from the very people who should be rolling them out: the IT staff.
Someone mind filling me in on why a corporate IT staff would have any reason to roll out web 2.0 technologies? I seriously cannot imagine a single thing they'd want that isn't already covered portably for free by applications with ten year userbases. (I believe the IT department resistance is because IT groups need a reason to go to the effort, and that there actually isn't one.)
So, you can sprinkle carbon or boron dust into water to the same effect; it'll pull about 95% of the radioactive material by chemical bonding each time (meaning you filter it five times and it's okay.) What the problem was with Chernobyl wasn't that we had no way to clean up radiation; it was that the plant blew up, and before we knew it, there was a bunch of this stuff floating through the air. How exactly does this unspoken mystery element accomplish the pulling crap out of several cubic miles of atmosphere?
Until I have a chemical formula for his great noodly appendage, I'm playing the desktop cold fusion card.
Enough TCO slashvertisements for companies we've never heard of, please. Ooh, "corporate data monitoring" from a company whose webserver has a three second round trip. I bet we're all kicking to find out what their monthly OS costs were.
Meanwhile, MTV's Stephen Totilo notes, with more than a touch of seriousness, that Lairs production may have been a touch cursed.
... by poor development practices, naïve management who didn't know how to function without LucasArts support, the ever-present Sony marketing team (who is so bad that I don't even have to make fun of them,) production values with five years of dust, and a game design that would have seemed archaic two weeks after the release of Panzer Dragoon for the Sega Saturn?
Yeah, that qualifies as a curse. Pretty pictures, though. Maybe someday Sony will realize that graphics and hype aren't enough (fl0w.)
GI Joe was just the American branch of the Joes, has been since the 1970s. They're not dropping the Americanism, they're just aiming the camera higher up the tree. We got a dozen Joes (and Viper the matching villains) from other countries, including every eight year olds' favorite opponents, Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes. If you're going to be nationalistic about the history of a toy series, at least know the history of the toy series. (Indeed, in the 1980s cartoon block about the energy pyramids, several people comment that there aren't that many Americans on the group, and ask Duke why he's still calling them GIs.)
If you think calling GI Joe an American is "sacred," you really need to read some books.
"Correlation does not imply causation" is the phrase you're looking for. Causality is the belief that world state derives from repeatable, understandable rules and prior state. Make note: causality is a belief, not the description of physical law; it was the stance taken in ancient times as opposed to the idea that various things (for example, lightning) were holy. This was a significant stance at the time, and from it evolved beliefs like Determinism. Causality was a position held by certain Greek and Hindi branches, and indeed started several wars.
Ok, ask some teachers if they would want a system like this if it didn't come with the ability to snoop on students. I dare you to ask.
I don't need to. I wrote one for the LA county school system several years ago, and it didn't come with the ability to snoop on students. It was compiled, so please don't waste my time informing me about the black-suit Russian commandos that came in behind me and rewrote my code to turn it into SkyNet. I mean, seriously, do you ask whether the new Xerox machine has secret genetic scanners too? Can't a tool just exist for its superficial purpose? "My god, the coke machine connects to the phones, IT MUST BE A SPYING DEVICE, AND YOU'RE AN IDIOT IF YOU BELIEVE THERE'S A MODEM IN THERE DIALLING HOME TO ORDER MORE MELLO YELLO."
I've seen episodes of American Dad with more believable claptrap than this.
I have teachers in my family
They should have spent more time with you.
and can assure you that very few, if any, teachers want more technical hoops to jump through
Going by the Hyundai commercial, I believe the appropriate phrase here is "big duh." Are you prepared to explain why centralizing digital homework submission is more complicated than leaving it to whichever arbitrary dozens of systems the current students and their parents may or may not have chosen, or do you just prefer to imply that everything that you haven't bothered to think through is a problem?
They're under enough stress as is, and do not welcome changes that come with a learning threshold and don't really cut down on the time they spend, after all of it is summed up.
