But I'm sorry, I've tried those low-flow shower heads and they SUCK ASS.
They are NOT all the same. There are many awful low-flow shower heads, and there are also pretty good ones. That's not to say you'll be completely unable to tell there's some difference, but they certainly don't seem like just half as much water flow.
so a group of peope had the brilliant idea of building massive cities and huge agricultural farmlands in a desert, made possible by unsustainable draining of acquifers and importation of water from other states. and now they have a "drought"?
I was thinking the same thing a couple weeks ago: People had the brilliant idea of building massive cities far up north, where ice storms and freezing cold weather is routine, and now they have shortages of natural gas, road salt, power outages due to trees taking down lines, etc. and they have the nerve to complain? Ridiculous! And don't get me started on hurricane-prone areas that need to be evacuated every year. Or those idiots within miles of major rivers, that are overflowing their banks every few years. No sympathy for anyone who doesn't live in a PERFECT location.
BTW: Most of CA is NOT a desert. Los Angeles, the (Central) San Joaquin Valley, the Bay Area, Sacramento, etc., they ALL get too much rainfall (in most years) to be classified as a desert. And lets not forget about the Sierra Nevada mountain ranges, which aren't deserts at all, almost always have ample snow pack, but are barren this year because of the drought. There are big desert regions in CA, but they're much less heavily populated, and at least the few I looked-up don't seem to be affected by this drought at all (aquifers going strong...). Even Atlanta had drought problems a few years back... better pack them up and send them all to Minnesota.
What would you say to the many millions of people living in South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas, unsustainable drawing most of their water from the Ogallala Aquifer?
As I've said before, the deserts are probably the most habitable places for humans:
France had atomic bombs before China. If not for domestic problems after WWI, France could have been the first nuclear power. That's where Marie Currie and other researchers came from, after all.
"The French military is currently thought to retain a weapons stockpile of around 300 operational nuclear warheads, making it the third-largest in the world."
A shotgun will take care of one guy well enough, but if it's four, you are in deep shit real fast with only 8 or so rounds in a slow loading plaftorm.
Shotguns are the most devastating firearms in existence. In WWI, the Germans (who used chemical weapons) were calling the use of shotguns by the Americans a war crime.
Today, the "street sweeper" is aptly named... A semi-auto sawed-off 12ga shotgun with a large magazine, can kill many dozens of people in seconds.
Comcast gets Level3 (Netflix's bandwidth provider) to pay them extra to deliver there video streams to there customers. We are so small, how are we supoosed to get Level3/Netflix to compensate us without getting laughed out of the room?
Peering agreements are based upon how unbalanced traffic is, not how important that traffic is to one company or another. I'm going to go out on a limb, and say you're too small to have peering agreements with ANYBODY, so you don't even have a seat at the table. If you were peered, you could balance things out by changing routing tables to send more outbound traffic over level3's network.
Netflix Open Connect offers "free storage appliances" to ISPs to reduce their transit costs. Why don't you take them up on that offer? https://signup.netflix.com/ope...
I'm sure Comcast's agreement with level3 doesn't move the needle enough to really change how much they charge subscribers. If your subscribers are costing you too much, you should charge them more for the service. Alternatively, you can drop their internet speeds, until they fall within Netflix's next lower speed tier, significantly reducing bandwidth usage, at the expense of lower video quality.
Or if Netflix is really just causing a problem at peak, then QoS/throttle them to make sure other traffic gets through. Again, Netflix will probably drop the user down to lower-quality streams, saving both of you some bandwidth.
Actually the UN is very definitely favourable towards the US, the US has veto power, you hardly give that to someone you aren't favourable towards.
It's not a gift given to countries they like. The US and 4 other nations had had veto power since the inception of the UN. It's not something arbitrarily given, or able to be taken away.
This ensures that the UN can never actually accomplish anything because they must get all veto powered countries to agree (something that simply doesn't happen
For the UN to be effective they have to stop the idea of ANY country having veto power, it just means that those countries are immune to the UN rules
That would be suicidal. The UN's main reason exist is to prevent World War 3. You don't do that by starting wars that one or more of the major nuclear powers adamantly disagrees with...
The UN doesn't *give* the permanent members the power to stop something it dislikes. They're really just admitting that any one of them can wipe out all of humanity, if they're sufficiently pissed-off. So the UN makes sure they aren't pissed-off.
Like the GP, your whole argument just consists of incorrectly using the term "monopoly". You can complain all you want, but using a term that "sounds bad" to express something it has never meant, is nonsense.
Your rant is also blatantly wrong on its face... Gasoline prices can vary significantly in an area. Just install gasbuddy and see how much for yourself. Right now Beverly Hills spans from $3.63 to $3.85. And there's nothing coincidental about that... A gas station charging significantly less would see lines forming around the block as people flocked to it, quickly outstripping supply.
