However, I guess we could just make it illegal to use workstations at work, and make everyone access company infrastructure via a terminal. Yeah GREAT IDEA...
Sadly, thats mostly how it is at the store I work at. Theres only a few workstations for training, one for printing signs, and every other one is a terminal thats slower than xmas and buggier than a Windows beta.
But for that $400 T1, you get business class service as well. You are paying for competent techs, quick problem resolution and minimum service level garauntees. Not overall speed.
The home comsumer only pays $60 because we get to talk to non english speakers when we have a problem. We get to wait a week for a truck roll. If our DSL says its 6/768 but we only get 3/256, oh well. But, we dont have to pay an arm and a leg.
Hahaha, thats great. Perfect for a practical joke, none gets hurt, nothing gets damaged, no one feels bad. But I bet at the end of the day you get a lot of chuckles when you start to eat it.
My "best" prank (Read: Only prank I've really done) was taking a roll of shrink wrap from work and wrapping a coworkers car. Someone told him I was doing it, he comes out and says we should do another and leave the plastic on his so hes not blamed, lol.
Most TV's overscan, so while the tv is actually displaying 1366x768, only 1280x720 is on the screen. It gets really annoying during POST not being able to see the very top/bottom/sides of the screen.
It also depends on screen size. At 37", its more like a 27" tv with some extra on the sides. When watching stuff at 4:3, it only uses about 27" of screen.
Also, most HD sets will give you a native resolution (1366x768 for 720p), so if it doesnt do a res >= 1920x1080, it wont support full HD.
Yeah, 1080p is a must for use as a monitor. I made the mistake of getting a set that only does 720p, so I am stuck with a res of 1280x720@60hz, if I kick it any higher, it reverts to 30hz and looks flickery. Wouldnt be an issue for watching video, but it makes your eyes hurt trying to read text.
That was my first impression of digital as well. It just looked like crap. I could not understand for the life of me why my cousin was paying $80 for her digital cable when she could have gotten basic with better picture quality, for $60 I think it was.
I've also noticed that watching an analog channel on my HD set looks like crap, its all blurry like I just pounded a case of beer. My SD set makes it look clear and crisp. Dont know why that is.
With all the digital switchover confusion there is right now, many people arent aware that it is only OTA and not cable. Cable companies should jump on this while the government is giving out digital converter coupons, that way they can ditch analog but still offer service to the people who dont want to ditch thier old sets.
Your problem is not the signal, its that you are watching the Sens, try watching a better team;) (I guess that would have been better if you were a Kings or, like me, a Lightening fan)
I watched my first game in HD today and it was amazing. I could actually recognize players faces, sadly, NBC only shows games on Sunday, and I dont get Vs (The US station with the rights to NHL broadcast) in HD.
I thought the "Bridge to Nowhere" was the one that they wanted to build between Anchorage and the Matsu valley. Who the hell would want to drive 5000mi from Anchorage (nearest major city to Russia) all the way up to Gnome (thats what, 1500 - 2000mi right there) then across the straight, then for however thousands of miles to the next nearest population center.
Now that you mention it... I did live near a broadcasting tower, I did get god aweful interference, and yes, there was nothing I could do about it, lol. (Thankfully it was an AM station that only broadcast for like 4mo a year, but when you're trying to carry on a conversation on the phone and you can hear a preacher talking about fire and brimstone(no lie) better than you can hear the person you are talking to, its really frustrating, when my stereo was on, but nothing was playing, the speaker wires picked up the station and you could hear it over the speakers too).
Anyway, there are still some problems with what you propose. If it was up to the licensee of the frequency to police thier own frequency, I dont think they would care too much if Joe Broadcast Geek disrupted the signal to his 2 neighbors. It would cost them more to prosecute than its worth. On the other hand, you could always make it mandatory for the licensee to police it or lose it no matter how small the infraction.
Now that you've got me thinking about ways to fix the problems that getting rid of most government entities would create, I'm coming up with some issues I cant work out.
