The rule that said it was legal for a company to sell local dialup for a few dollars per account per month? So much cheaper that local ISPs couldnt hope to compete and had to get on board trying desperately to value-add as people stopped caring how nice your webmail portal was or how up to date your usenet cache was? Damn those regulations...
The problem is that, by their own admission, their programming consists of only 9 hours (mostly mid-day low viewership programming) of "news", and 15 hours (including all of evening prime-time) of "pure columnist style speculation and opinion"... So the average viewer tuning in at the end of their workday is not likely to be treated to the "informative" side of their channel, and instead ONLY see the "tell me what to feel about x" side of it.
Survey-makers, your groupthink is plusgood! Having already decided that Fox News is a terrible thing (and that that's why people watch it more than rival networks), you made the double error of asking rigged questions and then inferring a cause-and-effect relationship. Good job at reinforcing your own beliefs.
Actually it was the poorly phrased Slashdot headline that made that claim, based loosely on the story being covered at some site called Alternet. The original study, amazingly, had no such "watching fox makes you stupid" conclusion.
But nevermind that, you just keep on rationalizing your own doubleplus groupwhatever bullshit you idiot.
Funny, there is one medium that has always been more popular than Facebook...if I remember correctly, it is called "The Internet," and it was around years before Facebook ever debuted. I seem to remember that network connecting billions of people around the world, and Facebook simply being one of the ways in which people use the Internet to connect to each other.
Double funny. I sure did enjoy the days of yesteryear when, while browsing altavista.com, I was able to communicate directly with billions of other people...
Oh wait, that's not how it worked. The WWW was a conversation between you and the server. You sure have to stretch things a long way to insist that by virtue of viewing the same piece of HTML that you were somehow "connected" to everyone else who was looking at it too. That's like saying a library is a great way to meet people. Yes, there you will meet lots of people, who wish you would shut up so they could get back to reading. Notice a difference between that model, and Facebook? People are now empowered at a scale *never before seen* to communicate directly with each other.
He built a better mousetrap. There were tons of others with the same savvy doing the same thing (friendster, myspace, etc) but in the end he won out, BIG time. Yes, you could say he won the lottery... But you had to be an extremely smart, determined individual to even be bestowed a lottery ticket in the first place.
No, probably because there were never 500 million people on Tradewars 2002 (a game i spent many hours playing, I might add.) Just because you and your friends were on there doesn't mean that a significant portion of the computer-owning world was... And with Facebook that has changed. Like it or not, it stretches farther and wider than Usenet, IRC, text MMOs, and just about every communication medium that came before it (the exception perhaps being email) ever could.
So what does Zuckerberg do for an encore — Academy Award, maybe?"
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you win Academy Awards for, generally, being IN or at least involved IN the production of a movie. The movie The Social Network was done without Zuckerberg's involvement or even approval. If it were probable to win an award for having nothing to do with a movie, Idiocracy would have bestowed an avalanche of awards on the American political and business leadership.
Although I don't like Michael Moore (he's comparable to a propagandist) he sometimes does the right thing. His mid-90s movie about manufacturing an excuse to declare war (and give the president a boost in popularity) was very good.
You mean Canadian Bacon, right? That, uh, that wasn't a documentary.
They are prepared. At peak usage, everyone suffers equally. No way should they be required to maintain 1:1 subscription/bandwidth, the cost would be enormous. No ISP at the B2C level works that way, and that's why you can get a connection for $30 a month what would cost $300 if you wanted 1:1 bandwidth (aka, if you hauled an ATM line to a carrier and wanted a bandwidth SLA.)
I am not on Comcast's side here, I am just pushing back on all the monopoly/conspiracy/neutrality nutjobs and their ridiculous "theories". If you don't want their service, don't pay for it.
I can't comment about netflix since I don't use it (though that would not be on the tata link?). But, I do regularly experience massively sucky performance after 7PM; it correlates nicely with the link saturation shown on 1-day graph.
That's not what the graph is telling you. The time printed there is no doubt GMT, since no way would the bottom of the usage valley show up at noon. It's likely a west coast router, noon GMT would put the valley at around 5am local time (where it should be) and the 100% plateau is really from about noon to midnight local time (again where it should be).
If you could prove somehow that they are causing the congestion and it's not the customers, THEN you are totally on to something. But look at the graph, it didn't spend much time at 100% before the Thanksgiving (US) holiday. At that point, a lot of people (mostly college students) just got a whole lot more bored with their lives and are no doubt watching youtube/netflix/hulu at a greatly increased rate.
