can aleviate some of that, but it is not even close to possible for them to cache the entire range of options, like they can with their own VOD service.
You cannot expect a cable company to do the same for a service like Netflix/Hulu/Etc as they do VOD. Why the hell should they, they offer their own service! A service that almost certainly has less of a selection, I might add. It would be obscenely expensive to try and cache everything Netflix et. all have, and only serves to help the video companies, not the cable companies. You (the customer) would have to pay extra for that anyway, so why would they go through the trouble and expense for nothing?
So, to sum up, here is why Netflix/Hulu/Etc cost more to use:
Regular cable: 2gb burned per 1000 users (multicast) VOD: 2,000gb burned, but only last-mile (serving content locally) Netflix/Hulu/Etc.: 2,000gb burned that must travel accross several ISPs, bringing sharing agreements into play
The disparity between services is a bandwidth issue. The pricing is a monopoly/lack of competition issue. Now, if TW were slowing or blocking or otherwise restricting access movie streaming services specifically, THAT would be a net-neutrality issue.
Honestly, bitching about pricing for a service you use (that's all you're doing, really) and then calling it net-neutrality is disingenuous at best, and completely dishonest at worst.
I believe the Apache license is the same as the BSD license, it may even be the BSD license, I'm not sure and I didn't RTFA, naturally. Anyway both Apache and BSD have been around a long, long time.
So it's not "throwing another one in the ringer", it's an old player getting up and saying "you guys suck, I'm the best". Basically I think they are trying to start the FOSS version of a fist fight.
The US also uses a jury system, and in cases of discrimination it is not unheard of to use circumstancial evidence to rile up a jury and get a conviction. If your company actively uses a social networking site which has this kind of information, it might not be difficult to paint it as "poor innocent standing up to big evil discriminatory corporation" and, with cases based largely on circumstantial evidence, that can be a death sentance.
It's funny how the Mod system can make someone look racist.
I wonder if the trolls bait people for just this purpose? Could they have achieved that level of intelligence? Surely not, or we are doomed!! I'm just going to assume it was a lucky (for the troll) accident and hide under the table just in case I'm wrong.
Don't go betting the farm on monarchy just because you happened to get lucky and find a good egg. There have been more than enough bad eggs to make that path dubious.
At least a Republic takes time to spiral out of control, dying brilliantly, rather than the "now it's good, now it's bad" up and down in perpetuity of a monarchy.
Unfortunately, that's the way it goes. AGP is obsolete.
The sole advantage of AGP was a faster, dedicated bus for graphics. PCI-Express accomplishes this and much more while being significantly faster than AGP was. AGP has gone the way of the dinosaur, and PCI is the new ISA (potentially useful in increasingly specific, niche applications).
Why would a manufacturer cram the latest technology into an obsolete interface? They probably wouldn't recoup the costs of re-configuring for AGP in sales if they did. Lets face it, if you are stuck with AGP, you are probably not enjoying all the benefits of modern multi-core technology either. An upgrade now would be very significant, and you should still be able to get your graphics card/mobo/cpu upgrade for under $300.
You're not alone though, I'm in the same position.
I remember when "high-end" meant $800-1000, this was particularly true when SLI first came out. At it's peak, maxing out your graphics capabilities meant spending up to $1400. $500 was maybe high side of mid-range, and you could get by with low settings on any game with a $300 card. The $300 level was where I spent most of my money, as I couldn't afford the high end stuff, and there were -always- settings I could not turn on because I didn't have the power. And this was when "High-resolution" Was in the 1600x1400 range (at the time of SLI we started seeing higher), monitors that went higher than that were prohibitively expensive.
$100 cards that max settings on most games with most monitors is pretty significant. Granted I didn't RTFA, so I don't know if that's exactly what they are saying, but either way it is significant. In fact, $100 cards that can play new games with most settings on high at 1080p resolution is pretty frickin impressive, even if it can't max it out. Makes me want to buy a new card.