When you assume, you don't actually make an ass out of me. Just you. Keep that in mind.
Uh huh. For once, Webster's isn't wrong, although its definition is partial in a misleading fashion, and although it's still an absolute trash reference (you might as well be referring to infomercials.) This man is acting neither as a spokesperson nor as a promoter. He is at no point so much as mentioning his employer. All he's doing is passing on a news link to a news aggregator. It turns out that writing out a URL doesn't make you a shill. Similarly, even though I have an advertisement for a company in my sig, I'm not a shill, as I'm not making any actual claims about them.
Now, shills aren't actually by definition hiding their association; I'd say I wasn't sure where Wikipedia got that idea, except that in fact, I do know exactly where it got that idea: from some dude like you who has confused their ability to find poor reference which they know by name, put bold on it and pretend that it supports them, who decides that the definition of some word isn't in line with what they remember, and adds things to the entry which are essentially full of crap. Yes, some shillabers were on the down low, but others were up front about their associations, and just tried to spin a compelling case for the service (whether or not the case was honest is not at issue.) For example, there is the snake oil salesman, and his buddy who comes along to tell what joys that J. P. McFee's Miracle Diamondback Elixir did for his shingles, shackles, shiggelosis and sheehan syndrome. At no point does this person pretend not to know who the snake oil salesman is; indeed it would be contrary to his scam. That is a "public shill," as opposed to a "private shill."
Now, if you were finding out what the word actually meant, instead of taking half a sentence out of context and reading into it as deeply as you could in the desperation to invent yourself into correctness, you might find out that shill explicitly means someone working for a corrupt gambler or peddler; indeed, to shill implies that what is being sold is fake. Maybe you believe ComputerWorld invents its news, like The Onion, but if you don't, then you're just exposing your lack of understanding either of the word or how to track down what it really means.
Merriam Webster is a reasonable mistake; most people don't realize how low quality a reference it is (try AmHet or the Collins dictionary; word cemetaries like Webster and the OED just serve to make men stupider, by accepting any half-assed misunderstanding as a definition in the hoary desperation to inflate word count for sales purposes.) Believing in Wikipedia, though? You should know better.
If you want to criticise the ComputerWorld columnist, go right ahead. I'm not attacking your criticism. Just use appropriate terminology. Whether or not what that man's doing is right isn't what I'm talking about. All I'm saying is that if you say "that man works for the company he links to, he's a total sausage mcmuffin," someone's going to step up and explain that a tasty breakfast sandwich isn't actually a way to describe comercially exploitative manipulation of network news services.
He may be doing something creepy. He is not shilling a damned thing. Stop learning words from dictionaries; without context your understanding of their normative definition is partial in even the most generous of situations.
Are you saying I don't have college-level physics, I'm not a pilot, or I haven't read about things on my own?
Yes, yes and no, in that order.
You appear to have taken my post in an extremely antagonistic spirit which simply was not intended
Yeah, there's nothing annoying about someone who refuses to identify themselves getting up on a soapbox about who they are and why I should be taking them seriously, in the midst of making mistakes that would embarrass a highschool physics teacher.
and replied with a deeply accusatory tone which is extremely unpleasant
Yeah, you challenging my education was friendly, mister secret man, but then my returning the favor, that's extremely unpleasant.
As such I shall not respond to the rest of it
Too late. You've already gotten on your podium hating on people for responding to you in your own tone.
because it's clear that you would rather insult than inform.
Ah yes, as opposed to ye, the great unknown doctoral candidate, and his magic underwater airplane engine. You're informing. (Huhu.) Got some real delusions about your part in this, don't you?
Here's a hint: if you want to be taken seriously, either make an account or don't preach about who you are.
