They will probably just use this to offer 'alternative revenue models' to things like Ipod software updates. Instead of paying $10 every six months to keep your Ipod Touch software current they will offer you the 'opportunity' to download the ad-supported version which will quiz you periodically about the 'zinger' at the end of the most recent Mac Vs PC ad spot.
Anything related to "The Office" is immediately beholden to all geeks, everywhere, for all time. Just look at how many Wikipedia articles are dedicated to minutia from The Office, and compare that to say Particle Physics or FOSS, and the answer becomes clear: The Office is today's 'Geek Thing you have to love' just like Science Fiction or board games, both of which have very little to do with present day computer science or IT.
It's woefully ironic on two fronts. I have seen a fair share of CNN/Headline news, FOX News, MSNbc, and the rest. I can safely say that without twitter, email, or other forms of electronic immediate feedback, it's STILL just a person in front of a camera blathering on about a story whilst having a very limited amount of information to back up what they say.
If you want thoughtfully prepared news, do NOT look on a live feed news channel, plain and simple.
The difference is $30 a month, plain and simple. In a practical sense, you tend to download a LOT more with a PC that has dual 2GHz CPUs and a 1000GB HDD behind a 20" high res monitor, compared to a 600MHz CPU (best case) and a few GB of flash behind a 4" monitor (best case). The everyday uses of each are just a lot different.
They *DON'T STATE PC DATA IS UNLIMITED*. The tethering / usb modem / mifi / whatever plans are VERY clearly labeled as having a 5GB cap, and they always have been. Your brother and wife simply can't be bothered to comprehend the notion (which is explained when the contract is signed) that there is a difference between using a handset to access the network (whose activity is 'unlimited' except in cases of abuse) and using their PC (whose activity is clearly defined as having a 5GB/mo cap).
Verizon refers to the base plan as "unlimited" with some shifty words about how using more than 5GB/mo constitutes excessive use. Not that it's right or moral, but it is what it is. Now, have you ever even gotten close to the 5GB/mo limit (without using something like Tetherberry or downloading every podcast on the internet)?
It would be nice, but it wouldn't be sensational enough to make it onto Slashdot. Funny thing is, Verizon's web site mentions nothing about an "unlimited 5gb tethering plan" but anyone who bothers to look WILL find a very clearly explained tethering plan for existing smartphones that grants you 5GB/mo for $30, without even once using the word "unlimited".
The smartphone data plans (for data used by the phone) are classified as "unlimited" and are just that, there is no per-MB fee associated with it unless you use an egregious amount of data, which happens to be established at 5GB/mo. What would you honestly do with 5 GB/mo on a smartphone? I have tried to abuse mine, with streaming audio (Slacker radio) and video (VuiVision), downloading as many podcasts as I am even remotely interested in, using Google Maps in satellite mode on every car trip I take, and still can't average over 100mb a day for a month. To best the 5GB limit, you would need to average 170MB/day.
Is the term 'unlimited' misused in this case? Maybe, if you can find some use for your smartphone that involves over 170MB/day of data.
I have seen accidents at lightly trafficked intersections when the light was completely out... I don't want to imagine the apocalypse of a couple hundred all going out in a well populated area; it would turn into Mad Max in a matter of hours.
OK you get two points for +1crazy. Point 1; the ISS completes an ENTIRE orbit in 90 minutes. That means that if you had an antenna pointed straight up, and say you used a moderate gain antenna with a 5 degree beam, you will get just over ONE minute of access before you need to adjust the antenna. You would need a pretty sophisticated ground tracking mechanism to have any hope of keeping the connection alive for more than a minute.
On to 2. WiFi uses an ack timeout in the microsecond range. This means that for a typically configured transceiver, you are racing the speed of light with that timeout window. The practical limit happens to be around 20 miles, or 32 kilometers. Not quite enough to get you to the ISS.
Just make sure you DON'T FORGET to enable AUTO-REBUILD! This is a critical measure to ensure system availability when dealing with Fission or Fusion facilities.
Oh and whoever decided the parent was 'informative' wins NOOB OF TEH YEAR!11
The point is that most drivers have no real concept of what "average" is, as demonstrated by a study that finds drivers will self-assess themselves as above average *much more often than not*. Unless you have some specific evidence to demonstrate that your skills or circumstances place you in a lower risk subgroup, you have no way to ascertain your risk with any more accuracy than considering the stats of the entire population.
