So you truly do believe that the parents who are seeking a night out away from the kids so they can keep their relationship fresh and active, who need to be reachable by the baby sitter if there is an emergency, should just fuck off because they might inconvenience you for a few seconds?
Too bad that's not what it usually is. I've been in a theatre where there were multiple people on their phones for the entire duration of the movie. I truly believe that the movie theatre should immediately escort anyone talking on a phone out of the building if they aren't curtious enough to leave on their own accord when they receive a phone call. I understand that someone might have an emergency but is your emergency important enough to disturb the other 200 parents in the theatre that want a night away from the kids and paid to watch the movie? How does the parent who wants a night away from the kids rights trump the other 200 patrons that might want the same thing? And the real problem is that most if not all of the phone calls that happen in a theatre are NOT emergencies. I think having an inside tower which intercepts calls and charges $5/minute would be a good solution that address both the emergency situations and the "other 200 patrons" problem. If you can't pay $5 to answer your call it's not an emergency. Heck, the fee should probably be AT LEAST as much as 2-3 tickets if not 50 tickets.
The problem with this theory is that a signal jammer is trivial to make. I accidently built one when I was 12. I put it in a small box with a button and thought it was a great parlor trick at the time. A simple google search turns up dozens of links with instructions if someone is not smart enough to come up with one by themself. Heck, even a microwave or tesla coil works pretty decent as a jammer.
Why? What makes you think that a free-for-all radio frequency spectrum is in anyone's best interest?
I'm guessing from your selfish attitude that you've never been an emergency services volunteer who donates a large amount of his free time to training how to save the lives of other people and might want to be able to go to a movie or a restaurant every so often and not be unable to get the notification that someone needs help.
So you think passively blocking them like many theatres are doing now is better? Passively blocking signals is worse as there is no ability to turn it off at all.
If I ever bought a personal jammer I wouldn't leave it on. I would just press it when needed so that the targetted call got dropped. 5 seconds should be plenty of time. And an active jammer is actually safer than the passive jammers some theatres are putting in. A passive jammer can't be turned on and off. It's permanently on so calling 911, etc.. is impossible. Honestly, as a movie theatre I think the correct solution is to just install a small tower right on top of your building (or a micro tower inside each theatre) then charge $5 per minute for all calls not to 911.
Thanks. I had guessed as much. So the drive technology becomes the limiting factor as you need something that can stay in the right "groove" when it encounters a scratch or be able to jump over it and find the rest of that ring.
This may or may not be possible with a disc I burn myself. I'm not sure how well optical readers handle large catestrophic errors and whether they can get anything off a disc with 50% damage but implementing it myself is not even an option when buying and/or renting dvds and bluerays. It's probably one of the reason blueray sales are falling faster than expected. Streaming quality sucks but even with the occasional buffering you still get to watch the whole movie. I can't tell you how many times a movie I've rented skips 10 minutes of the movie because of a minor scratch.
What size of an area should you have the right to block all signals? Why should you not have the right to block all signals in a larger area?
One example: A movie theatre or restaurant should have the right to block all cell phone signals on their premise with proper testing to make sure it stays within it's property lines and with proper signs stating that they do so. Currently this is illegal so they sometimes go out of their way to passively block it at a much greater expense or in some cases even require you to "check" your phone.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to block cell phone signals inside my home? What if I want to test my home security system that relies on cell towers? I could think of plenty of other "fair use" reasons that buying and using a cell jammer should be legal.
I've never understood why blueray didn't fix this. Blueray has plenty of space now. Screw higher definition, I want a disk that I can scratch 12 times with a razor blade and still get my data off. My guess is the only reason they haven't done this is because they want the disk to only last a half dozen times before starting to degrade so you have to buy the movie again.
But it seems like PC crowds want to INSIST that hiring practices be changed to try and "fix" a problem that may not exist.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with the "retention committee" of a public university once. They were complaining that 20% of freshmen didn't return for their sophmore year. I told them that that sounded about right. They were trying to fix a problem that didn't really exist. People drop out of college for hundreds of reasons many of which the college has no control of. 100% retention would mean that everyone passed regardless of whether they showed up for class, studied, etc... which would make the degree worthless.