That's true, my post would only relate to Ireland in that the US e-voting push helped e-voting become the "hip new thing" in elections. People everywhere began to associate paper with unreliable and electronic with secure. Neither of those positions are true in and of themselves. Both paper and electronic CAN be secure and reliable, however since electronic should rely less on human interaction, there should be less human error and therefore the potential for higher accuracy is there for electronic methods.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the official unofficial name for that is "Slashdot Tourette Syndrome", or STS.
Unfortunately, while cases are well documented and numerous, little if any research has gone into treating this disease.
Most MMO's involve walking around doing stupid stuff without much real point.
In WoW and such, it's gaining levels. There's no end game, so there isn't really a "point" to it other than entertainment and distraction.
In Second Life, there are actually I'd say a lot more ways to entertain yourself, and a "point" that is a lot closer to reality than other MMO's. CAD type folks would enjoy the modeling aspect of it - SL started as just flat land boarderd by water, Avatars, and the basis for an economy, i.e. Lindens which were based on the US dollar. Everything else (outside the tutorial area) was built by SL players.
This was the basis for litterally, a "second life" with its own economy, only it was primarily design and modeling skills that allowed one to become "rich" in SL. The cool thing was, making millions a year in SL meant making hundreds of thousands a year in the real world. Not a bad gig really. That is until the Second Life Banking Crisis of 2007.
I don't think they tried to patent it, just sell it.
Tell your boss the wireless mouse you have is a problem and have him get you a wireless mouse/keyboard that dock.
If your boss is spending that kind of cash just for looks (all glass tables aren't cheap, and I'd wager he got tempered glass for the table top since plate glass scratches easilly), he'll probably go for it, because docked wireless mice/keyboard combos tend to look pretty slick.
I don't know if you've used a calculator recently, but most calculators that cost more than $20 or so can give you a remainder instead of a decimal. I've got two that do it - one is my good TI graphing calculator, and one was a cheapo depo calculator I got for a non-calc physics class because I thought I lost my graphing calculator. The first was around $100, the second around $20, or less I can't remember for sure.
Plus, if you're regularly doing long division and carrying the remainder, chances are you're doing those calculations on a computer where the calculators are much more robust.
Cheers!
Wow, you got modded Informative for reading the parent incorrectly? Quality modding there.
The parent didn't say the C++ map was faster, he said it was clearer and easier to understand what it was doing.
He then said that if the map is significantly slower, you've probably got other issues in your code. The obfusticating array should only be used as a last resort and if performance is critical.
I'm not even a programmer and I got that.
It's unfortunate that the old rule the young.
Only a fool can't recognize the advantages of many years of experience for those in a position of power.
That said, just cause you're experienced doesn't mean you aren't still a fool, and I agree with your sentiment that pretty much everyone, or at least a large majority, up on capitol hill are old fools who need to be replaced with people outside the political system.
I wouldn't replace them with young 20-somthings though, my god have you seen our generation? I'd rather keep who we have, thanks.
His idea is akin to exploding gas vapor: too little in the air and it just burns well, over-saturate the air and it just burns, or may not burn at all. But if you get just the right mix of gas vapor in the air, it's explosive.
He's applying that concept to the age issue and industrial pollutants, like the pollutants are some sort of catalyst: Not enough pollutants and the virus can't do its thing, too many pollutants and the virus suffocates. Just the right amount though, and it thrives.
If this hypothesis has any merit, you'll see different age range averages for different countries that correlate to the relative polution.
The point about the salt was not a dosage issue. NA is incredibly dangerous even in at small levels (consuming a few salt grain sized bits of NA would do serious damage to your mouth and throat), and Cl is deadly at very low levels, it was used as a WMD for a little while. NaCl doesn't become harmfull until you consume very high levels relative to its constituent parts, and you can swim in it if you want. As long as you don't choke, and try not to swallow too much (you've got tons of leeway), you'll be unharmed.