It's a user-submitted system. If you want fewer commercially submitted news items on this news service, stop whining in anonymous comments and start writing stories. Sloth doesn't fix anything; if you want something better, write it yourself. (By the way, you might want to look up what the word "shill" means; if you were correct, which you aren't, he would be selling computerworld subscriptions. Driving news traffic to a news site isn't shilling, as nobody but advertisers are handing over money. Don't use words you don't understand.)
These students are being taught to use a system that is ultimately not in their own interests.
Oh for fuck's sake, it's a convenient integrated storage system for student homework to clean the process up for the teachers. This isn't an Orwellian mystery plot. It's not like having this system shuts the students out of other services. The school can't require digital homework delivery if it doesn't provide a baseline so that they know students can fall back on their system if they don't already have something.
You've discovered snide remarks. Now you're pretty much on par with any troll who has tried to be rude to look smart on slashdot in the last couple of decades.
(This is, of course, a lie: you're not at all on par with them, since they're usually funny. But, the joke only works if I parrot you.)
Well for one, if they're storing their homework there, it's timestamped, and if the system fails, the dog really did eat it, and the teacher isn't going to crap down their neck. For two, it's likely to be at least partially integrated with the grading system, meaning that it's likely to be far less hassle for the teacher, meaning that the teacher is likely to require it. There wasn't an advantage to the kind of paper pad my highschool teacher required, but I used them anyway, because it was required.
Unlike software, tools at school don't have to be better to gain momentum.
I freely admit that I have no real background in this, aside from being a pilot and having college-level physics
As someone who believes that underwater cavitation effects take the same solutions as in-air efficiency effects, I'm calling your bluff. Dealing with cavitation decreases the efficiency of the same blade for the same environment. Silent blades are far less efficient than fuel-saver blades just when dealing with submarines. You're now attempting to suggest not only that they have the same general solution, which is blatantly false, but that further that solution generalizes to planes in the air, which is also false. The two craft experience extremely dissimilar forces, and your entire belief structure seems to be predicated on that water and air both behave as fluids when agitated by a moving mass (something which, by the way, also isn't true; whereas they both get forward by pulling themselves, you could argue the same of a gopher in dirt.)
In short, you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about, and I feel no need to detail my background to an anonymous coward claiming credentials they obviously don't have. When you lay your cards on the table, you don't stay anonymous. You're just going through the motions because you think you can fake your way up the authority ladder in order to use ad verecundiam instead of the display of actual understanding to skate through not having to admit you're full of crap.
So sorry, sir, but the reason those blades are secret isn't because they work on the same principles as well known aircraft engines. When your arguments fail the common sense test, so do you.
Wait, you think 777s are designed for noise? This isn't "keep Timmy in aisle 32 from whining about the thump," this is "holy shit where is Sean Connery since his submarine is absolutely silent." A modern high-bypass turbofan jet is designed for two things: fuel efficiency and durability. The design of a turbofan for air and a silent water propeller are going to be similar in that people who don't know what they're talking about notice that they're both curved. Guess what? So is a champagne glass. Not related.
By scarcity I meant the strict economic definition that there is a limited amount of something. I know bandwidth is the same (there is a definite limit)
Scarcity by the strict economic definition implies that new volume cannot be generated. Gold, copper and plutonium are economically scarce. Trees are not - you can grow more of them. The issue of time frame does not factor into scarcity; only a fundamentally limited quantity in a market region (in this case, Earth.) By that definition, bandwidth certainly is not scarce - it is *only* created. Scarcity does not mean "there is a limit" in economics at all.
but since bandwidth follows semiconductor evolution
Uh, no, it doesn't. Bandwidth has been decoupled from semiconductors ever since the grid started going optical. And no, it's not limited by semiconductors in the endcaps, either. You might want to do some reading before you make argument based on saying "I know that (assumption.)" Bandwidth is primarily governed by glass capacity, and something like 80% of the glass in this country is dark. The governant of bandwidth availability right now is pure simple market economics in the major markets, and in the minor markets it's the price of laying capacity out to rural and semi-rural areas. This market doesn't work anything like average Joes in Slashdot stories have told you.
we can expect at least another decade of internet growth comparable to the last one.