Again, nothing personal, but humans in general are just TERRIBLE with risk.
Of course, it also means the vendor gets a copy of whatever is on the drive... Confidential company information, personal data, furry pr0n...
Clever, in a completely unrelated way. What if a company (say they were operating out of a country not completely allied with the US) were to create a SSD device that had logic to "incapacitate" itself at some rate after it had been used to store enough information, before the warranty had expired, and not often enough (across the population) to raise suspicion. The disk could be a sort of new age Trojan horse, sneaking in, and back out with valuable, undetected all the while.
Sounds like you are unfamiliar with what a product warranty is for. Complex products (especially new ones) are going to fail at a pretty good rate. If it breaks, get it replaced. This serves you (you get a new, working one) and the vendor (they get to figure out why it broke and avoid it in the future.)
I could dig up a dozen recent "reviews" of traditional hard drives where the reviewer claimed an outrageous failure rate. Yep, magnetic platter disks just aren't ready for prime time, just like compact fluorescent light bulbs. Better go back to a gas lamp and a punch card, those sure are reliable.
The problem with your argument is that if I were to poll a group of drivers (as a number of scientists have done), a distinct majority would define themselves (as you did) as "above average". The error here is self evident.
Surely there are risk factors that you are in complete control of, such as choosing a safe vehicle and properly maintaining it, choosing not to drive while incapacitated in some way, and avoiding driving when the highest number of dangerous drivers (or dangerous situations) are present on the road. However, to conclude that "my odds are better than most people's are when I'm driving" because "my ability to detect and avoid dangerous situations is much better than most people" is an egregious misjudgment of risk.
Let's say you take a 10 mile trip in your car. Just going based on averages, you are actually more likely to die, per mile traveled on that short trip compared to a longer one, but nevertheless your odds of dying on that trip are 1:7,800,000. Compare that to the odds of dying on a given plane trip, 1:3,500,000. That means you have to take no more than two car trips for every plane trip to make your odds of dying in the air greater to the odds of dying on the ground. Do you live more than 10 miles from your regional airport? If so, the odds are undeniably in the favor of dying on your WAY TO AND FROM the airport than dying while in the air.
But, go ahead and drive to wherever it is that you are going. Good luck!
Thank you for demonstrating my point. Even though these people (mass transportation operators) have a far greater responsibility placed on them, they still manage to kill fewer people than self-driven motorists. I am not saying we shouldn't be very vigilant about safety in ALL forms of transportation. But, to say that just because you are taking responsibility for yourself (by driving yourself) or just because you are (slightly) more likely to be the only one killed in the event of an accident, is just another gross misjudgment of risk.
Funny, then, that the method of travel which you insist is the safest actually results in the most deaths per mile traveled... I am not saying anything about you *personally* but this kind of poor risk judgment is what leads to all kinds of bad decisions. From what type of travel to choose, to what kind of medical treatment to choose, we humans are absolutely TERRIBLE at properly weighing risk. Say what you will about the fallibility of statistics, we all stand to gain if people put a little more stock in sound science as opposed to emotion-driven decision making.
but I would think that there would be blinking lights at a minimum, and hopefully any voices would come through.
Flying a Jet isn't *exactly* like Star Trek; there are no Hailing Frequencies and there was (I assume) no dry-witted, multicultural communications officer standing by to recognize the request. They wear headsets for radio comms, took the headsets off, and as such radio comms were useless.
They calculated the "average dog" consuming a pound of "meat" a day, along with half a pound of "cereal". I don't know about *every* pet owner, but I have two dogs on the smaller side of medium (about 25 lbs each) and between them they don't BOTH consume more than about half a pound of high grade kibble a day, the ingredients of which are split about 50/50 between meat and cereal. The authors of this study clearly are not pet owners.
Slashdot Mirror
They will probably just use this to offer 'alternative revenue models' to things like Ipod software updates. Instead of paying $10 every six months to keep your Ipod Touch software current they will offer you the 'opportunity' to download the ad-supported version which will quiz you periodically about the 'zinger' at the end of the most recent Mac Vs PC ad spot.
See, what's the harm in that?