The point was, just because something is toxic, doesn't mean it can't be used in beneficial ways when paired with the right ingredients at the right levels. The hair product example isn't exactly the same as salt, as salt is molecule and the hair product is a mixture of molecules, but the concept is similar. Same idea as alloys, really. Though I personally recomend not eating them.
An alternative to copyright would be some sort of exclusive right to sell.
The work could be put in the public domain, but only the author would have the right to package and sell that work.
That would give incentive, as the only persons permitted to profit off the work would be the original author, but I don't know that the incentive would be as high as the original copyright term of 14 years exclusive right to copy.
Beyond that, I don't see how you could encourage the production of creative works.
The GP was assuming a Patent didn't apply. Most designs cannot be patented because they are either A.) Not unique enough, or B.) Don't significantly improve an existing Patent. The specific criterea are more involved than that, but that is basically it.
There is no patent on a regular style handbag, the companies that make variations on that design must compete in the market based on quality and/or price.
There are a hell of a lot of pieces of literature and media that should be in the same category as that handbag, with 90%+ of their commercial viability already past in just a few years. And yet, the copyright term is what, about 100 years? That's absurd. 15 years covers 99.9% of all the commercial value of 99.9% of literature and music and cinema. For that last 0.1%, 95% of the comercial value has been gained.
The original copyright terms were reasonable, I mean, they weren't even short! It wasn't like you got 6 months or a year to peddle your copy and that was it, it was a significant amount of time. But then your works entered the public domain, and the rest of the country could be enriched by them, since you would have gotten your due compensation by then.
Charge more for your service, or offer less bandwidth, or cap monthly usage (only if you make it plain as day that it is capped though!). Good QoS delivery is important as well, and you can prioritize packet types (with disregard to where they were generated) to optimize bandwidth usage. Note that if done correctly, QoS improves internet service all-around, it does not restrict it.
All of those are reasonable methods to improve the bandwidth/cost situation. Some people may think propper QoS is bad, but that is just because they do not understand it. What is NOT appropriate is charging a host external to your own network for prioritized access (effectively lowering the priority of all other hosts on the net for your network). It is also not appropriate to block access to a website for no reason other than your users like to visit it a lot, and so it uses a lot of your bandwidth. That, and especially charging the host to have the block removed, should both be criminal if they aren't already. Lastly it is NOT appropriate to prioritize your own internet content on your own network, unless you sell that as an additional and separate service.
That's my two cents anyway.
I have NEVER heard any net neutrality argument against using proper QoS to manage limited bandwidth. I expect a competent Network Operations Admin at an ISP to implement some sort of priority queuing. What I should NOT expect from an ISP is for them to launch a man-in-the-middle Denial of Service against me, when I pay for a service that I expect to actually use.
You obviously didn't read all the comments on the way to the bottom of this thread then. ;)
Part of the reason QoS is starting to be attacked by less informed people, is that they don't trust the telco's to do any traffic management at all, and it's hard to blame them. It's the "slippery slope" logical fallacy, and it would be easier to discredit if there were not telco's like Comcast actually doing inappropriate traffic shaping, and getting busted for it.
End users are having their internet service fucked over because competing services their ISP offers get special treatment.
That is not the case here. Though it uses similar transmition technologies, cable TV service (including VOD) is significantly cheaper to provide because of the distribution method. The difference between Cable TV/VOD service and full Internet service is equivalent to the difference between serving your own movies/music on your home LAN and accessing the wider Internet. It costs no more than the equipment and time setting up, plus the cost of the content, to serve as many movies as I want on my home LAN. This is the same as a Cable company's TV service. However, as soon as I want to hook into the Internet, I have to pony up the cash because I have to use someone else's lines, switches, and routers to do so. It's -exactly- the same for an ISP. The only difference is an ISP has a "home network" of several hundred thousand devices, instead of 4 or 5 like my personal LAN. They still have to pony up the cash when they want to access another ISP's lines, switches, and routers. That's how the internet works. It's how it was built, it's how it has always worked, and it is how it always will work.