It's good to look at the data and make sure that there isn't any underlying problem but it's very bad to try to fix a problem (or like the headline conclude that there is a problem) when the problem doesn't exist. Yahoo and google have very little direct control over who applies for their jobs so blaming them for a lack of diversity without comparing it to the diversity in applications is completely unfounded.
BTW, just we hire someone that meets the checkbox for "diverse", they still are highly qualified. The misnomer is that hiring with diversity somehow implies a lower quality candidate. That is not true.
Of course it's true. If you had 2 equally qualified candidate and picked the one that is the race/gender of your chosing then yes, your choice of race doesn't affect the quality of the candidate (it still seems unfair to the other guy who didn't even get a coin toss). Back here in the real world though you rarely have 2 equally qualified candidate so you're passing over a more qualified candidate for a slightly less qualified candidate. The only way you don't get a less qualified candidate is if race/gender was only used as a tie-breaker in the rare circumstances where you can't decide but even this seems stupid and unfair.
Does your company actually track applicants through to hiring to actually prove that women don't apply? Or is this something you just tell yourself to make y'all feel better?
So are you implying that HR (which is many times heavily female) is intentionally dropping qualified female applicants based on race? I highly doubt this. We don't have an HR department so I see EVERY resume that applies to a position and 90% of them are male. This article makes it sound like google and yahoo are descriminating against females when in reality they have a higher percentage of female in their workforce than the percentage that are graduating from college with CS degrees which IMHO is pretty darn impressive. If only 30% of the CS workforce is female and you hire 35% female then you are doing pretty good and it actually means that some other company has to have less than 30% to make up for the extra females that you hired. If you want more females (or blacks) at google or yahoo you need to start further up the chain. You have to get women actually wanting to get CS degrees. I have many female(and male) relatives that have less than zero interest in programming and you couldn't pay them enough to do my job.
Here's what I'm suggesting, for clarification purposes:
- when you "need" to alter route directions but can't when the vehicle is in motion, and you're on a highway, just wait until you come up to the next exit (or off ramp or turn or whatever term you want to use), pull off the highway (using the off ramp/exit/turn/whatever), pull over, make your changes, then re-enter the highway. Pretty simple stuff.
Great in theory but I've taken many exits that exit to another highway going a different direction with no way to "get right back on" and still no where to pull over. To make things worse, it might take 4-5 miles to actually find a turn around to go back to the original road. Exiting then reentering the highway is not always a reasonable option. And the OP was talking about finding food, a gas station, etc... in which case being taken 10-20 miles out of your way is not a very attractive option.
How about this question, what government institution do you think has a goal that is permanently attainable? I mean once attained it no longer needs to be monitored or regulated.
Maintenance should cost less than attaining the goal to begin with so there should certainly be departments that can be reduced in size once some measure of sucess is achieved but I don't know of any agency that has ever been set up that way or have ever been reduced in size. And then there are departments that should never have existed at all like the federal dept of education. It's bad enough that we have state departments but I can kindof see the point of them but there is very little if anything that the federal dept of education can do that couldn't be better done by states and communication between states.
There is exactly zero excuse for using anything more than a trickle when no one is using it.
I would agree with this unless it has DVR capabilities. It has to be considered "in use" when it's recording a show to watch later. A properly designed system should go to sleep during times when it's not actively recording a show and have a low power watchdog schedule to wake it up at the appropriate time. If it's like a tivo and it randomly records shows you "might" want to watch then this should be a setting you can disable to save electricity and again, it should only be "on" when it has something to record and space to record it.
That concept of multitude is completely foreign to a C programmer. It makes them fail every time. You simply cannot introduce a C programmer to Perl and expect them to have any kind of easy time with it. You might as well introduce a cyclist to a horse.