If we let consumers groups do the policing, who polices the consumer groups to make sure they arent taking bribes? (Kind of a similar problem to what we have now anyway though)
Who would pay for the groups? Even non-profit org's have business expenses. Though this would probably be the easiest to solve.
Ideally, your views seem great, but there are still many problems.
What if the company dumps on its own property and it leaks into the water? What if it takes 30 years to see any effect? Wouldnt it just be simpler to have a governing body checking to make sure they are disposing of that stuff properly instead of letting them do whatever untill they get caught. I understand that just because there are rules, doesnt mean they wont be broken, but having an inspector show up twice a year is more likely to deter the company from trying to maximize profits by cheaper disposal methods that arent safe.
With the broadcasting tower scenario, what if my neighbor started his own TV station? Sweet, thats awesome, untill it starts drowning out the other channels I could get. But since there is no governing body to regulate the airwaves, I'm SOL as to my options.
And we've already seen companies screw over the consumers. Look at all the toy recalls because of the lead content that is at unacceptable levels. A government body decided what level of lead was ok and said if its above this level, you cant do business here.
I dont think I adequately explained the interstate problem. There are highways who are only used for passing through. I've driven through AL and MS numerous times and never spent a cent in that state. And for most of I10 going through those states, the purpose is not to travel to or in the state, its to get through the state. Though your toll road idea would pretty much solve the issue of who pays for the roads.
With things like national transportaion, energy, etc that spans multiple states and needs to be interconnected to work properly, there needs to be some sort of federal oversight so when State A wants to hire (or OK's for zoning) Company X to build thier road, State B might have a better offer from Company Y, but where it is supposed to meet State A's road is 40mi away from where Company X wanted it to cross the border.
I'm not saying that I have all the answers, or any of the answers for that matter, I am pretty sure that no regulation is just as bad as too much. I do agree with you that right now, we do in fact have too much government. But getting rid of it all just because its governemnt controlled isnt too smart in my opinion.
While I agree for the most part, you seem to be ignoring some very important aspects of government regulation.
With no EPA, whos to stop Company X from dumping that waste into a deep hole and let it pollute the ground water?
Without an FCC, whos to stop Tom Psycho HAM operator to build a giant tower that he can talk to Siberia with but drowns out every otehr signal in the neighborhood? (Before anyone freaks out, I'm not saying thats likely, but to all you HAM's, seriously, if it wasnt illegal, dont tell me you wouldnt try it once just to see if you could build it, I would)
Without a federal transportation commision, why would a lot of states keep up the interstates? In a lot of east coast states, a large portion of traffic is from out of staters, and in southern states (MS, AL etc) the interstate is mostly used to go through the state, not travel in it. Why should they spend their tax dollars keeping a road working that is mostly used by out of staters?
Without the FDA, whos going to make sure that when a food or drug product comes to market, that its truly safe to consume?
Yes I know theres a lot of different solutions to those problems, but none of them are perfect either. Also remember that without regulations of some kind, corperations would try to milk the crap out of the consumer without regards for thier health or safety. At least as it is now, they have to answer to someone when they screw up.
First off, thanks for taking the time to answer our questions. But mostly I would like to thank you for the way in which you answered them. Truthfully and in-depth. Now I definately do not agree with you on everything, and I'm a R, not a D, but if I lived in OR I would vote for you.
You seem like the kind of guy who cares more about facts than party lines. The kind of guy who may not have a plan, but will be honest about not having one and realistic about what it can accomplish when you do formulate a plan. You also seem to be the kind of person who is willing to re-assess your stance as more research/facts come to light, instead of just blindly sticking with it. Which is why I would vote for you. I know I dont know everything, so while I dont think federal health care is a good idea, I dont know all the details. And most importantly, you seem like the kind of leader I would trust to weigh the facts on the issue. So if it turns out to be impossible to do, I beleive you are honest enough to scrap the idea and admit its not feasable. On that same issue, if it turns out you are right, I would be more likely to take your word for it than any other politician pushing for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, thats mostly how it is at the store I work at. Theres only a few workstations for training, one for printing signs, and every other one is a terminal thats slower than xmas and buggier than a Windows beta.