And cellular service prices vary dramatically, too... What Verizon would charge $120/month for, I get for $40. If you need 5 lines, T-Mobile may cost HALF that price per phone, still.
Just wait until the ICF hits (internal combustion flu). Tesla will be laughing all the way to the bank.
I think it's the other way around... Tesla cars, Boeing jets, and laptops before them have been catching the Lithium Flu. You'll know it when you see it, because it comes with *quite* the high fever...
If it was all "packets" and "routers", it wouldn't know anything about it.
Except I never said cable TV was all packetized. All I said was, it cable is fully capable of doing so. You specifically said it "isn't designed that way," when the cable network damn-well is. At least it is for internet and VoD services, and it would be a fairly minor thing to extend those capabilities to the rest of the channels.
You also said it "can't", when internet and VoD are living proof that the cable network very well can manage it... Network operators just choose not to do all their video that way, right now. If cable was reduced to the power-line model, a dumb pipe with multiple service providers, there's no reason TV and other services couldn't be provided exactly this way, without any issues of frequency scarcity.
Am I missing the conspiracy, here? Comcast bought NBC Universal, and at some point dropped Universal Sports from whatever package... Okay. How does that (sinister act?) supposedly benefit Comcast?
Who exactly is rising up to challenge cable monopolies? What downstream challengers is he talking about? Netflix? Aereo?
Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Apple, Google, etc.
If I'm some dinky little neighborhood cable company, and I'm negotiating a contract with Viacom for carriage on my network (with my 30,000 subscribers) and I insist that part of the agreement is that they can't license any of their shows/movies for streaming from Netflix, Viacom would tell me to fuck off.
Now, if it's Comcast instead, Viacom has a hard choice... Do they cut access to all their shows off from the 40 million Netflix subscribers, or from the 30 million Comcast subscribers? How about if they do the same to HBO, and their DVD releases have to be delayed an extra year...?
Cable TV isn't that way. You can't put two channel 5s on the same system.
Yes you can, as evidenced by video-on-demand and cable modems.
Your "cable box" just needs IP capabilities, so when you change the channel, it subscribes to the multicast stream of that channel. The multicast stream for each channel won't cross over any layer-2 switches/bridges, unless there's a device on the other side that has requested it. In practice, every neighborhood is divided up into separate traffic domains like this, so you only need enough bandwidth to support the worst-case of every TV in your neighborhood being tuned to a different channel... And when everyone in the neighborhood is watching the superbowl, that's just one channel on the wire, with the rest free for internet traffic.
There is no pattern. What you cited/quoted does NOTHING to prove your assertion that "cord cutting" was used narrowly. I can't imagine why you think it does. None of them draw out the distinction. Why you think those were good citations is beyond me.
And let's not forget you're the one yelling at the whole world for using a phrase differently than how you think it should be used.
Dude, did you just seriously tell that guy that because he had a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich that everything was ok?
That's about the level of intellect I'd expect from South Park fans...
He never said anything was wrong with either one, except that one was slower (which will ALWAYS be the case). I took issue with him calling it a MONOPOLY, when he has at least THREE local/land-line options, not to mention the satellite and cellular options.
It doesn't become a monopoly just because one of them has a deal you like better than all the others...
Did you even bother reading those? They directly contradict your assertions:
Foxnews: "cutting the cord" == "People who rely mostly on cell phones"
Honolulu: "customers cut home phone service."
Bankrate: "Think cutting the cord may be right for you? [...] consider the downsides of going wireless with all your phone calls."
Those are clear demarcations between people "cutting the cord" and keeping a landline around for Internet.
NO, there are NOT. They are talking about both scenarios, without making ANY distinction between going completely off a telephone line, or just eliminating home phone service. One specifically said "cut home phone service" Absolutely NONE of them specifically reserved the term "cord cutter" for those who completely eliminated all telephone services. Instead, they often conflate telephone service with "land line".
If every cell phone had a public IPv4 address, we'd be screwed...
In 2G & 3G networks, phones got NAT'd 10.x.x.x IP addresses. The downside being no listening services accessible to the internet, even if you wanted to run a web server, or SSHd on your phone.
In all 4G/LTE networks, though, carriers are going native IPv6, with no IPv4 to be seen.
You may not know that you've switched to IPv6, but if you're an LTE user, you HAVE.
When you get Hulu to replace it, you will notice it has the same amount of commercials.
False equivalence detracts from whatever point you are trying to make. Hulu absolutely has far fewer ads than regular network TV. They're not gone, but they are a tiny fraction as long or frequent.
I'd go for Hulu Plus if I was so far out that I couldn't possibly get TV over an antenna, yet had internet access, but otherwise an occasional show here and there is all I want, and isn't worth the fee. But more than that, I'm still angry they stopped developing HuluDesktop, and recently went out of their way to break it...