Should Comcast be persecuted because there is a holiday rush on internet video? Probably not. Come on, there are better things to be stringing them up over. These graphs basically prove what everyone already knew, and what every other provider is probably going through at the moment.
What if this is their lowest cost/most popular link? You know these newfangled routers these days can use more than 1 link at a time and unless they have identical start/end points they won't carry a synchronous amount of traffic. They may be falling back on another peer when this link hits 100%
Just playing devil's advocate. Anyone on comcast care to comment on if "netflix is unwatchable" from noon to midnight?
In some parts of the country, cigs go for eight bucks A PACK. Show me an "inspected and cared for" tomato going for 8 bucks...
It's not the cigs that cost that much. It's all the sin-taxes put one them that make them that expensive. Tobacco is relatively cheap.
You are right that the taxes are high on cigs. But, when compared to tomatoes... no it's not cheap. Tobacco goes for around $1.50/lb on the US wholesale market depending on the variety, harvest, etc. Tomatoes go for around $.40/lb on the US wholesale market. Remember, tomatoes are 98% water...
If you only use 30% of the capacity of the lithium battery... you might as well just save your money and buy long life lead acid batteries instead. They will end up being the same size/weight and with the money you can buy three sets that will get you way past 200,000 miles of life.
We do know why, and it's simple; parts of the insides of the battery end up in different places over time. The chemical reactions that take place during charging and discharging don't happen with perfect symmetry in forward and reverse, therefore each cycle will leave a little less reactive material than before. Making a battery with such perfect symmetry might be theoretically possible but it's not been achieved with any cost-beneficial success.
The bottom line is that batteries, like many other things, are only gradually improved since the process of production that establishes their characteristics can only be gradually improved. The lithium-ion system was a LONG time coming from the days of lead and nickel, but nevertheless it's just another stop on the road to better things.
as long as the user is asked to take a breathalyzer test, swipe their state issued ID or Driver License, and then show their mug to a state official sitting somewhere in Harrisburg
Surprised? Really? That no one proposed making a machine with a live video feed monitored by a government agent, that required an ID swipe and a payment swipe, and best of all required you to put your lips on some sort of breathalyzer that has no doubt been kissed by many a wineo before you? Yeah I gotta hand it to them, they built a better mousetrap. I can see the customers swarming in from here, and I live in Ohio.
It really bothers you? How? Please tell me how I've ruined your shopping experience.
It probably bothers him (not to be offensive) because his worldview before did not include a set of people who would willingly (for fun or not) enter false information on the internet. This experience has no doubt been a rude awakening, as he has probably had to challenge a lot of the beliefs he formed after visiting the Craigslist "missed connections" section and reading the post comments at Breitbart.com.
I'm beginning to wonder if the best solution might be a law mandating that certain jobs require a psych evaluation before hiring. Confidential, of course. The specific criteria being conditions likely to lead to abuse of power, like antisocial personality disorder (aka psychopathy or sociopathy, two terms now out of use).
Put another way, "sociopaths" assume leadership positions in business precisely they aren't held back by conventional barriers, like empathy or ethics. They can out-compete regular folks by lying, cheating, and generally screwing over their fellow man, giving them an edge over any competition that won't stoop to their level. Screening them out would level the playing field for people who aren't complete and utter bastards.
Jobs that might benefit from such screening include corporate executives, senior government bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists, law enforcement officers, lawyers and possibly others I've overlooked.
Good, so there is a test, and we can confirm that they are ALL clinically deranged... What then? Fire every last CEO in the nation just because they are good at lying? I am not choosing sides here, just pointing out the problem.
Sorry, but this is a pitifully dumb retort... The app authors set the price for apps and can even sell apps without involving themselves at all in the RIM "app world" ecosystem. If the price was wrong the authors are to blame and should correct it. The big difference is that on the BB, apps and the "app world" aren't shoved down the user's throat. The phone with stock free pre-installed apps does 95% of what any productive person could want.
Slashdot Mirror
*I Should have said national bulk/wholesale company (i.e. Broadwing, Ikano, etc.)
The rule that said it was legal for a company to sell local dialup for a few dollars per account per month? So much cheaper that local ISPs couldnt hope to compete and had to get on board trying desperately to value-add as people stopped caring how nice your webmail portal was or how up to date your usenet cache was? Damn those regulations...
