I was just trying to be a little bit sarcastic, in that I (and many many many others) were using VCRs in the 1980s to "watch whatever I want, whenever I want"... and nowadays (and for the last decade for me) with DVRs.
I would gladly pay the SAME amount if I could literally turn off the channels I don't watch.
Yes, I KNOW you can disable channels e.g. in a Tivo (IIRC, at least in some cable company boxes, you STILL can't do that simple thing).
But I mean literally turn them off. Why? I want to give positive reinforcement to ACTUALLY the channels I want, and remove the home shopping & religious channels, even if they are subsidizing part of my bill.. (But I would also be removing some channels that ARE being paid through my bill..)
If it were on a show by show basis, but NOT at the $1-$2/episode price the various services charge now.. even better..
Heck, even though I love DVRs, if Hulu Plus had an AD FREE version for $50/month (that worked on a TV, not just on a computer -- I know, Tivos have Hulu Plus too), I'd use that INSTEAD of DVRing stuff.
It is also about watching whatever you want, whenever you want. Not just Thursdays at 9:00... People no longer want to schedule their lives around the broadcast schedule.
Yes, but did Brazil have credit cards at *all* in the 1950s?
Changing credit cards is one of the cases (along with cell phones being far more prevalent than land lines, in developing countries), where having technological advances far earlier than other parts of the world causes tons of inertia which makes FURTHER advances much harder/take longer/more expensive.
Maybe he can show HP how to do URLs instead of the gibberish ones they've been using for years.
To be devil's advocate, are URLs "intended" to be human readable? I think there are arguments on both sides.
Doesn't it seem kind of silly, even though I admit they are more memorable, that every new movie that comes out has a new 'memorable' web site URL that's only relevant for a few months at most, rather than something like http://moviestudio.com/MOVIETI...
In the U.S., there are laws that prevent charging different prices for credit or cash. (Though yes, there is a loophole that you can list a "discount" for cash... Though, at least for me, gas [the only situation I noticed it used] was just as cheap or cheaper with credit card after counting the cash back, compared to other stations like Arco that do not take credit cards at all.)
But again, I agree that it costs the merchant something (but doesn't it save them time/money going to the bank to get change/bring cash in, and probably other time?)... Yet, at each individual purchase for me, it's as cheap or cheaper to use credit card, AND more convenient. I'd probably use credit card even without the cash back, for the convenience. Of course, I auto-pay in full every month, so don't pay any interest.
I'm IN the U.S., and I almost never use cash. I use credit cards. (Yes, the store has to pay a fee, which theoretically comes back to all customers, but at each individual purchase, my price is the same.. or actually lower, if you count my cash back, plus it's more convenient.)
I actually agree with you, though it's apparently due to Twitter's objection to Twitpic's trademark *application*.
You'd think Twitter would just use the system the way it was designed to, and object to Twitpic's trademark application (it actually seems like they have), and even possibly fight AFTERWARDS (if it is granted) for it to be revoked, due to the confusion it is actually causing.
Twitter seems to be doing a "we don't like what you're doing, so making you unable to continue".
That's why I specifically said "for people who want that functionality".
I can see wanting your sprinkler system online -- to change it from your couch.. or heck, even from somewhere else (not everyone has automatic rain sensors).
The common "fridge keeps track of what you have in it" idea would be great if it ALSO coordinated with the local grocery store ads that week..
Umm, the "Internet of things" doesn't NEED "modern Internet speeds". Does your fridge or your sprinkler system or whatever need high speed? No, it just "needs" (for people who want that functionality), some kind of comparatively dirt slow communication path.
That's not an argument FOR IPv4 directly, just that your "modern Internet speeds" argument directly doesn't necessarily justify throwing away decades' worth of hardware that is providing people functionality.
As long as you're replacing the "DNA" of the Internet, wouldn't replacing SMTP be a better thing to start with? (To prevent spam, or at least untraceable spam?)
Lets say someone wants Netflix access, but doesn't use it that much (a couple shows a week).
They need the bandwidth, but don't need all that much total data. They can't choose a lower bandwidth, since then that would mean not getting HD quality, or not even being able to get it at all.
But isn't this technically not "spillage at the bottling plant", but "packaging removed by the delivery men"? So it's almost spillage on your front door...
That is, you're paying for the full weight of the package, including the container.. But when they deliver it, they remove the container and take it away.. So you did pay for delivery of the container, you just don't have it anymore..?