I disagree with this. I learned applebasic as a kid and learned c++ in college. I've never had formal training in perl but I find it the quickest and easiest to pick up, use, and to teach others. CPAN can't be beat and Perl is very mature, very modern, and still being developed as well as being cross-platform. The OP stated he wanted to do quick and dirty and I don't think anything can beat PERL/CPAN for quick/dirty. You can't do native apps for iphone/android with it but you can't with anything other than objective C/java respectively. It is very capable for web apps though so building decent apps is also still possible. For what the OP is asking for Perl seems the closest to match his needs.
First, $1 is pretty cheap, especially for a large organization with lots of IPs The bigger problem is: How do people give back IPs? Say 4 people give back their spare IPs to the ISP. The ISP now has 4 extras randomly distributed in a block that they could give out if needed, but that just means complicated routing if they want to return them to the general pool. In the amount of time a system could be created to take them back, and convince all the corporations/organizations to return them, they'll be exhausted almost instantly and we're back to still needing IPv6 but we wasted all this time recovering IPs.
Easy. I'm really not talking about charging the end-user. ICANN would be the one sending the bill and would only be sending the bill for the IPs it directly gives out. So we're really only talking about class C or larger. Basically companies/goverments that are running BGP or similiar. If an ISP wants to stop being charged for a class A because they only really need a class C then they would exchange the class A to ICANN for an appropriately sized class C and hand out new IPs to their customers. This already happens now for whatever reason. I've had ISPs force an IP change on me multiple times because they moved to a different subnet.
Again, there is no convincing the companies to return them. The fee will convince them. If they don't pay the fee then their IP becomes unroutable. If the fee becomes a nuisance and they see they can save 100k/year then they will migrate on their own. If they don't migrate then ICANN now has plenty of money to pay companies to switch to ipv6 or whatever it needs to do to help the transition.
"just start charging per ip $1 per ip per year should be sufficient"
And who should benefit from the $4B/yr revenue? The American government because ICANN is in the US?
Give it all to ICANN and use the money to convert everyone to ipv6. Give it to the red cross. Heck, burn it in a bonfire for that matter to help reduce inflation. It doesn't really matter. The point is that there are ALOT of idle ips out there and if the people sitting on them had to fork over cash each year/month for them then they would have an incentive to give them up. Right now if you are lucky enough or powerful enough to have a bunch you have very little incentive to give them up. You actually have several incentives NOT to give them up.
It woyuld not be good, It would be GREAT. That way the end user gives even more money to the providers without actualy having a need to invest.
And those are also the ones who need to invest in I{v6 and you wonder why they don't?
You're assuming the provider gets to keep this money but the providers is who has to pay the fee not the end-user. In many cases the end user is already paying more than this for a static IP and the provider will likely pass this on to the end-user but the end-user is not the hoarders. The hoarders are the thousands of businesses that have unused ips. It's easy to pass on a $1 charge to a end-user if there is an end-user but if you have 1k ips sitting idle and now you have to pay for them then you might decide it's worth the hassle to exchange them for a smaller block.
If we're too lazy to switch to ipv6 then they need to just start charging per ip. $1 per ip per year should be sufficient to cause plenty of ip hoarders to return their stock. If that's not enough then increase it to $1 per ip per month. Still small enough that it shouldn't really affect anyone too much. My guess is any computer that can't absorb a $1/month charge is not an actually computer and should have a private 10.0 number anyways.
Charge per ip might also be a good way to help encourage ipv6 switchover.
They've basically already did this with ipv6 with all the ipv4 numbers accessible as a subset of ipv6. I don't see the adoption of an area code system any more likely than the adoption of ipv6. There might be some type of solution like that though. Basically what you're suggesting is allowing 2 computers to have the same ipv4 address so just like 2 computers not on the same network can have the same mac address without conflicting it could be possible to design a system where a computer in africa has the same ip as a server in china without conflict.