The problem is that, by their own admission, their programming consists of only 9 hours (mostly mid-day low viewership programming) of "news", and 15 hours (including all of evening prime-time) of "pure columnist style speculation and opinion"... So the average viewer tuning in at the end of their workday is not likely to be treated to the "informative" side of their channel, and instead ONLY see the "tell me what to feel about x" side of it.
Survey-makers, your groupthink is plusgood! Having already decided that Fox News is a terrible thing (and that that's why people watch it more than rival networks), you made the double error of asking rigged questions and then inferring a cause-and-effect relationship. Good job at reinforcing your own beliefs.
Actually it was the poorly phrased Slashdot headline that made that claim, based loosely on the story being covered at some site called Alternet. The original study, amazingly, had no such "watching fox makes you stupid" conclusion.
But nevermind that, you just keep on rationalizing your own doubleplus groupwhatever bullshit you idiot.
How many people were subscribed to your usenet group? Oh that's right, not 500 million. Please keep bringing up inane points... I have karma to burn.
Funny, there is one medium that has always been more popular than Facebook...if I remember correctly, it is called "The Internet," and it was around years before Facebook ever debuted. I seem to remember that network connecting billions of people around the world, and Facebook simply being one of the ways in which people use the Internet to connect to each other.
Double funny. I sure did enjoy the days of yesteryear when, while browsing altavista.com, I was able to communicate directly with billions of other people...
Oh wait, that's not how it worked. The WWW was a conversation between you and the server. You sure have to stretch things a long way to insist that by virtue of viewing the same piece of HTML that you were somehow "connected" to everyone else who was looking at it too. That's like saying a library is a great way to meet people. Yes, there you will meet lots of people, who wish you would shut up so they could get back to reading. Notice a difference between that model, and Facebook? People are now empowered at a scale *never before seen* to communicate directly with each other.
He built a better mousetrap. There were tons of others with the same savvy doing the same thing (friendster, myspace, etc) but in the end he won out, BIG time. Yes, you could say he won the lottery... But you had to be an extremely smart, determined individual to even be bestowed a lottery ticket in the first place.
No, probably because there were never 500 million people on Tradewars 2002 (a game i spent many hours playing, I might add.) Just because you and your friends were on there doesn't mean that a significant portion of the computer-owning world was... And with Facebook that has changed. Like it or not, it stretches farther and wider than Usenet, IRC, text MMOs, and just about every communication medium that came before it (the exception perhaps being email) ever could.
So what does Zuckerberg do for an encore — Academy Award, maybe?"
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you win Academy Awards for, generally, being IN or at least involved IN the production of a movie. The movie The Social Network was done without Zuckerberg's involvement or even approval. If it were probable to win an award for having nothing to do with a movie, Idiocracy would have bestowed an avalanche of awards on the American political and business leadership.
Although I don't like Michael Moore (he's comparable to a propagandist) he sometimes does the right thing. His mid-90s movie about manufacturing an excuse to declare war (and give the president a boost in popularity) was very good.
You mean Canadian Bacon, right? That, uh, that wasn't a documentary.
They are prepared. At peak usage, everyone suffers equally. No way should they be required to maintain 1:1 subscription/bandwidth, the cost would be enormous. No ISP at the B2C level works that way, and that's why you can get a connection for $30 a month what would cost $300 if you wanted 1:1 bandwidth (aka, if you hauled an ATM line to a carrier and wanted a bandwidth SLA.)
I am not on Comcast's side here, I am just pushing back on all the monopoly/conspiracy/neutrality nutjobs and their ridiculous "theories". If you don't want their service, don't pay for it.
I can't comment about netflix since I don't use it (though that would not be on the tata link?). But, I do regularly experience massively sucky performance after 7PM; it correlates nicely with the link saturation shown on 1-day graph.
That's not what the graph is telling you. The time printed there is no doubt GMT, since no way would the bottom of the usage valley show up at noon. It's likely a west coast router, noon GMT would put the valley at around 5am local time (where it should be) and the 100% plateau is really from about noon to midnight local time (again where it should be).
If you could prove somehow that they are causing the congestion and it's not the customers, THEN you are totally on to something. But look at the graph, it didn't spend much time at 100% before the Thanksgiving (US) holiday. At that point, a lot of people (mostly college students) just got a whole lot more bored with their lives and are no doubt watching youtube/netflix/hulu at a greatly increased rate.