Anything related to "The Office" is immediately beholden to all geeks, everywhere, for all time. Just look at how many Wikipedia articles are dedicated to minutia from The Office, and compare that to say Particle Physics or FOSS, and the answer becomes clear: The Office is today's 'Geek Thing you have to love' just like Science Fiction or board games, both of which have very little to do with present day computer science or IT.
Why worry? I am a firm believer that causality is forcing the LHC to not work, since if it did, it would un-create itself across the entire timeline.
It's woefully ironic on two fronts. I have seen a fair share of CNN/Headline news, FOX News, MSNbc, and the rest. I can safely say that without twitter, email, or other forms of electronic immediate feedback, it's STILL just a person in front of a camera blathering on about a story whilst having a very limited amount of information to back up what they say.
If you want thoughtfully prepared news, do NOT look on a live feed news channel, plain and simple.
The difference is $30 a month, plain and simple. In a practical sense, you tend to download a LOT more with a PC that has dual 2GHz CPUs and a 1000GB HDD behind a 20" high res monitor, compared to a 600MHz CPU (best case) and a few GB of flash behind a 4" monitor (best case). The everyday uses of each are just a lot different.
Add to that:
-KW deliverable to each rack
-Ambient temperature in the cold aisle and how closely it's held (and possibly make it part of SLA)
-On site technicians (and/or security) and their hours
-Customer access policy and applicable hours (are you going to be happy, AND are threats going to be kept out?)
They *DON'T STATE PC DATA IS UNLIMITED*. The tethering / usb modem / mifi / whatever plans are VERY clearly labeled as having a 5GB cap, and they always have been. Your brother and wife simply can't be bothered to comprehend the notion (which is explained when the contract is signed) that there is a difference between using a handset to access the network (whose activity is 'unlimited' except in cases of abuse) and using their PC (whose activity is clearly defined as having a 5GB/mo cap).
Throw them a pity party already.
Verizon refers to the base plan as "unlimited" with some shifty words about how using more than 5GB/mo constitutes excessive use. Not that it's right or moral, but it is what it is. Now, have you ever even gotten close to the 5GB/mo limit (without using something like Tetherberry or downloading every podcast on the internet)?
I know I haven't.
It would be nice, but it wouldn't be sensational enough to make it onto Slashdot. Funny thing is, Verizon's web site mentions nothing about an "unlimited 5gb tethering plan" but anyone who bothers to look WILL find a very clearly explained tethering plan for existing smartphones that grants you 5GB/mo for $30, without even once using the word "unlimited".
The smartphone data plans (for data used by the phone) are classified as "unlimited" and are just that, there is no per-MB fee associated with it unless you use an egregious amount of data, which happens to be established at 5GB/mo. What would you honestly do with 5 GB/mo on a smartphone? I have tried to abuse mine, with streaming audio (Slacker radio) and video (VuiVision), downloading as many podcasts as I am even remotely interested in, using Google Maps in satellite mode on every car trip I take, and still can't average over 100mb a day for a month. To best the 5GB limit, you would need to average 170MB/day.
Is the term 'unlimited' misused in this case? Maybe, if you can find some use for your smartphone that involves over 170MB/day of data.
So, who is going to volunteer to put a bunch of water into orbit?
I have seen accidents at lightly trafficked intersections when the light was completely out... I don't want to imagine the apocalypse of a couple hundred all going out in a well populated area; it would turn into Mad Max in a matter of hours.
If we're smart, we'll execute murderers not for punitive reasons, but simply as a solution to a problem.
If we're really super DUPER smart (per your argument) we'll execute murderers BEFORE they murder... you know, because we are smart.
OK you get two points for +1crazy. Point 1; the ISS completes an ENTIRE orbit in 90 minutes. That means that if you had an antenna pointed straight up, and say you used a moderate gain antenna with a 5 degree beam, you will get just over ONE minute of access before you need to adjust the antenna. You would need a pretty sophisticated ground tracking mechanism to have any hope of keeping the connection alive for more than a minute.
On to 2. WiFi uses an ack timeout in the microsecond range. This means that for a typically configured transceiver, you are racing the speed of light with that timeout window. The practical limit happens to be around 20 miles, or 32 kilometers. Not quite enough to get you to the ISS.
Good luck, though!
I will spring for the flowers, Charlie. Just don't act like a jerk.