Why is this such a bad thing? Everyone already knows that ISPs oversell their bandwidth. As long as you still get the speed you are paying for why should you care if someone else is using your wifi anymore than you care if your neighbor is also a comcast subscriber. I doubt it increases your electricity cost and you get the benefit of using other people's wifi when you are out and about. This seems like a win-win for everyone. I don't see the problem if it's done correctly especially as you have multiple ways to opt out.
He points out that 'race' is a construct much like 'species' - outdated and not particularly useful.
...unless you want to find a suitable mate.
However, the term 'species' does have a very useful definition, ie: Organisms that can produce fertile offspring with each other.
Species might be useful for finding a suitable mate but race isn't. I know plenty of people who date different races and even some who only date a race other than their own. xenophobia is not a evolutionary trait but more a social construct. The only part of xenophobia that is evolutionary is the tendency to like the familiar but there are also plenty of people that like the unfamiliar so it probably evens out.
How is this different than the "use firefox" or "we recommend internet explorer" or "we recommend chrome" that many banks, websites, etc... have routinely shown. Many websites have gone so far as blocking you if you didn't have an "approved" browser. I see no reason why netflix can't do the same. They could even do something like "because we have detected that you will get a subpar experience, we currently don't allow verizon customers to use our service".
Heh. I never heard of Redbox Instant before now. Big marketing failure there, chaps.
It's only marketed to people who use redbox because that's it's only real value. It gives you 4 free rentals per month plus streaming. If you rent from redbox you can't miss it.
Who actually uses Redbox Instant? Sorta kinda seriously asking.
It's a pretty good deal for someone who mostly uses redbox and occasionally wants to stream. It's $8 a month and gives you 4 rentals so comes out to $2-$3 per month for the streaming portion. It's a way for redbox to lock in some customers and a way for verizon to test out it's own streaming service.
Slashdot Mirror
So you truly do believe that the parents who are seeking a night out away from the kids so they can keep their relationship fresh and active, who need to be reachable by the baby sitter if there is an emergency, should just fuck off because they might inconvenience you for a few seconds?
Too bad that's not what it usually is. I've been in a theatre where there were multiple people on their phones for the entire duration of the movie.
I truly believe that the movie theatre should immediately escort anyone talking on a phone out of the building if they aren't curtious enough to
leave on their own accord when they receive a phone call. I understand that someone might have an emergency but is your emergency important
enough to disturb the other 200 parents in the theatre that want a night away from the kids and paid to watch the movie?
How does the parent who wants a night away from the kids rights trump the other 200 patrons that might want the same thing?
And the real problem is that most if not all of the phone calls that happen in a theatre are NOT emergencies.
I think having an inside tower which intercepts calls and charges $5/minute would be a good solution that address both the emergency situations
and the "other 200 patrons" problem. If you can't pay $5 to answer your call it's not an emergency. Heck, the fee should probably be AT LEAST
as much as 2-3 tickets if not 50 tickets.
The problem with this theory is that a signal jammer is trivial to make. I accidently built one when I was 12.
I put it in a small box with a button and thought it was a great parlor trick at the time. A simple google search
turns up dozens of links with instructions if someone is not smart enough to come up with one by themself.
Heck, even a microwave or tesla coil works pretty decent as a jammer.
Why? What makes you think that a free-for-all radio frequency spectrum is in anyone's best interest?
I'm guessing from your selfish attitude that you've never been an emergency services volunteer who donates a large amount of his free time to training how to save the lives of other people and might want to be able to go to a movie or a restaurant every so often and not be unable to get the notification that someone needs help.
So you think passively blocking them like many theatres are doing now is better?
Passively blocking signals is worse as there is no ability to turn it off at all.
If I ever bought a personal jammer I wouldn't leave it on. I would just press it when needed so that the
targetted call got dropped. 5 seconds should be plenty of time.
And an active jammer is actually safer than the passive jammers some theatres are putting in.
A passive jammer can't be turned on and off. It's permanently on so calling 911, etc.. is impossible.
