Why do you think a monopoly is necessary, or the logical end result?
Where I live, the cable monopoly is Comcast. Verizon is planning to put in FiOS. Before they can, they need to hold lengthy negotiations with the city.
It seems pretty clear to me that if the city would just step aside, Verizon would set up a competitor to Comcast almost instantly. If they had stepped aside a year or two ago, maybe we'd have it now. Instead they sit mired in franchise negotiations.
The way to have competition should be obvious: multiple sets of cables. My city already has two sets, the phone lines and the TV cables, both of which are used for internet access. Sometime in the next year or two a third set will be added, the FiOS lines. I see no reason why this couldn't have happened everywhere if governments had gotten out of the way instead of legislating monopolies. It's a bit too late to get out of the way now, but having multiple competitors could be the end goal of new regulation rather than simply entrenching the existing monopolies.
I'd prefer they forget to consider bandwidth issues at all, because they seem to add restrictions to the service instead of improving it a lot of the time...
[[Citation needed]]
With two highly reasonable exceptions, my internet service has only improved over time, counting both improvements in a subscription which came from a single provider, and improvements had from switching to a new provider.
(The two exceptions were moving out of my college dorms, which had absolutely unlimited 10Mbit service, and moving to a foreign country with considerably worse internet infrastructure.)
Then Skype is not going to make or break your problem.
It's like talking about having financial trouble. You have a huge mortgage, expensive car payments, huge credit card debt, alimony and child support, and a coke habit.
But the first, nay the only thing you bring up when you talk about how screwed you are financially is the fact that once a month you eat out at McDonald's.
It's nonsensical. For some reason people on Slashdot have no clue how much bandwidth VoIP uses. I guess the idea is that if it's streaming then it must use a lot of bandwidth. But that idea is simply false, and anyone who brings up VoIP as an example of the problems that bandwidth caps will cause is an idiot, pure and simple.
Why? Why do you idiots always bring up VoIP when discussing bandwidth caps? How stupid can you possibly be?
Skype is so bandwidth-unintensive that you can run it over a modem. That's right, a regular old 56kbps down (but really 53, if your connection is perfect) 33.6kbps up dialup-through-the-phone-line funny screeches and tones modem. Its bandwidth use is absolutely trivial. It is not going to suddenly cause your sister and mother to hit a 250GB/month bandwidth cap. Get a clue!
Yes, it was so much better before the last 50 years, back when mathematics was used for pure, honest pursuits like designing strategic bombers, calculating artillery trajectories, and building nuclear weapons.
I think the advice still applies. If it hurts you, leave it out. But a two-year post-graduation gap on a resume will hurt a lot more than not working during school, so it makes the choice less obvious. But if it hurts more than a gap, certainly don't include it. I agree about interviewing a lot, although it sounds like he may have already started doing that a while ago and still had no luck. But in any case, there's no good alternative to it unless you want to go into business for yourself or something of the sort, so just keep at it until it works.
Maybe they didn't want to cannibalize their own tech support division, or they want to maintain a diversity of experience by bringing people in from outside.
Maybe he's been stuck with the tech support job because he sucks, and employees are using it as an excuse after they decide not to hire him because he sucks.
Erg, I misread the original question. I now see that he spent two lines doing tech support after graduation. If you have a Computer Engineering degree and can't find anything better than first-line tech support, I'm going to have to say that the problem is not them, and it's not your tech support background, it's you.
Bingo! Remember, you are not required to list every single thing on your resume. For most people an empty two years would be a suspicious hole, but for a recent graduate they wouldn't expect constant working in addition to your school. If they ask you about it, tell them the truth: you worked tech support to make money for school but you didn't put it on your resume because you don't feel it's relevant to your experience for this job.
Additionally, comparing money is pointless. The Chinese Yuan is severely undervalued, and Chinese can be hired for comparative peanuts, even highly skilled professionals. Any dollar amount you get by simply applying today's exchange rate to the number of yuan spent by the Chinese government should probably be multiplied by a factor of 10 or so to account for those factors if you want a fair comparison of effort. It may be better to look at man-years rather than money, but that gets really tough when you look at how much work ends up being sent out to other companies building components.
