No, the scale makes that moot. Plus the moon isn't that perfectly balanced to start with. It's creeping away from the Earth at about 4cm/year. So sayeth a random internet page. But any mass that we would move would be a drop in the ocean. So it's really not a worry.
Unless this is some form of sarcastic hippy humor about humanity trashing the environment like poperatzo was implying. I'm all for the EPA and taking care of the Earth's ecosystem, but the moon has no ecosystem to take care of. So I'm really not getting this line of reasoning.
But, why? In my example, I'd still have a 10 Mb connection when using Hulu but not using Netflix. I don't see that the connection to Hulu would be any different than I'd have to Hulu today.
How do you think they give you your executive-class connection to Netflix? They let the Hulu connection suffer. Remember, this isn't just you on the pipe. They have this arrangement with everyone in your neighborhood and a similar agreement with the tier1 above them. If the Hulu connection doesn't suffer at all, then THERE'S NO REASON TO BUY the special connection. So this system ENCOURAGES your ISP to run below capacity.
The reservation would only be in place while you were streaming Netflix. There'd be no other way to sell guaranteed bandwidth,... you'd have to sell 1000% or more of your capacity.
Wait, whoa there. Either I'm confused about what you're selling, or you're REALLY confused about how a guaranteed connection works.
You realized that if an ISP oversells their pipe as "guaranteed", and then everyone hops onto netflix/hulu/whatnot then it's impossible for them to uphold their contract... right?
Seriously, what's wrong with a little bit of capitalism and money changing hands to give preferential treatment to companies willing to pay for it?
Because the Internet is a magical land where the concept of a Free Market (almost) exists. Capitalism only works in a free market and it works better the freer it is. Even if the corporate giant provides service X, little start-up-guy can compete with service Y. In an unfair market all sorts of factors determine who wins and loses, but on the internet, it's (mostly) a matter of the quality of services X and Y.
But corporate giants don't like that. They want little start ups to have to pay to play. But they're little, so they don't have the cash.
Meanwhile, what does adding a little bit of capitalism get us? Rather then FIXING, EXPANDING, AND GROWING our infrastructure to stay competitive so you don't have to see any jitter while watching netflixs, they CHARGE YOU EXTRA to make the service for all their econo-level peasants JITTER EVEN MORE, just you so can languish in opulence, while not putting a damned dime into the infrastructure of the USA.
Freedom of Speech is an inalienable right. If we tie that to an infrastructure that costs billions of dollars
If Fedex suddenly refused to ship anything to do with Christianity, and tore open all their packages to ensure that no christian contraband went through their trucks, that would be illegal on multiple fronts. YES, corporations have to "suck it up" and play fair. Tough shit.
Don't be a douchbag and try to redirect and redefine network neutrality. It's not about giving everyone a free connection to the internet, it's about keeping the internet neutral. You still have to pay to connect to it. But once you're connected, it's neutral to who you are, where you go, and what you do. I'm open to different methods of paying for it, but I'll call bullshit on anything that shifts power from the users to the providers, content owners, or pipe owners.
Power to the people yo. They're a lot more important then corporations.
I'm assuming you're trying to be snarky and disingenuous,
No, I really was looking for that term. But because I'm explaining why your post was bad you're just assuming everything I say is an insult to you. That's bias creeping in, tainting everything you read towards a certain viewpoint. To be fair, it's something we all have to keep an eye on.
"Recursive definition of troll huh?"
Ah, you've got a point there. I should refine that:
#3 You think that being called a troll just means I disagree with you, even after the reason you were called a troll was explained to you. There, that ought to stand for a little while.
This has definitely been one my more disheartening conversations on Slashdot.
Yes. I imagine that getting modded as a troll, then then the guy explaining WHY getting modded +5 insightful wouldn't be the best day.
I'm really not that confused. I know what you're saying. I know why you're saying it. I have an idea what you really want to say based on how you're saying it. I don't care what you have to say. I'm just explaining the moderation to you because you seem to be confused about why you got the troll mod. Apparently I was insightful for other people, hopefully I was a little insightful to you, and from this you can grow to be a better person.