Honestly, as a movie theatre I think the correct solution is to just install a small tower right on top
of your building (or a micro tower inside each theatre) then charge $5 per minute for all calls not to 911.
Thanks. I had guessed as much. So the drive technology becomes the limiting factor as you
need something that can stay in the right "groove" when it encounters a scratch or be able to
jump over it and find the rest of that ring.
This may or may not be possible with a disc I burn myself. I'm not sure how well optical readers handle large catestrophic errors
and whether they can get anything off a disc with 50% damage but implementing it myself is not even an option when buying and/or
renting dvds and bluerays. It's probably one of the reason blueray sales are falling faster than expected. Streaming quality sucks
but even with the occasional buffering you still get to watch the whole movie. I can't tell you how many times a movie I've rented
skips 10 minutes of the movie because of a minor scratch.
What size of an area should you have the right to block all signals? Why should you not have the right to block all signals in a larger area?
One example:
A movie theatre or restaurant should have the right to block all cell phone signals on their premise with proper testing
to make sure it stays within it's property lines and with proper signs stating that they do so.
Currently this is illegal so they sometimes go out of their way to passively block it at a much greater expense or
in some cases even require you to "check" your phone.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to block cell phone signals inside my home?
What if I want to test my home security system that relies on cell towers?
I could think of plenty of other "fair use" reasons that buying and using a cell jammer should be legal.
I've never understood why blueray didn't fix this. Blueray has plenty of space now. Screw higher definition, I want
a disk that I can scratch 12 times with a razor blade and still get my data off. My guess is the only reason they
haven't done this is because they want the disk to only last a half dozen times before starting to degrade so you
have to buy the movie again.
But it seems like PC crowds want to INSIST that hiring practices be changed to try and "fix" a problem that may not exist.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with the "retention committee" of a public university once.
They were complaining that 20% of freshmen didn't return for their sophmore year.
I told them that that sounded about right. They were trying to fix a problem that didn't really exist.
People drop out of college for hundreds of reasons many of which the college has no control of.
100% retention would mean that everyone passed regardless of whether they showed up for class,
studied, etc... which would make the degree worthless.
It's good to look at the data and make sure that there isn't any underlying problem but it's very bad
to try to fix a problem (or like the headline conclude that there is a problem) when the problem
doesn't exist. Yahoo and google have very little direct control over who applies for their jobs so
blaming them for a lack of diversity without comparing it to the diversity in applications is completely
unfounded.
BTW, just we hire someone that meets the checkbox for "diverse", they still are highly qualified. The misnomer is that hiring with diversity somehow implies a lower quality candidate. That is not true.
Of course it's true. If you had 2 equally qualified candidate and picked the one that is the race/gender of your chosing then yes,
your choice of race doesn't affect the quality of the candidate (it still seems unfair to the other guy who didn't even get a coin toss).
Back here in the real world though you rarely have 2 equally qualified candidate so you're passing over a more qualified candidate
for a slightly less qualified candidate. The only way you don't get a less qualified candidate is if race/gender was only used as
a tie-breaker in the rare circumstances where you can't decide but even this seems stupid and unfair.
Does your company actually track applicants through to hiring to actually prove that women don't apply? Or is this something you just tell yourself to make y'all feel better?
So are you implying that HR (which is many times heavily female) is intentionally dropping qualified female applicants based on race?
I highly doubt this. We don't have an HR department so I see EVERY resume that applies to a position and 90% of them are male.
This article makes it sound like google and yahoo are descriminating against females when in reality they have a higher percentage
of female in their workforce than the percentage that are graduating from college with CS degrees which IMHO is pretty darn impressive.
If only 30% of the CS workforce is female and you hire 35% female then you are doing pretty good and it actually means that
some other company has to have less than 30% to make up for the extra females that you hired.
If you want more females (or blacks) at google or yahoo you need to start further up the chain. You have to get women actually
wanting to get CS degrees. I have many female(and male) relatives that have less than zero interest in programming and
you couldn't pay them enough to do my job.