The main thing that should bother you is that video says "flight 3", when today's successful launch was #4. That should pretty much explain the rest of the anomalies.
Fact is, white men just aren't the target of racism on this site. So it should come as no surprise that a story about a white man has no racist remarks in it, but a story about asian people does.
The true point you should be taking away is that Slashdot is full of jerks and assholes and there's no point in paying attention to any of them or acting as though they speak for the site.
The claim that a watch was made by humans is falsifiable. Search the planet for the manufacturer. If none is found, the watch was not made by humans.
The claim that Stonehenge was made by a particular group of humans is falsifiable. The area in and around the stones will contain their artifacts if so. Search that area, and if none are found, the claim is false.
ID is not falsifiable. No matter what you find, "God did it" is always a conforming response. If we find a specific mechanism for how a particularly "irreducibly complex" construct came to be by natural evolution, ID will not be false, it will just come up with some other reason why there must be an intelligent designer. ID has many of the trappings of science but fundamentally it is not science, but religion.
That's like comparing the MPG on a car versus a train and concluding that nobody will ever use a car.
Small launches are inherently more expensive. Not as expensive as you state, of course, since you fucked up on Falcon 1's payload, but more expensive. Economies of scale work well with rockets, so enormous ones are going to be cheaper per kilogram. But there's still plenty of room for small rockets, as often only small payloads are desired. For example, the Pegasus launcher is one of the smallest around, and because of that it's one of the most expensive per kilogram. And yet it has a fine niche in the launcher market.
It's important to remember that the EPA "highway" estimate is not straight driving at 70MPH for long distances with no major speed changes. They do a fair amount of acceleration and braking, just less of it and at higher speeds compared to their "city" testing. It's easy to beat EPA estimates by simply finding a highway without a lot of traffic and no stops and driving on it steadily for an hour or two straight.
In my bathroom I have a matchbook-sized device which produces enough electricity to power the entire globe five times over.
It works by compressing cat urine in a strong magnetic field, which causes it to give off a great deal of electricity. The amount of cat urine required for the device can be supplied by one standard domestic housecat.
Think I'm wrong? Repeat the experiments and prove it or shut the fuck up.
You do have the right to sell it, in the theoretical sense. However this clashes with the fact that Steam's copy protection prevents you from doing so, and it's illegal to crack that protection. But in a nitpicky hair-splitting way, you have the right to sell it, just not the right to do what you need to do to make the sold copy work.
You own a physical copy of a game. You can do what you want with that copy so long as it falls within the bounds of what copyright allows. Copyright only covers, well, copying. Selling the game or loaning it to somebody isn't covered by the law, and is therefore allowed.
There's a popular misconception that you do not own media, but merely license it. This simply isn't true. When you buy a game in a box you own that box and its contents. The only thing you don't own is the right to make a copy of the contents in a way that is covered by copyright law.
And that is why loaning and selling a game are perfectly reasonable.
The claim is not Windows made such software technologically impossible, but economically impossible. Many great systems came and died over the years when Windows had an iron grip on the industry, systems which most likely would have survived if not for Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. The companies you name all did great stuff, but their great stuff all died very early because Microsoft had killed most of the market.
Now you could argue that they failed because they didn't make anything worthwhile. I don't agree with that, but it's a reasonable position to take. But the fact that nothing worthwhile survived in the marketplace is not an argument against my position, because it's exactly what I'm saying happened.
I've never seen any air defenses on either building. It's not exactly hard to get into a position where you can see the roofs of these buildings by eye.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think a monopoly is necessary, or the logical end result?
Where I live, the cable monopoly is Comcast. Verizon is planning to put in FiOS. Before they can, they need to hold lengthy negotiations with the city.
It seems pretty clear to me that if the city would just step aside, Verizon would set up a competitor to Comcast almost instantly. If they had stepped aside a year or two ago, maybe we'd have it now. Instead they sit mired in franchise negotiations.
