Don't have mod points, but this is an awesome post.
Re:Nice distro but they messed up the desktop
on
Ubuntu Turns 7
·
· Score: 1
This is exactly what I was wondering. What kind of crappy tests do they have? Multiple X screens per server are not rare.
Note that twin-view does work for me (up to two displays), but I have 3 displays so I need another video card and another X screen in the xorg.conf.
Re:Nice distro but they messed up the desktop
on
Ubuntu Turns 7
·
· Score: 1
Dual screens with unity works with the nvidia twin-view (a feature of their driver), but not if you put 2 different screen sections in your X config (for two different video cards in my case).
Re:Nice distro but they messed up the desktop
on
Ubuntu Turns 7
·
· Score: 1
I liked compiz the way it was. They had to go and ruin it with unity. I want my old compiz back.
My recent upgrade to 11.10 ruined my multiscreen setup (two X screens don't work with unity) and the gnome screensaver keeps seg-faulting so I had to change to xscreensaver.
If I get rid of the unity panel and switch to gnome panel, then compiz doesn't complain about a window manager already present there, but then it seg-faults while doing some unity crap.
Don't be a misleading jackass. Dell's u2711 is $900 right now straight from Dell. On sale it has gone as low as $769 (http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/44749). Apple products NEVER have sales that good.
Given a price-based priority scheme, yes I would pay for lost packets. If excess number of packets are lost, then I would stop sending or upgrade my priority so they are no longer lost.
Small users would rather pay a usage-based fee and thus not support your habit of saturating your connection. It's just like prepaid vs. post-paid phones.
I use a prepaid phone because I only make 10 calls a month. I'm not paying $60 a month for that. Currently wired internet has no equivalent. And prepaid wireless rates still have quanta that are too large. I'd rather pay $.10 for a google or map search than pay $1.50 for the entire day of prepaid data access.
Right now the customer pays for availability and the seller hopes that usage is correlated. When it's not correlated, other consumers suffer and at worst everybody gets bad service.
It's like the water bills where I am: if you have a half-inch pipe, you pay a constant amount each month, and on top you pay for usage. If you have a one-inch pipe, you pay more for availability, but the same rate for usage.
I don't see how that is abuse. They provided a service in response to your request. If you don't want your browser to go to your home page, then set it to blank.
Thus, it cannot be based purely on traffic type. Money is the most logical differentiator. If you want your torrent traffic to go fast, you can pay for it. Same as a toll road. Everything in life is this way.
I propose a pricing scheme based on EACH and EVERY packet with the following criteria:
size of packet priority of packet current congestion on the nodes the packet passes through type of link and bandwidth of the link to the ISP
This is only because the local government has granted the two ISPs a duopoly. The legislators love all the franchise agreement fees that they get to spend. The ISP doesn't only has to compete with one other ISP, making it much easier to collude prices. Everybody loves it, right?
You're seriously trying to dissect a comedy routine to find some plausibility? The woman is a contrived character to make the comedy work, she doesn't have to act rationally.
And there is no real competition because practically all local governments in the United States only allow a single cable/POTS provider to operate in their jurisdiction. The problem was created by the government in the first place. Politicians and lobbyists love this arrangement, getting kickbacks and taxes from their franchisees, and the consumers get screwed.
Now people are advocating a full scale takeover of the cable/telco policies. Why even have a company anymore? Everything is dictated by the government. Why not just build another government network? Oh, because governments aren't allowed to compete with "natural" monopolies... that's unfair. So if you can't beat 'em, take 'em by eminent domain or some such bullshit. Next stop green dam.
Okay, well I'm sure I could come up with a contrived situation in which I am legitimately using my allotted 50Mbps downlink speed and I shouldn't be throttled, just charge me more.
What if my kids are watching a netflix show at the same time? And my wife is video chatting with her sister in Canada? And... I'm sure you get the picture. If people are willing to pay to avoid being throttled, then why not let them?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I see you're playing with terminology. Virus != trojan.
The distortion field is strong with this one.
The virus is well documented at the GP post link. Do you believe you know more than the people who studied the virus at f-secure?
If that's the complaint, then good thing the teacher didn't read Songmaster, with its sodomy.
Get "cirtified?"
Is that like a web 2.0 thing?
Don't have mod points, but this is an awesome post.