The only positive for me from my non-CS classes is some of the young, female TAs are attractive and pleasant, although often also incompetent as teachers.
So the way I take your message is, if you don't agree with somebody's point, they're a troll?
No. Not really. You're a troll because:
1) You use passive aggressive pseudo-politically-correct attacks.
2) You complain about what the president does while claiming to not care.
3) You think that being called a troll just means I disagree with you.
Do I disagree with you? Well yes. I don't really care about the pomp and circumstance. You do. But conversely, you don't like the fluffy stuff that politicians do. Do I like it? Eh, not really. Usually it's meaningless things like busting the sun-beam-death-ray myth for the third time, but it's important to be a public figurehead. If they just got elected and disappeared to CSPAN, then they're missing part of their job. The whole "fire-side chat" thing that FDR tried was a good idea.
Apophasis. Thanks man, I was looking for that.
I'm not going to condemn President Obama for DOING it however. Heck, on this very thread on slashdot you saw people condemning President Obama for doing it. I think it's stupid, I don't think it's a sin. How about that?
That's.... exactly like your first post. You claim to NOT condemn him. Then you point out how others have condemned him. Apophasis. Same tactics, still trollish.
Here, lemme try ghost-writing your posts for you:
"This mythbusters thing is kinda stupid, I don't think Obama is giving the presidency the respect it deserves. Republicans haven't been much better, but at least Regan and the Bushes were never seen in the Oval Office out of a suit and tie."
Blunt. To the point. Less whiny and pussy-footed.
Yeah, I was trying to paraphrase ISO's definition in a way that helped make my point. Let me rephrase it, usability does not stop at the user interface. Moving buttons around, making them different shapes, having them do crazy ribbony things, are usability issues, but that's not the end of usability. If you don't care about anything other then the least sophisticated, then yeah, you hit the nail on the head.
The usability of the e-mail client and browser is probably ten times as important as...
And for average user, the e-mail client IS the browser. So the usability of the OS (which is what we're talking about here) starts and stops with a button that opens firefox. And hell, that's not even the OS, that's the desktop. But users DO occasionally use the other programs, or want to affect the OS in some way. Sure, most of their time is on the browser, on facebook, doing whatever. But completely ignoring the use-case where they plug in another monitor, or whatever, hurts the usability of Linux.
Hmm, you know how linux geeks can over estimate user's technical skills? Well I think you're failing in the other direction by treating the users as neanderthals that need instructions on how to move the mouse.
Yes. For certain it's trollish. A pansy-ass passive agressive sort of troll, but troll ye be.
First off, you see these two parts:
I think it's kind of stupid, but I'm not going to criticize him by saying he shouldn't be on a TV show or anything like that... But, I think that most people think there are different standards for the President versus a private citizen.
And:
Reagan and I think Bush (for instance) always wore formal clothes (suit jacket) in the oval office, afaik. I'm not saying I care one iota about that, but people have very different ideas of what's expected of the president.
I don't think you raped and murdered a girl in 1990, in fact I don't think you did, and I wouldn't care one itoa if you did. But OTHER people might care and think you shouldn't be hanging around their children.
You see, it's the act of mentioning something by mentioning how you're not mentioning it. It's classic weaselese, and that'll get you a troll point right there.
Secondly:
but the president is supposed to be above partisanship,
AHAHAHAHAaaaah. Yeah, you must have been crying your ass off since, oh, George Washington left office.
And while Regan and Bush (both of them maybe?) somehow get a free-ride for appealing to, ah, wait, not YOU of course, but to YOUR FRIENDS views of the presidency for "always wearing formal clothes (suit jacket) in the oval office", your OTHER friends (see, I've got liberal friends, I'm not partisan as I'm accusing other of being) have had an issue with it.
Let me be clear about this: He could dance naked in whatever room he wants and broadcast it live as long as he doesn't preemptively invade any more nations. And if he can avert a econopocalypse and manage to turn it around, I'll even let him have a smoke break now and then.
But hey, maybe you were just trying to be polite. But inserting your complaints within layers of bullshit doesn't really make it any more polite. It adds a veneer of political correctness, but that in turn just pisses some people off even more. And if you truly, honestly, just don't care about it... then why did you post anything at all?