Would that be the decade of internet growth marked by a three year volume drop after the dot com boom, where we didn't actually catch up to old capacity until video sharing sites crossed the Metcalfe threshhold? The last decade wasn't even internally consistant; holding it up as a meterstick of future growth is doomed to fail.
It's also worth pointing out that internet growth was radically different in industrialized nations, that cheap laptops are now being governmentally issued in poorer areas, that big content is finally moving onto fiber, that internet appliances are beginning to show up in WalMART, that the rate of computer ownership (that is, not the total computer count, but rather the user count, thereby explicitly excluding people like me who own a bunch of machines from the growth) in the US has jumped by 15% in the last 12 months, that this generation of video game console has seen a move from one out of five to five out of five consoles for significant internet connectivity, that we're now seeing commercial movie rental over the intertubes, that video phones have begun to sell in earnest, and so on.
Any attempt to suggest that the current growth of the Internet is related to the prior growth of the Internet exposes a deep lack of understanding of the fundamental motivating factors of the Internet. There's a reason its growth is so spiky. If it was just coasting, it'd be nice and smooth. The internet is oversaturated; if nothing new was going up, it would *shrink*. If you don't understand why, you need to pick up a microeconomics book before attempting to understand the Internet further.
If a dollar did this we would consider it catastrophic inflation
Uh, what? Currency is not subject to network effects like Metcalfe's law. Bandwidth is not inflating at all; it cannot be stored, valuated or converted to other forms of bandwidth. A dollar by definition cannot "do this."
The size of Quake XXX isn't a factor
I'm not sure why you believe that. Every time I see a major game release, my line saturation jumps an average of 15-20%. Large games are in fact an enormous determinant of the utility of bandwidth; movies would be, except that most first-release crowds go to the theaters to see them. I mean, it's cute that you want to argue, but you don't seem to understand economics, and unlike you, I own an internet service provider, so instead of guessing, I'm actually making arguments based on things I'v
Given that logic, I should stop having a cleaning crew come to my office - why, Enron did that, too. (Translation: just because Enron did bad things doesn't mean everything they did is a warning flag.)
If I'm being a troll forgive me, but how can bandwidth be currency? Isn't the whole basis of economics scarcity?
Well, it's valuation, which sometimes derives from scarcity. That said, it's not like it's particularly hard to find a dollar.
Won't bandwidth eventually become basically infinite
No.
We already passed audio (you can download audio in better quality than your ears faster than you can listen to it).
Well, that's not exactly true - good luck finding sourcing samples at that rate (don't confuse bitstream bandwidth for band rate,) and please do remember that your ears are shaped like that for a reason - it causes controlled, delayed echo patterns that your brain is hard-wired to decode to gather positional information, which is why something to the left of and in front of you sounds different than something to the left of and behind you, even though the balance heard by the two ears isn't changed. Nonetheless, your point stands - there will be a point at which common bandwidth exceeds human sensory bandwidth. And, when you get to that point, you will be shocked to learn that sensory bandwidth and digital bandwidth aren't particularly related - you still want to play Quake 17 in the next ten minutes, even though it's 2.7x10^15 gig, and that's gonna eat a hell of a lot of DSL.
Human sensory pathways are a bottleneck, but most valuation takes place outside said bottleneck. Almost the only place that actually matters is in flat media downloads such as music and movies, where it's good enough to just have the part you're playing.
Hey, what gives? The proposed model only allows for women to have future-money!
So, what you're saying is, you've never been married. Since it's Slashdot, I'm willing to bet that the easiest way to explain is this: the wallet scene in the Jetsons intro is essentially true. (In other words, the proposed model changes nothing.)