1) email 2) usenet 3) editor (I believe much of the code is shared with pico, but I don't think it launches a separate pico, e.g. for editing headers) probably does more that I can't even think about.. But because it has the built in friendly behaviors AND ability to use various supplemental things (e.g. external editor), it does seem to me to sort of be outside of the "do one very specific thing well".
and again, I like it, partially BECAUSE of it being "a better UNIX app citizen", IMHO.
it's the init process. That page also describes that a bunch of other stuff was merged into it.
I have no idea who this is, but on the 2nd page of the quoted article, there is this quoted:
Mike Gancarz sums up the Unix philosophy:
1) Small is beautiful. 2) Make each program do one thing well...and a bunch more...
The funny thing is, I agree with those in theory... but in actual practice (yes, I'm alluding to the cliche), pine/alpine is one of the best UNIX programs around.. it's "friendly" (unlike most UNIX programs), but ALSO configurable as heck for those of us who can't stand to use its defaults (e.g. its built in editor)... and you can just move the binaries around, unlike most UNIX programs.. So it's basically a big huge program, comparatively.
(trn's another example of a huge program that does a lot of things well.)
True, but if you limit yourself to the 'average' commute your range is going to be too short for half of commuters, never mind if they need to divert somewhere without charge opportunity.
Actually, I said over double the average commute. Though we're also confusing median and mean, I admit I don't recall which the stat was (I've quoted it in previous EV threads -- from various sites, including government studies).
Are you driving a pure EV or a strong hybrid? I'm thinking a leaf?
Smart electric. About the same range as a Leaf, IIRC. My car usually says about 62 or 63 miles range when it's full, though the federal stat is 68 miles, IIRC. Anecdotally, even though mine says 62 or 63 miles, it is being very conservative, because e.g. I can go 20 miles, but the range estimate has only gone down 15 miles. I have noticed that many times on my one long drive weekly to a friend's house.
Slashdot Mirror
Geez, sounds like they'd be perfect for WebTV!
Damn, beat me to it.
OK, but I've run into plenty of third party apps using it.
Since it is by definition a cross-platform framework (and first showed up on Windows and X windows), how is it "Linux-oriented"?
How do you "crack down on" people following the rules and doing exactly what is best for them, paying the least amount of taxes?
I was just trying to be a little bit sarcastic, in that I (and many many many others) were using VCRs in the 1980s to "watch whatever I want, whenever I want"... and nowadays (and for the last decade for me) with DVRs.
It's not a new thing.
I would gladly pay the SAME amount if I could literally turn off the channels I don't watch.
Yes, I KNOW you can disable channels e.g. in a Tivo (IIRC, at least in some cable company boxes, you STILL can't do that simple thing).
But I mean literally turn them off. Why? I want to give positive reinforcement to ACTUALLY the channels I want, and remove the home shopping & religious channels, even if they are subsidizing part of my bill.. (But I would also be removing some channels that ARE being paid through my bill..)
If it were on a show by show basis, but NOT at the $1-$2/episode price the various services charge now.. even better..
Heck, even though I love DVRs, if Hulu Plus had an AD FREE version for $50/month (that worked on a TV, not just on a computer -- I know, Tivos have Hulu Plus too), I'd use that INSTEAD of DVRing stuff.
Welcome to the 1980s, houstonbofh.
Yes, but did Brazil have credit cards at *all* in the 1950s?
Changing credit cards is one of the cases (along with cell phones being far more prevalent than land lines, in developing countries), where having technological advances far earlier than other parts of the world causes tons of inertia which makes FURTHER advances much harder/take longer/more expensive.
To be devil's advocate, are URLs "intended" to be human readable? I think there are arguments on both sides.
Doesn't it seem kind of silly, even though I admit they are more memorable, that every new movie that comes out has a new 'memorable' web site URL that's only relevant for a few months at most, rather than something like http://moviestudio.com/MOVIETI...
Seems to me you are arguing FOR econ 101, when you think you're arguing against it.
To be able to do a "real" supply vs. demand comparison, you DO need all costs involved included.
OK, so I presume you mean in other countries.
In the U.S., there are laws that prevent charging different prices for credit or cash. (Though yes, there is a loophole that you can list a "discount" for cash... Though, at least for me, gas [the only situation I noticed it used] was just as cheap or cheaper with credit card after counting the cash back, compared to other stations like Arco that do not take credit cards at all.)