But for that $400 T1, you get business class service as well. You are paying for competent techs, quick problem resolution and minimum service level garauntees. Not overall speed.
The home comsumer only pays $60 because we get to talk to non english speakers when we have a problem. We get to wait a week for a truck roll. If our DSL says its 6/768 but we only get 3/256, oh well. But, we dont have to pay an arm and a leg.
Hehehe. A Star Wars cosplayers dream come true. Think how much more authentic your R2 costume could be with one of these.
Hahaha, thats great. Perfect for a practical joke, none gets hurt, nothing gets damaged, no one feels bad. But I bet at the end of the day you get a lot of chuckles when you start to eat it.
My "best" prank (Read: Only prank I've really done) was taking a roll of shrink wrap from work and wrapping a coworkers car. Someone told him I was doing it, he comes out and says we should do another and leave the plastic on his so hes not blamed, lol.
Most TV's overscan, so while the tv is actually displaying 1366x768, only 1280x720 is on the screen. It gets really annoying during POST not being able to see the very top/bottom/sides of the screen.
It also depends on screen size. At 37", its more like a 27" tv with some extra on the sides. When watching stuff at 4:3, it only uses about 27" of screen.
Also, most HD sets will give you a native resolution (1366x768 for 720p), so if it doesnt do a res >= 1920x1080, it wont support full HD.
Yeah, 1080p is a must for use as a monitor. I made the mistake of getting a set that only does 720p, so I am stuck with a res of 1280x720@60hz, if I kick it any higher, it reverts to 30hz and looks flickery. Wouldnt be an issue for watching video, but it makes your eyes hurt trying to read text.
That was my first impression of digital as well. It just looked like crap. I could not understand for the life of me why my cousin was paying $80 for her digital cable when she could have gotten basic with better picture quality, for $60 I think it was.
I've also noticed that watching an analog channel on my HD set looks like crap, its all blurry like I just pounded a case of beer. My SD set makes it look clear and crisp. Dont know why that is.
With all the digital switchover confusion there is right now, many people arent aware that it is only OTA and not cable. Cable companies should jump on this while the government is giving out digital converter coupons, that way they can ditch analog but still offer service to the people who dont want to ditch thier old sets.
Your problem is not the signal, its that you are watching the Sens, try watching a better team ;) (I guess that would have been better if you were a Kings or, like me, a Lightening fan)
I watched my first game in HD today and it was amazing. I could actually recognize players faces, sadly, NBC only shows games on Sunday, and I dont get Vs (The US station with the rights to NHL broadcast) in HD.
I thought the "Bridge to Nowhere" was the one that they wanted to build between Anchorage and the Matsu valley. Who the hell would want to drive 5000mi from Anchorage (nearest major city to Russia) all the way up to Gnome (thats what, 1500 - 2000mi right there) then across the straight, then for however thousands of miles to the next nearest population center.
Now that you mention it... I did live near a broadcasting tower, I did get god aweful interference, and yes, there was nothing I could do about it, lol. (Thankfully it was an AM station that only broadcast for like 4mo a year, but when you're trying to carry on a conversation on the phone and you can hear a preacher talking about fire and brimstone(no lie) better than you can hear the person you are talking to, its really frustrating, when my stereo was on, but nothing was playing, the speaker wires picked up the station and you could hear it over the speakers too).
Anyway, there are still some problems with what you propose. If it was up to the licensee of the frequency to police thier own frequency, I dont think they would care too much if Joe Broadcast Geek disrupted the signal to his 2 neighbors. It would cost them more to prosecute than its worth. On the other hand, you could always make it mandatory for the licensee to police it or lose it no matter how small the infraction.
Now that you've got me thinking about ways to fix the problems that getting rid of most government entities would create, I'm coming up with some issues I cant work out.