You may miss your turn waiting for that exit.
Huh? That doesn't make any sense...
Here's what I'm suggesting, for clarification purposes:
- when you "need" to alter route directions but can't when the vehicle is in motion, and you're on a highway, just wait until you come up to the next exit (or off ramp or turn or whatever term you want to use), pull off the highway (using the off ramp/exit/turn/whatever), pull over, make your changes, then re-enter the highway. Pretty simple stuff.
Great in theory but I've taken many exits that exit to another highway going a different direction with no way to "get right back on"
and still no where to pull over. To make things worse, it might take 4-5 miles to actually find a turn around to go back to the
original road. Exiting then reentering the highway is not always a reasonable option. And the OP was talking about finding food,
a gas station, etc... in which case being taken 10-20 miles out of your way is not a very attractive option.
How about this question, what government institution do you think has a goal that is permanently attainable? I mean once attained it no longer needs to be monitored or regulated.
Maintenance should cost less than attaining the goal to begin with so there should certainly be departments that
can be reduced in size once some measure of sucess is achieved but I don't know of any agency that has ever
been set up that way or have ever been reduced in size. And then there are departments that should never have
existed at all like the federal dept of education. It's bad enough that we have state departments but I can kindof
see the point of them but there is very little if anything that the federal dept of education can do that couldn't be
better done by states and communication between states.
There is exactly zero excuse for using anything more than a trickle when no one is using it.
I would agree with this unless it has DVR capabilities. It has to be considered "in use" when it's recording a show
to watch later. A properly designed system should go to sleep during times when it's not actively recording a show
and have a low power watchdog schedule to wake it up at the appropriate time. If it's like a tivo and it randomly
records shows you "might" want to watch then this should be a setting you can disable to save electricity and
again, it should only be "on" when it has something to record and space to record it.
That concept of multitude is completely foreign to a C programmer. It makes them fail every time. You simply cannot introduce a C programmer to Perl and expect them to have any kind of easy time with it. You might as well introduce a cyclist to a horse.
I disagree with this. I learned applebasic as a kid and learned c++ in college. I've never had formal
training in perl but I find it the quickest and easiest to pick up, use, and to teach others.
CPAN can't be beat and Perl is very mature, very modern, and still being developed as well as being cross-platform.
The OP stated he wanted to do quick and dirty and I don't think anything can beat PERL/CPAN for quick/dirty.
You can't do native apps for iphone/android with it but you can't with anything other than objective C/java respectively.
It is very capable for web apps though so building decent apps is also still possible.
For what the OP is asking for Perl seems the closest to match his needs.
First, $1 is pretty cheap, especially for a large organization with lots of IPs
The bigger problem is: How do people give back IPs? Say 4 people give back their spare IPs to the ISP. The ISP now has 4 extras randomly distributed in a block that they could give out if needed, but that just means complicated routing if they want to return them to the general pool.
In the amount of time a system could be created to take them back, and convince all the corporations/organizations to return them, they'll be exhausted almost instantly and we're back to still needing IPv6 but we wasted all this time recovering IPs.
Easy. I'm really not talking about charging the end-user. ICANN would be the one sending the bill and would only be sending the
bill for the IPs it directly gives out. So we're really only talking about class C or larger. Basically companies/goverments that are
running BGP or similiar. If an ISP wants to stop being charged for a class A because they only really need a class C then they
would exchange the class A to ICANN for an appropriately sized class C and hand out new IPs to their customers. This already
happens now for whatever reason. I've had ISPs force an IP change on me multiple times because they moved to a different subnet.
Again, there is no convincing the companies to return them. The fee will convince them. If they don't pay the fee then their IP
becomes unroutable. If the fee becomes a nuisance and they see they can save 100k/year then they will migrate on their own.
If they don't migrate then ICANN now has plenty of money to pay companies to switch to ipv6 or whatever it needs to do to help
the transition.