But again, I agree that it costs the merchant something (but doesn't it save them time/money going to the bank to get change/bring cash in, and probably other time?)... Yet, at each individual purchase for me, it's as cheap or cheaper to use credit card, AND more convenient. I'd probably use credit card even without the cash back, for the convenience. Of course, I auto-pay in full every month, so don't pay any interest.
If you had a 401(k) or whatever your local equivalent is, or your own investments, you wouldn't have to rely on a pension.
You mean you're outside the U.S., right?
I'm IN the U.S., and I almost never use cash. I use credit cards. (Yes, the store has to pay a fee, which theoretically comes back to all customers, but at each individual purchase, my price is the same.. or actually lower, if you count my cash back, plus it's more convenient.)
I actually agree with you, though it's apparently due to Twitter's objection to Twitpic's trademark *application*.
You'd think Twitter would just use the system the way it was designed to, and object to Twitpic's trademark application (it actually seems like they have), and even possibly fight AFTERWARDS (if it is granted) for it to be revoked, due to the confusion it is actually causing.
Twitter seems to be doing a "we don't like what you're doing, so making you unable to continue".
That's why I specifically said "for people who want that functionality".
I can see wanting your sprinkler system online -- to change it from your couch.. or heck, even from somewhere else (not everyone has automatic rain sensors).
The common "fridge keeps track of what you have in it" idea would be great if it ALSO coordinated with the local grocery store ads that week..
Umm, the "Internet of things" doesn't NEED "modern Internet speeds". Does your fridge or your sprinkler system or whatever need high speed? No, it just "needs" (for people who want that functionality), some kind of comparatively dirt slow communication path.
That's not an argument FOR IPv4 directly, just that your "modern Internet speeds" argument directly doesn't necessarily justify throwing away decades' worth of hardware that is providing people functionality.
As long as you're replacing the "DNA" of the Internet, wouldn't replacing SMTP be a better thing to start with? (To prevent spam, or at least untraceable spam?)
Your humor will be a Bonanza.
I know, that's why I made that analogy.
But that doesn't really make sense.
Lets say someone wants Netflix access, but doesn't use it that much (a couple shows a week).
They need the bandwidth, but don't need all that much total data. They can't choose a lower bandwidth, since then that would mean not getting HD quality, or not even being able to get it at all.
But isn't this technically not "spillage at the bottling plant", but "packaging removed by the delivery men"? So it's almost spillage on your front door...
That is, you're paying for the full weight of the package, including the container.. But when they deliver it, they remove the container and take it away.. So you did pay for delivery of the container, you just don't have it anymore..?
Alpine actually is pretty overgrown.
1) email
2) usenet
3) editor (I believe much of the code is shared with pico, but I don't think it launches a separate pico, e.g. for editing headers)
probably does more that I can't even think about.. But because it has the built in friendly behaviors AND ability to use various supplemental things (e.g. external editor), it does seem to me to sort of be outside of the "do one very specific thing well".
and again, I like it, partially BECAUSE of it being "a better UNIX app citizen", IMHO.
OK, I guess I am sort of answering my own question.. Checking the wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
it's the init process. That page also describes that a bunch of other stuff was merged into it.
I have no idea who this is, but on the 2nd page of the quoted article, there is this quoted:
The funny thing is, I agree with those in theory... but in actual practice (yes, I'm alluding to the cliche), pine/alpine is one of the best UNIX programs around.. it's "friendly" (unlike most UNIX programs), but ALSO configurable as heck for those of us who can't stand to use its defaults (e.g. its built in editor)... and you can just move the binaries around, unlike most UNIX programs.. So it's basically a big huge program, comparatively.
(trn's another example of a huge program that does a lot of things well.)
Actually, I said over double the average commute. Though we're also confusing median and mean, I admit I don't recall which the stat was (I've quoted it in previous EV threads -- from various sites, including government studies).
Smart electric. About the same range as a Leaf, IIRC. My car usually says about 62 or 63 miles range when it's full, though the federal stat is 68 miles, IIRC. Anecdotally, even though mine says 62 or 63 miles, it is being very conservative, because e.g. I can go 20 miles, but the range estimate has only gone down 15 miles. I have noticed that many times on my one long drive weekly to a friend's house.