It is in fact stupid, but not for the reasons that you believe. In P2P, you most certainly are not a bandwidth sink; rather, you're a distribution node, equivalent to a cache point like a Squid proxy. The general mechanism underlying this network isn't that the bandwidth appears out of nowhere; it's the observation that people almost never use the upstream they pay for, and that therefore they can share their upstream as a way to amortize costs. Your criticism seems to presume that a P2P node must first get its file from some root distributor, and that as such they are an unnessecary link in the chain. That would be true if we were discussing a commodity system; however, it turns out that once you've downloaded a file, you can upload it more than once without downloading it again.
When you learn how P2P works, try again. It's point to point, not point through point.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you can sprinkle carbon or boron dust into water to the same effect; it'll pull about 95% of the radioactive material by chemical bonding each time (meaning you filter it five times and it's okay.) What the problem was with Chernobyl wasn't that we had no way to clean up radiation; it was that the plant blew up, and before we knew it, there was a bunch of this stuff floating through the air. How exactly does this unspoken mystery element accomplish the pulling crap out of several cubic miles of atmosphere?
Until I have a chemical formula for his great noodly appendage, I'm playing the desktop cold fusion card.
Bunk.
Enough TCO slashvertisements for companies we've never heard of, please. Ooh, "corporate data monitoring" from a company whose webserver has a three second round trip. I bet we're all kicking to find out what their monthly OS costs were.
Yeah, that qualifies as a curse. Pretty pictures, though. Maybe someday Sony will realize that graphics and hype aren't enough (fl0w.)
GI Joe was just the American branch of the Joes, has been since the 1970s. They're not dropping the Americanism, they're just aiming the camera higher up the tree. We got a dozen Joes (and Viper the matching villains) from other countries, including every eight year olds' favorite opponents, Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes. If you're going to be nationalistic about the history of a toy series, at least know the history of the toy series. (Indeed, in the 1980s cartoon block about the energy pyramids, several people comment that there aren't that many Americans on the group, and ask Duke why he's still calling them GIs.)
If you think calling GI Joe an American is "sacred," you really need to read some books.
"Correlation does not imply causation" is the phrase you're looking for. Causality is the belief that world state derives from repeatable, understandable rules and prior state. Make note: causality is a belief, not the description of physical law; it was the stance taken in ancient times as opposed to the idea that various things (for example, lightning) were holy. This was a significant stance at the time, and from it evolved beliefs like Determinism. Causality was a position held by certain Greek and Hindi branches, and indeed started several wars.
I've seen episodes of American Dad with more believable claptrap than this.They should have spent more time with you.Going by the Hyundai commercial, I believe the appropriate phrase here is "big duh." Are you prepared to explain why centralizing digital homework submission is more complicated than leaving it to whichever arbitrary dozens of systems the current students and their parents may or may not have chosen, or do you just prefer to imply that everything that you haven't bothered to think through is a problem?When you assume, you don't actually make an ass out of me. Just you. Keep that in mind.
Uh huh. For once, Webster's isn't wrong, although its definition is partial in a misleading fashion, and although it's still an absolute trash reference (you might as well be referring to infomercials.) This man is acting neither as a spokesperson nor as a promoter. He is at no point so much as mentioning his employer. All he's doing is passing on a news link to a news aggregator. It turns out that writing out a URL doesn't make you a shill. Similarly, even though I have an advertisement for a company in my sig, I'm not a shill, as I'm not making any actual claims about them.
Now, shills aren't actually by definition hiding their association; I'd say I wasn't sure where Wikipedia got that idea, except that in fact, I do know exactly where it got that idea: from some dude like you who has confused their ability to find poor reference which they know by name, put bold on it and pretend that it supports them, who decides that the definition of some word isn't in line with what they remember, and adds things to the entry which are essentially full of crap. Yes, some shillabers were on the down low, but others were up front about their associations, and just tried to spin a compelling case for the service (whether or not the case was honest is not at issue.) For example, there is the snake oil salesman, and his buddy who comes along to tell what joys that J. P. McFee's Miracle Diamondback Elixir did for his shingles, shackles, shiggelosis and sheehan syndrome. At no point does this person pretend not to know who the snake oil salesman is; indeed it would be contrary to his scam. That is a "public shill," as opposed to a "private shill."