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the audio to go along with the Sam Kinison joke text:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
They are NOT all the same. There are many awful low-flow shower heads, and there are also pretty good ones. That's not to say you'll be completely unable to tell there's some difference, but they certainly don't seem like just half as much water flow.
Average of 4.2 out of 5 stars out of 202 reviews. $9:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003U...
Yeah, it'd be MUCH better if we burned down a few thousand square miles of rain forest for farming, instead...
I was thinking the same thing a couple weeks ago: People had the brilliant idea of building massive cities far up north, where ice storms and freezing cold weather is routine, and now they have shortages of natural gas, road salt, power outages due to trees taking down lines, etc. and they have the nerve to complain? Ridiculous! And don't get me started on hurricane-prone areas that need to be evacuated every year. Or those idiots within miles of major rivers, that are overflowing their banks every few years. No sympathy for anyone who doesn't live in a PERFECT location.
BTW: Most of CA is NOT a desert. Los Angeles, the (Central) San Joaquin Valley, the Bay Area, Sacramento, etc., they ALL get too much rainfall (in most years) to be classified as a desert. And lets not forget about the Sierra Nevada mountain ranges, which aren't deserts at all, almost always have ample snow pack, but are barren this year because of the drought. There are big desert regions in CA, but they're much less heavily populated, and at least the few I looked-up don't seem to be affected by this drought at all (aquifers going strong...). Even Atlanta had drought problems a few years back... better pack them up and send them all to Minnesota.
What would you say to the many millions of people living in South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas, unsustainable drawing most of their water from the Ogallala Aquifer?
As I've said before, the deserts are probably the most habitable places for humans:
http://entertainment.slashdot....
France had atomic bombs before China. If not for domestic problems after WWI, France could have been the first nuclear power. That's where Marie Currie and other researchers came from, after all.
"The French military is currently thought to retain a weapons stockpile of around 300 operational nuclear warheads, making it the third-largest in the world."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Though it doesn't show the lovely bucks-shot spread pattern, here's a decent video example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Shotguns are the most devastating firearms in existence. In WWI, the Germans (who used chemical weapons) were calling the use of shotguns by the Americans a war crime.
Today, the "street sweeper" is aptly named... A semi-auto sawed-off 12ga shotgun with a large magazine, can kill many dozens of people in seconds.
http://www.proguns.com/cobray-...
There's a very good reason AR-15s are fully legal in the US, but the street sweeper is not.
Peering agreements are based upon how unbalanced traffic is, not how important that traffic is to one company or another. I'm going to go out on a limb, and say you're too small to have peering agreements with ANYBODY, so you don't even have a seat at the table. If you were peered, you could balance things out by changing routing tables to send more outbound traffic over level3's network.
Netflix Open Connect offers "free storage appliances" to ISPs to reduce their transit costs. Why don't you take them up on that offer? https://signup.netflix.com/ope...
I'm sure Comcast's agreement with level3 doesn't move the needle enough to really change how much they charge subscribers. If your subscribers are costing you too much, you should charge them more for the service. Alternatively, you can drop their internet speeds, until they fall within Netflix's next lower speed tier, significantly reducing bandwidth usage, at the expense of lower video quality.
Or if Netflix is really just causing a problem at peak, then QoS/throttle them to make sure other traffic gets through. Again, Netflix will probably drop the user down to lower-quality streams, saving both of you some bandwidth.
It's not a gift given to countries they like. The US and 4 other nations had had veto power since the inception of the UN. It's not something arbitrarily given, or able to be taken away.
Well then, here's a small list of these things which NEVER HAPPEN:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And here's a few more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That would be suicidal. The UN's main reason exist is to prevent World War 3. You don't do that by starting wars that one or more of the major nuclear powers adamantly disagrees with...
The UN doesn't *give* the permanent members the power to stop something it dislikes. They're really just admitting that any one of them can wipe out all of humanity, if they're sufficiently pissed-off. So the UN makes sure they aren't pissed-off.
Like the GP, your whole argument just consists of incorrectly using the term "monopoly". You can complain all you want, but using a term that "sounds bad" to express something it has never meant, is nonsense.
Your rant is also blatantly wrong on its face... Gasoline prices can vary significantly in an area. Just install gasbuddy and see how much for yourself. Right now Beverly Hills spans from $3.63 to $3.85. And there's nothing coincidental about that... A gas station charging significantly less would see lines forming around the block as people flocked to it, quickly outstripping supply.
And cellular service prices vary dramatically, too... What Verizon would charge $120/month for, I get for $40. If you need 5 lines, T-Mobile may cost HALF that price per phone, still.