Just because they are on different bands doesn't mean their isn't prioritization going on. The frequency ranges dedicated to voice, net, video, etc. are adjusted and prioritized in relation to each other - the pipe is finite.
The pipe is actually not finite, in the sense of putting more information through them - the amount of electrons going through has always been the same for each type of copper, modulation technology improves to send more data over the same copper. It is the equipment at each end that determines what can be shoved through the pipe. Certain pipes can make this easier or harder, but the pipe itself has little to do with it. Since it's the equipment that makes all the difference, hey guess what? Cable and Internet services use different equipment! OMG! The networks, while they share the same lines, are also completely different in type and structure.
Choosing how to prioritize traffic should N O T take into account the source or destination. Prioritizing Skype over Hulu is fine. Prioritizing Skype over Vonage is not fine. Prioritizing the ISPs own voice service over Skype or Vonage is not fine.
Prioritization on the packet level (known as throttling) is definitely not o.k. It's also not at all what myself, the GP, and the OP were talking about. We were all talking about payment schemes for service. Accessing the internet is a service. Whether or not it should be priced the same as Cable TV is irrelevant and unrelated to Net Neutrality. Whether or not they are each priced fairly is also not related to Net Neutrality. Lumping them together confuses them both and weakens the case for both.
Whether prioritization comes in the form of allowing/blocking, moving things ahead/back in a queue, allocating more/less frequency space to different services, negotiating contracts with other ISPs, broadcasters, etc., it doesn't matter.
Again, not what we're talking about here. And, incidentally, Cable providers don't need to negotiate contracts with other ISPs, that's Internet only. Broadcasting is paid for via advertising. Cable content is paid for once for the entire user-base - though granted it is probably based on the amount of users to be served. The internet, however, is served piecemeal, and negotiations are not for the content, they are for the ACCESS, and can be very expensive because of that.
That still doesn't make it a Net Neutrality issue. It's a pricing issue. They are NOT the same.
Choking out the internet and not choking out your own services is bullshit. There's a reason COX sends weekly flyers about "LAST CHANCE" bundles for their voice service. There's also a reason why my internet
That's idiotic, it's only the same pipe as far as getting to the home base. For regular cable and VOD service, that's as far as it has to go. For Netflix/Hulu/etc it has to cross into other people's pipes, and ISP agreements come into play.
You guys aren't thinking things through.
So what do you call it when TW imposes caps which make say Netflix/Hulu/Youtube content more expensive to watch than TW provided content?
Er, sound business practice? It's much cheaper for TW to provide regular cable service because it is a multicast service. What that means is, when 1000 people want to watch HD show X, which requires 2gb total to send to their users, TW only has to send that 2gb once. Total bandwidth used over the course of a 1 hour show: 2gb.
VOD falls somewhere in the middle, but is closer to regular cable in cost. Why? Because even though for 1,000 users they have to send 2gb each (2,000gb if you've been paying attention), TW knows exactly what it offers on VOD, and can cache all of those movies/shows locally. This means they they are sending that 2,000gb only on the legendary "last mile", which costs them almost nill.
Now, when 1000 users want to download from Netflix/Hulu/Etc., they have to receive that 2gb 1,000 separate times, and send that 2gb out 1,000 separate times, that's 2,000gb of bandwidth burned end-to-end, compared to 2gb. Sending the data over their own lines is cheap. Receiving it via another major ISP's lines is expensive, relatively speaking. Granted, caching can aleviate some of that, but it is not even close to possible for them to cache the entire range of options, like they can with their own VOD service.
You cannot expect a cable company to do the same for a service like Netflix/Hulu/Etc as they do VOD. Why the hell should they, they offer their own service! A service that almost certainly has less of a selection, I might add. It would be obscenely expensive to try and cache everything Netflix et. all have, and only serves to help the video companies, not the cable companies. You (the customer) would have to pay extra for that anyway, so why would they go through the trouble and expense for nothing?