"just start charging per ip $1 per ip per year should be sufficient"
And who should benefit from the $4B/yr revenue? The American government because ICANN is in the US?
Give it all to ICANN and use the money to convert everyone to ipv6. Give it to the red cross.
Heck, burn it in a bonfire for that matter to help reduce inflation. It doesn't really matter.
The point is that there are ALOT of idle ips out there and if the people sitting on them had
to fork over cash each year/month for them then they would have an incentive to give them up.
Right now if you are lucky enough or powerful enough to have a bunch you have very little
incentive to give them up. You actually have several incentives NOT to give them up.
It woyuld not be good, It would be GREAT. That way the end user gives even more money to the providers without actualy having a need to invest.
And those are also the ones who need to invest in I{v6 and you wonder why they don't?
You're assuming the provider gets to keep this money but the providers is who has to pay the fee not the end-user.
In many cases the end user is already paying more than this for a static IP and the provider will likely pass this on to
the end-user but the end-user is not the hoarders. The hoarders are the thousands of businesses that have unused ips.
It's easy to pass on a $1 charge to a end-user if there is an end-user but if you have 1k ips sitting idle and now you
have to pay for them then you might decide it's worth the hassle to exchange them for a smaller block.
If we're too lazy to switch to ipv6 then they need to just start charging per ip.
$1 per ip per year should be sufficient to cause plenty of ip hoarders to return their stock.
If that's not enough then increase it to $1 per ip per month. Still small enough that
it shouldn't really affect anyone too much. My guess is any computer that can't
absorb a $1/month charge is not an actually computer and should have a private
10.0 number anyways.
Charge per ip might also be a good way to help encourage ipv6 switchover.
They've basically already did this with ipv6 with all the ipv4 numbers accessible as a subset of ipv6.
I don't see the adoption of an area code system any more likely than the adoption of ipv6.
There might be some type of solution like that though. Basically what you're suggesting is allowing 2
computers to have the same ipv4 address so just like 2 computers not on the same network can
have the same mac address without conflicting it could be possible to design a system where a
computer in africa has the same ip as a server in china without conflict.
Yes, this is a shitty thing to do
Why is this such a bad thing? Everyone already knows that ISPs oversell their bandwidth. As long as you still
get the speed you are paying for why should you care if someone else is using your wifi anymore than you care
if your neighbor is also a comcast subscriber. I doubt it increases your electricity cost and you get the benefit of
using other people's wifi when you are out and about. This seems like a win-win for everyone. I don't see the problem
if it's done correctly especially as you have multiple ways to opt out.
He points out that 'race' is a construct much like 'species' - outdated and not particularly useful.
...unless you want to find a suitable mate.
However, the term 'species' does have a very useful definition, ie: Organisms that can produce fertile offspring with each other.
Species might be useful for finding a suitable mate but race isn't. I know plenty of people
who date different races and even some who only date a race other than their own.
xenophobia is not a evolutionary trait but more a social construct.
The only part of xenophobia that is evolutionary is the tendency to like the familiar but
there are also plenty of people that like the unfamiliar so it probably evens out.
How is this different than the "use firefox" or "we recommend internet explorer" or "we recommend chrome"
that many banks, websites, etc... have routinely shown. Many websites have gone so far as blocking you
if you didn't have an "approved" browser. I see no reason why netflix can't do the same. They could even
do something like "because we have detected that you will get a subpar experience, we currently don't allow
verizon customers to use our service".
Heh. I never heard of Redbox Instant before now. Big marketing failure there, chaps.
It's only marketed to people who use redbox because that's it's only real value. It gives you 4 free rentals
per month plus streaming. If you rent from redbox you can't miss it.
Who actually uses Redbox Instant? Sorta kinda seriously asking.
It's a pretty good deal for someone who mostly uses redbox and occasionally wants to stream.
It's $8 a month and gives you 4 rentals so comes out to $2-$3 per month for the streaming portion.
It's a way for redbox to lock in some customers and a way for verizon to test out it's own streaming service.