If we let consumers groups do the policing, who polices the consumer groups to make sure they arent taking bribes? (Kind of a similar problem to what we have now anyway though)
Who would pay for the groups? Even non-profit org's have business expenses. Though this would probably be the easiest to solve.
Ideally, your views seem great, but there are still many problems.
What if the company dumps on its own property and it leaks into the water? What if it takes 30 years to see any effect? Wouldnt it just be simpler to have a governing body checking to make sure they are disposing of that stuff properly instead of letting them do whatever untill they get caught. I understand that just because there are rules, doesnt mean they wont be broken, but having an inspector show up twice a year is more likely to deter the company from trying to maximize profits by cheaper disposal methods that arent safe.
With the broadcasting tower scenario, what if my neighbor started his own TV station? Sweet, thats awesome, untill it starts drowning out the other channels I could get. But since there is no governing body to regulate the airwaves, I'm SOL as to my options.
And we've already seen companies screw over the consumers. Look at all the toy recalls because of the lead content that is at unacceptable levels. A government body decided what level of lead was ok and said if its above this level, you cant do business here.
I dont think I adequately explained the interstate problem. There are highways who are only used for passing through. I've driven through AL and MS numerous times and never spent a cent in that state. And for most of I10 going through those states, the purpose is not to travel to or in the state, its to get through the state.
Though your toll road idea would pretty much solve the issue of who pays for the roads.
With things like national transportaion, energy, etc that spans multiple states and needs to be interconnected to work properly, there needs to be some sort of federal oversight so when State A wants to hire (or OK's for zoning) Company X to build thier road, State B might have a better offer from Company Y, but where it is supposed to meet State A's road is 40mi away from where Company X wanted it to cross the border.
I'm not saying that I have all the answers, or any of the answers for that matter, I am pretty sure that no regulation is just as bad as too much. I do agree with you that right now, we do in fact have too much government. But getting rid of it all just because its governemnt controlled isnt too smart in my opinion.
While I agree for the most part, you seem to be ignoring some very important aspects of government regulation.
With no EPA, whos to stop Company X from dumping that waste into a deep hole and let it pollute the ground water?
Without an FCC, whos to stop Tom Psycho HAM operator to build a giant tower that he can talk to Siberia with but drowns out every otehr signal in the neighborhood? (Before anyone freaks out, I'm not saying thats likely, but to all you HAM's, seriously, if it wasnt illegal, dont tell me you wouldnt try it once just to see if you could build it, I would)
Without a federal transportation commision, why would a lot of states keep up the interstates? In a lot of east coast states, a large portion of traffic is from out of staters, and in southern states (MS, AL etc) the interstate is mostly used to go through the state, not travel in it. Why should they spend their tax dollars keeping a road working that is mostly used by out of staters?
Without the FDA, whos going to make sure that when a food or drug product comes to market, that its truly safe to consume?
Yes I know theres a lot of different solutions to those problems, but none of them are perfect either. Also remember that without regulations of some kind, corperations would try to milk the crap out of the consumer without regards for thier health or safety. At least as it is now, they have to answer to someone when they screw up.
First off, thanks for taking the time to answer our questions. But mostly I would like to thank you for the way in which you answered them. Truthfully and in-depth. Now I definately do not agree with you on everything, and I'm a R, not a D, but if I lived in OR I would vote for you.
You seem like the kind of guy who cares more about facts than party lines. The kind of guy who may not have a plan, but will be honest about not having one and realistic about what it can accomplish when you do formulate a plan. You also seem to be the kind of person who is willing to re-assess your stance as more research/facts come to light, instead of just blindly sticking with it. Which is why I would vote for you. I know I dont know everything, so while I dont think federal health care is a good idea, I dont know all the details. And most importantly, you seem like the kind of leader I would trust to weigh the facts on the issue. So if it turns out to be impossible to do, I beleive you are honest enough to scrap the idea and admit its not feasable. On that same issue, if it turns out you are right, I would be more likely to take your word for it than any other politician pushing for it.
Think of the possibilities for SSD's though