So, to sum up, here is why Netflix/Hulu/Etc cost more to use:
Regular cable: 2gb burned per 1000 users (multicast)
VOD: 2,000gb burned, but only last-mile (serving content locally)
Netflix/Hulu/Etc.: 2,000gb burned that must travel accross several ISPs, bringing sharing agreements into play
The disparity between services is a bandwidth issue. The pricing is a monopoly/lack of competition issue. Now, if TW were slowing or blocking or otherwise restricting access movie streaming services specifically, THAT would be a net-neutrality issue.
Honestly, bitching about pricing for a service you use (that's all you're doing, really) and then calling it net-neutrality is disingenuous at best, and completely dishonest at worst.
I believe the Apache license is the same as the BSD license, it may even be the BSD license, I'm not sure and I didn't RTFA, naturally. Anyway both Apache and BSD have been around a long, long time.
So it's not "throwing another one in the ringer", it's an old player getting up and saying "you guys suck, I'm the best". Basically I think they are trying to start the FOSS version of a fist fight.
May the best license win!
The US also uses a jury system, and in cases of discrimination it is not unheard of to use circumstancial evidence to rile up a jury and get a conviction. If your company actively uses a social networking site which has this kind of information, it might not be difficult to paint it as "poor innocent standing up to big evil discriminatory corporation" and, with cases based largely on circumstantial evidence, that can be a death sentance.
It's funny how the Mod system can make someone look racist.
I wonder if the trolls bait people for just this purpose? Could they have achieved that level of intelligence? Surely not, or we are doomed!! I'm just going to assume it was a lucky (for the troll) accident and hide under the table just in case I'm wrong.
Don't go betting the farm on monarchy just because you happened to get lucky and find a good egg. There have been more than enough bad eggs to make that path dubious.
At least a Republic takes time to spiral out of control, dying brilliantly, rather than the "now it's good, now it's bad" up and down in perpetuity of a monarchy.
Ve-ne-zue-la
Ar-gen-ti-na
They each have 4 syllables.
Good try though!! A little more attention to detail and you'll be mocking people without making a fool of yourself in no time! ;)
Unfortunately, that's the way it goes. AGP is obsolete.
The sole advantage of AGP was a faster, dedicated bus for graphics. PCI-Express accomplishes this and much more while being significantly faster than AGP was. AGP has gone the way of the dinosaur, and PCI is the new ISA (potentially useful in increasingly specific, niche applications).
Why would a manufacturer cram the latest technology into an obsolete interface? They probably wouldn't recoup the costs of re-configuring for AGP in sales if they did. Lets face it, if you are stuck with AGP, you are probably not enjoying all the benefits of modern multi-core technology either. An upgrade now would be very significant, and you should still be able to get your graphics card/mobo/cpu upgrade for under $300.
You're not alone though, I'm in the same position.
I remember when "high-end" meant $800-1000, this was particularly true when SLI first came out. At it's peak, maxing out your graphics capabilities meant spending up to $1400. $500 was maybe high side of mid-range, and you could get by with low settings on any game with a $300 card. The $300 level was where I spent most of my money, as I couldn't afford the high end stuff, and there were -always- settings I could not turn on because I didn't have the power. And this was when "High-resolution" Was in the 1600x1400 range (at the time of SLI we started seeing higher), monitors that went higher than that were prohibitively expensive.
$100 cards that max settings on most games with most monitors is pretty significant. Granted I didn't RTFA, so I don't know if that's exactly what they are saying, but either way it is significant. In fact, $100 cards that can play new games with most settings on high at 1080p resolution is pretty frickin impressive, even if it can't max it out. Makes me want to buy a new card.
Because the Nvidia ones aren't as good, apparently. ;)
That's true, my post would only relate to Ireland in that the US e-voting push helped e-voting become the "hip new thing" in elections. People everywhere began to associate paper with unreliable and electronic with secure. Neither of those positions are true in and of themselves. Both paper and electronic CAN be secure and reliable, however since electronic should rely less on human interaction, there should be less human error and therefore the potential for higher accuracy is there for electronic methods.