The way to have competition should be obvious: multiple sets of cables. My city already has two sets, the phone lines and the TV cables, both of which are used for internet access. Sometime in the next year or two a third set will be added, the FiOS lines. I see no reason why this couldn't have happened everywhere if governments had gotten out of the way instead of legislating monopolies. It's a bit too late to get out of the way now, but having multiple competitors could be the end goal of new regulation rather than simply entrenching the existing monopolies.
I'd prefer they forget to consider bandwidth issues at all, because they seem to add restrictions to the service instead of improving it a lot of the time...
[[Citation needed]]
With two highly reasonable exceptions, my internet service has only improved over time, counting both improvements in a subscription which came from a single provider, and improvements had from switching to a new provider.
(The two exceptions were moving out of my college dorms, which had absolutely unlimited 10Mbit service, and moving to a foreign country with considerably worse internet infrastructure.)
Then Skype is not going to make or break your problem.
It's like talking about having financial trouble. You have a huge mortgage, expensive car payments, huge credit card debt, alimony and child support, and a coke habit.
But the first, nay the only thing you bring up when you talk about how screwed you are financially is the fact that once a month you eat out at McDonald's.
It's nonsensical. For some reason people on Slashdot have no clue how much bandwidth VoIP uses. I guess the idea is that if it's streaming then it must use a lot of bandwidth. But that idea is simply false, and anyone who brings up VoIP as an example of the problems that bandwidth caps will cause is an idiot, pure and simple.
Why? Why do you idiots always bring up VoIP when discussing bandwidth caps? How stupid can you possibly be?
Skype is so bandwidth-unintensive that you can run it over a modem. That's right, a regular old 56kbps down (but really 53, if your connection is perfect) 33.6kbps up dialup-through-the-phone-line funny screeches and tones modem. Its bandwidth use is absolutely trivial. It is not going to suddenly cause your sister and mother to hit a 250GB/month bandwidth cap. Get a clue!
The general solution to any NP-complete problem is trivial:
for possibility in generate_all_possibilities():
if check(possibility):
found_solution(possibility)
The tricky bit is, of course, finding the solution in any reasonable amount of time.
Perhaps they just appreciate a well-spoken expression of sentiments they already hold, you colossal asshole.
Yes, it was so much better before the last 50 years, back when mathematics was used for pure, honest pursuits like designing strategic bombers, calculating artillery trajectories, and building nuclear weapons.
Apparently the moderators did too.
I think the advice still applies. If it hurts you, leave it out. But a two-year post-graduation gap on a resume will hurt a lot more than not working during school, so it makes the choice less obvious. But if it hurts more than a gap, certainly don't include it. I agree about interviewing a lot, although it sounds like he may have already started doing that a while ago and still had no luck. But in any case, there's no good alternative to it unless you want to go into business for yourself or something of the sort, so just keep at it until it works.
Maybe they didn't want to cannibalize their own tech support division, or they want to maintain a diversity of experience by bringing people in from outside.
Maybe he's been stuck with the tech support job because he sucks, and employees are using it as an excuse after they decide not to hire him because he sucks.
Erg, I misread the original question. I now see that he spent two lines doing tech support after graduation. If you have a Computer Engineering degree and can't find anything better than first-line tech support, I'm going to have to say that the problem is not them, and it's not your tech support background, it's you.
Bingo! Remember, you are not required to list every single thing on your resume. For most people an empty two years would be a suspicious hole, but for a recent graduate they wouldn't expect constant working in addition to your school. If they ask you about it, tell them the truth: you worked tech support to make money for school but you didn't put it on your resume because you don't feel it's relevant to your experience for this job.
Just proves that moderators don't click links when moderating.