Should Comcast be persecuted because there is a holiday rush on internet video? Probably not. Come on, there are better things to be stringing them up over. These graphs basically prove what everyone already knew, and what every other provider is probably going through at the moment.
What if this is their lowest cost/most popular link? You know these newfangled routers these days can use more than 1 link at a time and unless they have identical start/end points they won't carry a synchronous amount of traffic. They may be falling back on another peer when this link hits 100%
Just playing devil's advocate. Anyone on comcast care to comment on if "netflix is unwatchable" from noon to midnight?
You're right. It IS interesting: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/19/local/la-me-state-computers-20100719
In some parts of the country, cigs go for eight bucks A PACK. Show me an "inspected and cared for" tomato going for 8 bucks...
It's not the cigs that cost that much. It's all the sin-taxes put one them that make them that expensive. Tobacco is relatively cheap.
You are right that the taxes are high on cigs. But, when compared to tomatoes... no it's not cheap. Tobacco goes for around $1.50/lb on the US wholesale market depending on the variety, harvest, etc. Tomatoes go for around $.40/lb on the US wholesale market. Remember, tomatoes are 98% water...
In some parts of the country, cigs go for eight bucks A PACK. Show me an "inspected and cared for" tomato going for 8 bucks...
If you only use 30% of the capacity of the lithium battery... you might as well just save your money and buy long life lead acid batteries instead. They will end up being the same size/weight and with the money you can buy three sets that will get you way past 200,000 miles of life.
We do know why, and it's simple; parts of the insides of the battery end up in different places over time. The chemical reactions that take place during charging and discharging don't happen with perfect symmetry in forward and reverse, therefore each cycle will leave a little less reactive material than before. Making a battery with such perfect symmetry might be theoretically possible but it's not been achieved with any cost-beneficial success.
The bottom line is that batteries, like many other things, are only gradually improved since the process of production that establishes their characteristics can only be gradually improved. The lithium-ion system was a LONG time coming from the days of lead and nickel, but nevertheless it's just another stop on the road to better things.
as long as the user is asked to take a breathalyzer test, swipe their state issued ID or Driver License, and then show their mug to a state official sitting somewhere in Harrisburg
Surprised? Really? That no one proposed making a machine with a live video feed monitored by a government agent, that required an ID swipe and a payment swipe, and best of all required you to put your lips on some sort of breathalyzer that has no doubt been kissed by many a wineo before you? Yeah I gotta hand it to them, they built a better mousetrap. I can see the customers swarming in from here, and I live in Ohio.
It really bothers you? How? Please tell me how I've ruined your shopping experience.
It probably bothers him (not to be offensive) because his worldview before did not include a set of people who would willingly (for fun or not) enter false information on the internet. This experience has no doubt been a rude awakening, as he has probably had to challenge a lot of the beliefs he formed after visiting the Craigslist "missed connections" section and reading the post comments at Breitbart.com.
Good thinking. Let me stroll down the hall, asking each BB user (there are a lot) if they even know what VNC, RDP, and SSH stand for...
Nope, turns out none of them give a shit as long as it does email reliably, manages contacts easily and makes the occasional phone call.
How many people are really working [snip] above the minimum wage/burger flipper levels?
Not *nearly* as many as you might think...
These corporate sociopath CEO's...
I'm beginning to wonder if the best solution might be a law mandating that certain jobs require a psych evaluation before hiring. Confidential, of course. The specific criteria being conditions likely to lead to abuse of power, like antisocial personality disorder (aka psychopathy or sociopathy, two terms now out of use).
Put another way, "sociopaths" assume leadership positions in business precisely they aren't held back by conventional barriers, like empathy or ethics. They can out-compete regular folks by lying, cheating, and generally screwing over their fellow man, giving them an edge over any competition that won't stoop to their level. Screening them out would level the playing field for people who aren't complete and utter bastards.
Jobs that might benefit from such screening include corporate executives, senior government bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists, law enforcement officers, lawyers and possibly others I've overlooked.
Good, so there is a test, and we can confirm that they are ALL clinically deranged... What then? Fire every last CEO in the nation just because they are good at lying? I am not choosing sides here, just pointing out the problem.
Sorry, but this is a pitifully dumb retort... The app authors set the price for apps and can even sell apps without involving themselves at all in the RIM "app world" ecosystem. If the price was wrong the authors are to blame and should correct it. The big difference is that on the BB, apps and the "app world" aren't shoved down the user's throat. The phone with stock free pre-installed apps does 95% of what any productive person could want.