Now, if you were finding out what the word actually meant, instead of taking half a sentence out of context and reading into it as deeply as you could in the desperation to invent yourself into correctness, you might find out that shill explicitly means someone working for a corrupt gambler or peddler; indeed, to shill implies that what is being sold is fake. Maybe you believe ComputerWorld invents its news, like The Onion, but if you don't, then you're just exposing your lack of understanding either of the word or how to track down what it really means.
Merriam Webster is a reasonable mistake; most people don't realize how low quality a reference it is (try AmHet or the Collins dictionary; word cemetaries like Webster and the OED just serve to make men stupider, by accepting any half-assed misunderstanding as a definition in the hoary desperation to inflate word count for sales purposes.) Believing in Wikipedia, though? You should know better.
If you want to criticise the ComputerWorld columnist, go right ahead. I'm not attacking your criticism. Just use appropriate terminology. Whether or not what that man's doing is right isn't what I'm talking about. All I'm saying is that if you say "that man works for the company he links to, he's a total sausage mcmuffin," someone's going to step up and explain that a tasty breakfast sandwich isn't actually a way to describe comercially exploitative manipulation of network news services.
He may be doing something creepy. He is not shilling a damned thing. Stop learning words from dictionaries; without context your understanding of their normative definition is partial in even the most generous of situations.
Here's a hint: if you want to be taken seriously, either make an account or don't preach about who you are.
It's a user-submitted system. If you want fewer commercially submitted news items on this news service, stop whining in anonymous comments and start writing stories. Sloth doesn't fix anything; if you want something better, write it yourself. (By the way, you might want to look up what the word "shill" means; if you were correct, which you aren't, he would be selling computerworld subscriptions. Driving news traffic to a news site isn't shilling, as nobody but advertisers are handing over money. Don't use words you don't understand.)
Grow up. Not everything is Big Brother.
You've discovered snide remarks. Now you're pretty much on par with any troll who has tried to be rude to look smart on slashdot in the last couple of decades.
(This is, of course, a lie: you're not at all on par with them, since they're usually funny. But, the joke only works if I parrot you.)
Well for one, if they're storing their homework there, it's timestamped, and if the system fails, the dog really did eat it, and the teacher isn't going to crap down their neck. For two, it's likely to be at least partially integrated with the grading system, meaning that it's likely to be far less hassle for the teacher, meaning that the teacher is likely to require it. There wasn't an advantage to the kind of paper pad my highschool teacher required, but I used them anyway, because it was required.
Unlike software, tools at school don't have to be better to gain momentum.
In short, you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about, and I feel no need to detail my background to an anonymous coward claiming credentials they obviously don't have. When you lay your cards on the table, you don't stay anonymous. You're just going through the motions because you think you can fake your way up the authority ladder in order to use ad verecundiam instead of the display of actual understanding to skate through not having to admit you're full of crap.
So sorry, sir, but the reason those blades are secret isn't because they work on the same principles as well known aircraft engines. When your arguments fail the common sense test, so do you.
Wait, you think 777s are designed for noise? This isn't "keep Timmy in aisle 32 from whining about the thump," this is "holy shit where is Sean Connery since his submarine is absolutely silent." A modern high-bypass turbofan jet is designed for two things: fuel efficiency and durability. The design of a turbofan for air and a silent water propeller are going to be similar in that people who don't know what they're talking about notice that they're both curved. Guess what? So is a champagne glass. Not related.
Scarcity by the strict economic definition implies that new volume cannot be generated. Gold, copper and plutonium are economically scarce. Trees are not - you can grow more of them. The issue of time frame does not factor into scarcity; only a fundamentally limited quantity in a market region (in this case, Earth.) By that definition, bandwidth certainly is not scarce - it is *only* created. Scarcity does not mean "there is a limit" in economics at all.