Additionally, comparing money is pointless. The Chinese Yuan is severely undervalued, and Chinese can be hired for comparative peanuts, even highly skilled professionals. Any dollar amount you get by simply applying today's exchange rate to the number of yuan spent by the Chinese government should probably be multiplied by a factor of 10 or so to account for those factors if you want a fair comparison of effort. It may be better to look at man-years rather than money, but that gets really tough when you look at how much work ends up being sent out to other companies building components.
The main thing that should bother you is that video says "flight 3", when today's successful launch was #4. That should pretty much explain the rest of the anomalies.
Here's one I like: God created the universe tomorrow, with all this stuff in it.
I can disprove it now, because I am conscious and active now, which proves that I must exist right now.
But tomorrow, I'll only have the memory, and that memory could have been created along with everything else.
Fact is, white men just aren't the target of racism on this site. So it should come as no surprise that a story about a white man has no racist remarks in it, but a story about asian people does.
The true point you should be taking away is that Slashdot is full of jerks and assholes and there's no point in paying attention to any of them or acting as though they speak for the site.
The claim that a watch was made by humans is falsifiable. Search the planet for the manufacturer. If none is found, the watch was not made by humans.
The claim that Stonehenge was made by a particular group of humans is falsifiable. The area in and around the stones will contain their artifacts if so. Search that area, and if none are found, the claim is false.
ID is not falsifiable. No matter what you find, "God did it" is always a conforming response. If we find a specific mechanism for how a particularly "irreducibly complex" construct came to be by natural evolution, ID will not be false, it will just come up with some other reason why there must be an intelligent designer. ID has many of the trappings of science but fundamentally it is not science, but religion.
That's like comparing the MPG on a car versus a train and concluding that nobody will ever use a car.
Small launches are inherently more expensive. Not as expensive as you state, of course, since you fucked up on Falcon 1's payload, but more expensive. Economies of scale work well with rockets, so enormous ones are going to be cheaper per kilogram. But there's still plenty of room for small rockets, as often only small payloads are desired. For example, the Pegasus launcher is one of the smallest around, and because of that it's one of the most expensive per kilogram. And yet it has a fine niche in the launcher market.
It's important to remember that the EPA "highway" estimate is not straight driving at 70MPH for long distances with no major speed changes. They do a fair amount of acceleration and braking, just less of it and at higher speeds compared to their "city" testing. It's easy to beat EPA estimates by simply finding a highway without a lot of traffic and no stops and driving on it steadily for an hour or two straight.
Excellent idea.
In my bathroom I have a matchbook-sized device which produces enough electricity to power the entire globe five times over.
It works by compressing cat urine in a strong magnetic field, which causes it to give off a great deal of electricity. The amount of cat urine required for the device can be supplied by one standard domestic housecat.
Think I'm wrong? Repeat the experiments and prove it or shut the fuck up.
You do have the right to sell it, in the theoretical sense. However this clashes with the fact that Steam's copy protection prevents you from doing so, and it's illegal to crack that protection. But in a nitpicky hair-splitting way, you have the right to sell it, just not the right to do what you need to do to make the sold copy work.
You own a physical copy of a game. You can do what you want with that copy so long as it falls within the bounds of what copyright allows. Copyright only covers, well, copying. Selling the game or loaning it to somebody isn't covered by the law, and is therefore allowed.
There's a popular misconception that you do not own media, but merely license it. This simply isn't true. When you buy a game in a box you own that box and its contents. The only thing you don't own is the right to make a copy of the contents in a way that is covered by copyright law.
And that is why loaning and selling a game are perfectly reasonable.
The claim is not Windows made such software technologically impossible, but economically impossible. Many great systems came and died over the years when Windows had an iron grip on the industry, systems which most likely would have survived if not for Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. The companies you name all did great stuff, but their great stuff all died very early because Microsoft had killed most of the market.
Now you could argue that they failed because they didn't make anything worthwhile. I don't agree with that, but it's a reasonable position to take. But the fact that nothing worthwhile survived in the marketplace is not an argument against my position, because it's exactly what I'm saying happened.
I've never seen any air defenses on either building. It's not exactly hard to get into a position where you can see the roofs of these buildings by eye.