I think it's the other way around... Tesla cars, Boeing jets, and laptops before them have been catching the Lithium Flu. You'll know it when you see it, because it comes with *quite* the high fever...
Here's one Model S getting some medical attention.
I certainly don't watch the show, I only know the reference because I heard it around the internet multiple times during the last election cycle...
That was just the first sentence of my post. It seems you didn't bother reading the rest of it. Ignorance isn't an argument, either.
Except I never said cable TV was all packetized. All I said was, it cable is fully capable of doing so. You specifically said it "isn't designed that way," when the cable network damn-well is. At least it is for internet and VoD services, and it would be a fairly minor thing to extend those capabilities to the rest of the channels.
You also said it "can't", when internet and VoD are living proof that the cable network very well can manage it... Network operators just choose not to do all their video that way, right now. If cable was reduced to the power-line model, a dumb pipe with multiple service providers, there's no reason TV and other services couldn't be provided exactly this way, without any issues of frequency scarcity.
Am I missing the conspiracy, here? Comcast bought NBC Universal, and at some point dropped Universal Sports from whatever package... Okay. How does that (sinister act?) supposedly benefit Comcast?
You seem to have zero idea what I actually said. I'm well aware of "how the existing cable TV networks are designed".
Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Apple, Google, etc.
If I'm some dinky little neighborhood cable company, and I'm negotiating a contract with Viacom for carriage on my network (with my 30,000 subscribers) and I insist that part of the agreement is that they can't license any of their shows/movies for streaming from Netflix, Viacom would tell me to fuck off.
Now, if it's Comcast instead, Viacom has a hard choice... Do they cut access to all their shows off from the 40 million Netflix subscribers, or from the 30 million Comcast subscribers? How about if they do the same to HBO, and their DVD releases have to be delayed an extra year...?
Yes you can, as evidenced by video-on-demand and cable modems.
Your "cable box" just needs IP capabilities, so when you change the channel, it subscribes to the multicast stream of that channel. The multicast stream for each channel won't cross over any layer-2 switches/bridges, unless there's a device on the other side that has requested it. In practice, every neighborhood is divided up into separate traffic domains like this, so you only need enough bandwidth to support the worst-case of every TV in your neighborhood being tuned to a different channel... And when everyone in the neighborhood is watching the superbowl, that's just one channel on the wire, with the rest free for internet traffic.
There is no pattern. What you cited/quoted does NOTHING to prove your assertion that "cord cutting" was used narrowly. I can't imagine why you think it does. None of them draw out the distinction. Why you think those were good citations is beyond me.
And let's not forget you're the one yelling at the whole world for using a phrase differently than how you think it should be used.
That's about the level of intellect I'd expect from South Park fans...
He never said anything was wrong with either one, except that one was slower (which will ALWAYS be the case). I took issue with him calling it a MONOPOLY, when he has at least THREE local/land-line options, not to mention the satellite and cellular options.
It doesn't become a monopoly just because one of them has a deal you like better than all the others...
Did you even bother reading those? They directly contradict your assertions:
Foxnews: "cutting the cord" == "People who rely mostly on cell phones"
Honolulu: "customers cut home phone service."
Bankrate: "Think cutting the cord may be right for you? [...] consider the downsides of going wireless with all your phone calls."
NO, there are NOT. They are talking about both scenarios, without making ANY distinction between going completely off a telephone line, or just eliminating home phone service. One specifically said "cut home phone service" Absolutely NONE of them specifically reserved the term "cord cutter" for those who completely eliminated all telephone services. Instead, they often conflate telephone service with "land line".
Try all you want, the term was never used the way you're insisting it was.
If every cell phone had a public IPv4 address, we'd be screwed...
In 2G & 3G networks, phones got NAT'd 10.x.x.x IP addresses. The downside being no listening services accessible to the internet, even if you wanted to run a web server, or SSHd on your phone.
In all 4G/LTE networks, though, carriers are going native IPv6, with no IPv4 to be seen.
You may not know that you've switched to IPv6, but if you're an LTE user, you HAVE.
Cable internet was older and bigger, but DSL still had about a 25% share of the broadband internet market, circa 1998.
The 25% of cellphone users who had internet access through DSL didn't shut it off and switch to cable internet just to suit you.
The term was no more accurate back then than it is now.
No, the regulations were updated to allow competition on long-distance calls. It was not deregulated.
False equivalence detracts from whatever point you are trying to make. Hulu absolutely has far fewer ads than regular network TV. They're not gone, but they are a tiny fraction as long or frequent.
I'd go for Hulu Plus if I was so far out that I couldn't possibly get TV over an antenna, yet had internet access, but otherwise an occasional show here and there is all I want, and isn't worth the fee. But more than that, I'm still angry they stopped developing HuluDesktop, and recently went out of their way to break it...