Uh, no, it doesn't. Bandwidth has been decoupled from semiconductors ever since the grid started going optical. And no, it's not limited by semiconductors in the endcaps, either. You might want to do some reading before you make argument based on saying "I know that (assumption.)" Bandwidth is primarily governed by glass capacity, and something like 80% of the glass in this country is dark. The governant of bandwidth availability right now is pure simple market economics in the major markets, and in the minor markets it's the price of laying capacity out to rural and semi-rural areas. This market doesn't work anything like average Joes in Slashdot stories have told you.
Would that be the decade of internet growth marked by a three year volume drop after the dot com boom, where we didn't actually catch up to old capacity until video sharing sites crossed the Metcalfe threshhold? The last decade wasn't even internally consistant; holding it up as a meterstick of future growth is doomed to fail.
It's also worth pointing out that internet growth was radically different in industrialized nations, that cheap laptops are now being governmentally issued in poorer areas, that big content is finally moving onto fiber, that internet appliances are beginning to show up in WalMART, that the rate of computer ownership (that is, not the total computer count, but rather the user count, thereby explicitly excluding people like me who own a bunch of machines from the growth) in the US has jumped by 15% in the last 12 months, that this generation of video game console has seen a move from one out of five to five out of five consoles for significant internet connectivity, that we're now seeing commercial movie rental over the intertubes, that video phones have begun to sell in earnest, and so on.
Any attempt to suggest that the current growth of the Internet is related to the prior growth of the Internet exposes a deep lack of understanding of the fundamental motivating factors of the Internet. There's a reason its growth is so spiky. If it was just coasting, it'd be nice and smooth. The internet is oversaturated; if nothing new was going up, it would *shrink*. If you don't understand why, you need to pick up a microeconomics book before attempting to understand the Internet further.
Uh, what? Currency is not subject to network effects like Metcalfe's law. Bandwidth is not inflating at all; it cannot be stored, valuated or converted to other forms of bandwidth. A dollar by definition cannot "do this."
I'm not sure why you believe that. Every time I see a major game release, my line saturation jumps an average of 15-20%. Large games are in fact an enormous determinant of the utility of bandwidth; movies would be, except that most first-release crowds go to the theaters to see them. I mean, it's cute that you want to argue, but you don't seem to understand economics, and unlike you, I own an internet service provider, so instead of guessing, I'm actually making arguments based on things I'v
Efficient way to make an ass of yourself. There's only one goal in the post, no need for the 'technicality' joke-killing flag.
Insert " s/p/r/g " joke here.
Dude, you're getting a Delft!
Given that logic, I should stop having a cleaning crew come to my office - why, Enron did that, too. (Translation: just because Enron did bad things doesn't mean everything they did is a warning flag.)
Human sensory pathways are a bottleneck, but most valuation takes place outside said bottleneck. Almost the only place that actually matters is in flat media downloads such as music and movies, where it's good enough to just have the part you're playing.
"Fry, remember what I told you about always ending your stories a sentence earlier?"
"Cue." A queue is a FIFO container (the checkout line, for example.)
It is in fact stupid, but not for the reasons that you believe. In P2P, you most certainly are not a bandwidth sink; rather, you're a distribution node, equivalent to a cache point like a Squid proxy. The general mechanism underlying this network isn't that the bandwidth appears out of nowhere; it's the observation that people almost never use the upstream they pay for, and that therefore they can share their upstream as a way to amortize costs. Your criticism seems to presume that a P2P node must first get its file from some root distributor, and that as such they are an unnessecary link in the chain. That would be true if we were discussing a commodity system; however, it turns out that once you've downloaded a file, you can upload it more than once without downloading it again.
When you learn how P2P works, try again. It's point to point, not point through point.