I understand that elitism can divide people and make someone seem "removed", but that doesn't mean us "elite college types" can't have a beer and be a neighbor.* Nor does it mean that social skills make for the best leaders. I mean, a big part of the job is talking to the masses, meeting other figureheads, and all the jazz, but that's the fluff. The important part of the presidency is making big plans about fixing the problems that plague the land and setting the course so such problems don't arise. "I know how it feels to be poor and wretched" doesn't make anyone less poor or less wretched. And then there's probably a reason they were poor and wretched to start with. I'm just saying that electing someone from the "bottom half" and putting them in charge isn't the best idea.
*hmmm, upon reflection though, I can't really say much about this topic. I hardly know any of my neighbors and meeting people is mostly a sham of acting "normal". But I think most people try to put on a good face when meeting others. I only really relax around my friends, because they've accepted my weirdness and I put up with their shit.
Usability is a lot more then the desktop UI. If those are simply synonyms in your head, you're just plain old wrong. It's how easy it is to go get software. It's how fast you can find a file that you need which you saved a month ago... somewhere. It's how intuitive it is to find out where to adjust the how screensaver comes up. It's about how many panes you can have open in the file browser. It's how fast a newb can figure out how to set up a router and get to the web.
In my own recent experience switching from XP to Ubuntu, which may not count for much, the Linux platform is better usability wise.
uhhhhh.... Ok, I like Eldavojohn, his posts are usually well thought out, reasonable, and add something to the original article. He's a good poster.
Buuuuuuuut this kinda seems like a lame abuse of wuffie. A highschool math trick isn't really slashdot material. I guess the monty hall problem was a similar case, but that just makes this a copy-cat. And the monty hall problem was causing a stir in other places, so it kinda warranted some news. But this? meh.
How about a cell phone scanner in your garage? These things phone home somehow right?
hmmm, some local storage and delayed output would work around this though. You wouldn't be able to differentiate it from other people out on the road.
Sure, it may be a rubber-stamp, but it makes it official. It's a mother-may-I that puts them on the books as having done the deed. It means that when Agent Alice gets a divorce, there's evidence that she abused her power when she tracked her husband. Remove the formality, and you may as well have wholesale tracking of every car and citizen. But it's worse then a GPS in every car, because this way they only target who they don't like, and politicians', CEOs', lobbiests', and their own cars are tracker free.
A meaningful warrant system would undoubtedly be best, and the minimum for being constitutional, but requiring rubber-stamp warrants is still better then needing nothing at all.
That's kinda funny, as I considered making a point about how it'd be cheaper for the community as a whole if one of them simply hired a hit-man.
But I opted out of that as they're suing the school, which continues on regardless if the offenders are dead, and the school is worth a lot more than a half mill and provides a required service.
So while it may be natural to take matters into your own hands, it doesn't actually accomplish anything, and just causes more troubles. Indeed, this isn't even a case where the guilty-as-sin are getting off scott free, you just don't like the outcome.
The problem with your assumption is that Eirecom is going to lose money off of this. Now, I'm not sure how it works in Ireland, but if this exact scenario went down in the USA, Eirecom would be congradulating themselves as they found a way to shluff off all the "band-width hogs". You know, those 'technical users' that actually use the connection they purchase. ISPs here make bank on mom and pop who check their email.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure he means "humanity" in general.
I believe the gold on the moon is on a first come first serve basis.
No, the scale makes that moot. Plus the moon isn't that perfectly balanced to start with. It's creeping away from the Earth at about 4cm/year. So sayeth a random internet page. But any mass that we would move would be a drop in the ocean. So it's really not a worry.
Unless this is some form of sarcastic hippy humor about humanity trashing the environment like poperatzo was implying. I'm all for the EPA and taking care of the Earth's ecosystem, but the moon has no ecosystem to take care of. So I'm really not getting this line of reasoning.
But, why? In my example, I'd still have a 10 Mb connection when using Hulu but not using Netflix. I don't see that the connection to Hulu would be any different than I'd have to Hulu today.