This is exactly what I was wondering. What kind of crappy tests do they have? Multiple X screens per server are not rare.
Note that twin-view does work for me (up to two displays), but I have 3 displays so I need another video card and another X screen in the xorg.conf.
Dual screens with unity works with the nvidia twin-view (a feature of their driver), but not if you put 2 different screen sections in your X config (for two different video cards in my case).
I liked compiz the way it was. They had to go and ruin it with unity. I want my old compiz back.
My recent upgrade to 11.10 ruined my multiscreen setup (two X screens don't work with unity) and the gnome screensaver keeps seg-faulting so I had to change to xscreensaver.
If I get rid of the unity panel and switch to gnome panel, then compiz doesn't complain about a window manager already present there, but then it seg-faults while doing some unity crap.
You have much vitriol for someone with so little reading comprehension.
Don't be a misleading jackass. Dell's u2711 is $900 right now straight from Dell. On sale it has gone as low as $769 (http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/44749). Apple products NEVER have sales that good.
Really... Only one person caught this usage error and commented? Damn. Read a book, people!
If a server is responding to a bunch of packets that they pay for without authenticating the user, then their internet business model is broken.
Given a price-based priority scheme, yes I would pay for lost packets. If excess number of packets are lost, then I would stop sending or upgrade my priority so they are no longer lost.
The smaller the quantum, the more fair.
Only senders pay.
Small users would rather pay a usage-based fee and thus not support your habit of saturating your connection. It's just like prepaid vs. post-paid phones.
I use a prepaid phone because I only make 10 calls a month. I'm not paying $60 a month for that. Currently wired internet has no equivalent. And prepaid wireless rates still have quanta that are too large. I'd rather pay $.10 for a google or map search than pay $1.50 for the entire day of prepaid data access.
Usage is not the same as availability.
Right now the customer pays for availability and the seller hopes that usage is correlated. When it's not correlated, other consumers suffer and at worst everybody gets bad service.
It's like the water bills where I am: if you have a half-inch pipe, you pay a constant amount each month, and on top you pay for usage. If you have a one-inch pipe, you pay more for availability, but the same rate for usage.
I don't see how that is abuse. They provided a service in response to your request. If you don't want your browser to go to your home page, then set it to blank.
Thus, it cannot be based purely on traffic type. Money is the most logical differentiator. If you want your torrent traffic to go fast, you can pay for it. Same as a toll road. Everything in life is this way.
I propose a pricing scheme based on EACH and EVERY packet with the following criteria:
size of packet
priority of packet
current congestion on the nodes the packet passes through
type of link and bandwidth of the link to the ISP
Sender pays, receiver does not.
The Chinese are shrewed enough ...
Does this mean that the Chinese have been nagged by a bad-tempered woman?
This is only because the local government has granted the two ISPs a duopoly. The legislators love all the franchise agreement fees that they get to spend. The ISP doesn't only has to compete with one other ISP, making it much easier to collude prices. Everybody loves it, right?
You're seriously trying to dissect a comedy routine to find some plausibility? The woman is a contrived character to make the comedy work, she doesn't have to act rationally.
Yeah, ummm. People are quite a bit more valuable than animals. If you equate them, I pity you.
And there is no real competition because practically all local governments in the United States only allow a single cable/POTS provider to operate in their jurisdiction. The problem was created by the government in the first place. Politicians and lobbyists love this arrangement, getting kickbacks and taxes from their franchisees, and the consumers get screwed.
Now people are advocating a full scale takeover of the cable/telco policies. Why even have a company anymore? Everything is dictated by the government. Why not just build another government network? Oh, because governments aren't allowed to compete with "natural" monopolies... that's unfair. So if you can't beat 'em, take 'em by eminent domain or some such bullshit. Next stop green dam.
What the hell is a seem?
He said he didn't want to PAY for service he wasn't USING, not that he wasn't able to USE all of a service he was PAYING for.
Okay, well I'm sure I could come up with a contrived situation in which I am legitimately using my allotted 50Mbps downlink speed and I shouldn't be throttled, just charge me more.
What if my kids are watching a netflix show at the same time? And my wife is video chatting with her sister in Canada? And... I'm sure you get the picture. If people are willing to pay to avoid being throttled, then why not let them?