Wikipedia, pfffft. I learned all I need to know about Trans Oceanic Fiber Optic cables in 56 short pages thanks to Neal Stephenson... http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass.html
Just make sure you DON'T FORGET to enable AUTO-REBUILD! This is a critical measure to ensure system availability when dealing with Fission or Fusion facilities.
Oh and whoever decided the parent was 'informative' wins NOOB OF TEH YEAR!11
The point is that most drivers have no real concept of what "average" is, as demonstrated by a study that finds drivers will self-assess themselves as above average *much more often than not*. Unless you have some specific evidence to demonstrate that your skills or circumstances place you in a lower risk subgroup, you have no way to ascertain your risk with any more accuracy than considering the stats of the entire population.
Again, nothing personal, but humans in general are just TERRIBLE with risk.
Of course, it also means the vendor gets a copy of whatever is on the drive... Confidential company information, personal data, furry pr0n...
Clever, in a completely unrelated way. What if a company (say they were operating out of a country not completely allied with the US) were to create a SSD device that had logic to "incapacitate" itself at some rate after it had been used to store enough information, before the warranty had expired, and not often enough (across the population) to raise suspicion. The disk could be a sort of new age Trojan horse, sneaking in, and back out with valuable, undetected all the while.
Sounds like you are unfamiliar with what a product warranty is for. Complex products (especially new ones) are going to fail at a pretty good rate. If it breaks, get it replaced. This serves you (you get a new, working one) and the vendor (they get to figure out why it broke and avoid it in the future.)
I could dig up a dozen recent "reviews" of traditional hard drives where the reviewer claimed an outrageous failure rate. Yep, magnetic platter disks just aren't ready for prime time, just like compact fluorescent light bulbs. Better go back to a gas lamp and a punch card, those sure are reliable.
The problem with your argument is that if I were to poll a group of drivers (as a number of scientists have done), a distinct majority would define themselves (as you did) as "above average". The error here is self evident.
Surely there are risk factors that you are in complete control of, such as choosing a safe vehicle and properly maintaining it, choosing not to drive while incapacitated in some way, and avoiding driving when the highest number of dangerous drivers (or dangerous situations) are present on the road. However, to conclude that "my odds are better than most people's are when I'm driving" because "my ability to detect and avoid dangerous situations is much better than most people" is an egregious misjudgment of risk.
Let's say you take a 10 mile trip in your car. Just going based on averages, you are actually more likely to die, per mile traveled on that short trip compared to a longer one, but nevertheless your odds of dying on that trip are 1:7,800,000. Compare that to the odds of dying on a given plane trip, 1:3,500,000. That means you have to take no more than two car trips for every plane trip to make your odds of dying in the air greater to the odds of dying on the ground. Do you live more than 10 miles from your regional airport? If so, the odds are undeniably in the favor of dying on your WAY TO AND FROM the airport than dying while in the air.
But, go ahead and drive to wherever it is that you are going. Good luck!
Thank you for demonstrating my point. Even though these people (mass transportation operators) have a far greater responsibility placed on them, they still manage to kill fewer people than self-driven motorists. I am not saying we shouldn't be very vigilant about safety in ALL forms of transportation. But, to say that just because you are taking responsibility for yourself (by driving yourself) or just because you are (slightly) more likely to be the only one killed in the event of an accident, is just another gross misjudgment of risk.
Funny, then, that the method of travel which you insist is the safest actually results in the most deaths per mile traveled... I am not saying anything about you *personally* but this kind of poor risk judgment is what leads to all kinds of bad decisions. From what type of travel to choose, to what kind of medical treatment to choose, we humans are absolutely TERRIBLE at properly weighing risk. Say what you will about the fallibility of statistics, we all stand to gain if people put a little more stock in sound science as opposed to emotion-driven decision making.
but I would think that there would be blinking lights at a minimum, and hopefully any voices would come through.
Flying a Jet isn't *exactly* like Star Trek; there are no Hailing Frequencies and there was (I assume) no dry-witted, multicultural communications officer standing by to recognize the request. They wear headsets for radio comms, took the headsets off, and as such radio comms were useless.
They calculated the "average dog" consuming a pound of "meat" a day, along with half a pound of "cereal". I don't know about *every* pet owner, but I have two dogs on the smaller side of medium (about 25 lbs each) and between them they don't BOTH consume more than about half a pound of high grade kibble a day, the ingredients of which are split about 50/50 between meat and cereal. The authors of this study clearly are not pet owners.