How do you think they give you your executive-class connection to Netflix? They let the Hulu connection suffer. Remember, this isn't just you on the pipe. They have this arrangement with everyone in your neighborhood and a similar agreement with the tier1 above them. If the Hulu connection doesn't suffer at all, then THERE'S NO REASON TO BUY the special connection. So this system ENCOURAGES your ISP to run below capacity.
The reservation would only be in place while you were streaming Netflix. There'd be no other way to sell guaranteed bandwidth, ... you'd have to sell 1000% or more of your capacity.
Wait, whoa there. Either I'm confused about what you're selling, or you're REALLY confused about how a guaranteed connection works.
You realized that if an ISP oversells their pipe as "guaranteed", and then everyone hops onto netflix/hulu/whatnot then it's impossible for them to uphold their contract... right?
Seriously, what's wrong with a little bit of capitalism and money changing hands to give preferential treatment to companies willing to pay for it?
Because the Internet is a magical land where the concept of a Free Market (almost) exists. Capitalism only works in a free market and it works better the freer it is. Even if the corporate giant provides service X, little start-up-guy can compete with service Y. In an unfair market all sorts of factors determine who wins and loses, but on the internet, it's (mostly) a matter of the quality of services X and Y.
But corporate giants don't like that. They want little start ups to have to pay to play. But they're little, so they don't have the cash.
Meanwhile, what does adding a little bit of capitalism get us? Rather then FIXING, EXPANDING, AND GROWING our infrastructure to stay competitive so you don't have to see any jitter while watching netflixs, they CHARGE YOU EXTRA to make the service for all their econo-level peasants JITTER EVEN MORE, just you so can languish in opulence, while not putting a damned dime into the infrastructure of the USA.
That's what's wrong.
Freedom of Speech is an inalienable right. If we tie that to an infrastructure that costs billions of dollars
If Fedex suddenly refused to ship anything to do with Christianity, and tore open all their packages to ensure that no christian contraband went through their trucks, that would be illegal on multiple fronts. YES, corporations have to "suck it up" and play fair. Tough shit.
Don't be a douchbag and try to redirect and redefine network neutrality. It's not about giving everyone a free connection to the internet, it's about keeping the internet neutral. You still have to pay to connect to it. But once you're connected, it's neutral to who you are, where you go, and what you do. I'm open to different methods of paying for it, but I'll call bullshit on anything that shifts power from the users to the providers, content owners, or pipe owners.
Power to the people yo. They're a lot more important then corporations.
I'm assuming you're trying to be snarky and disingenuous,
No, I really was looking for that term. But because I'm explaining why your post was bad you're just assuming everything I say is an insult to you. That's bias creeping in, tainting everything you read towards a certain viewpoint. To be fair, it's something we all have to keep an eye on.
"Recursive definition of troll huh?"
Ah, you've got a point there. I should refine that:
#3 You think that being called a troll just means I disagree with you, even after the reason you were called a troll was explained to you.
There, that ought to stand for a little while.
This has definitely been one my more disheartening conversations on Slashdot.
Yes. I imagine that getting modded as a troll, then then the guy explaining WHY getting modded +5 insightful wouldn't be the best day.
I'm really not that confused. I know what you're saying. I know why you're saying it. I have an idea what you really want to say based on how you're saying it. I don't care what you have to say. I'm just explaining the moderation to you because you seem to be confused about why you got the troll mod. Apparently I was insightful for other people, hopefully I was a little insightful to you, and from this you can grow to be a better person.
The only positive for me from my non-CS classes is some of the young, female TAs are attractive and pleasant, although often also incompetent as teachers.
Maybe you were distracted.
The phrase "...without being a complete fucking idiot" is usually assumed to be appended to most statements like that.
So the way I take your message is, if you don't agree with somebody's point, they're a troll?
No. Not really. You're a troll because:
1) You use passive aggressive pseudo-politically-correct attacks.
2) You complain about what the president does while claiming to not care.
3) You think that being called a troll just means I disagree with you.
Do I disagree with you? Well yes. I don't really care about the pomp and circumstance. You do. But conversely, you don't like the fluffy stuff that politicians do. Do I like it? Eh, not really. Usually it's meaningless things like busting the sun-beam-death-ray myth for the third time, but it's important to be a public figurehead. If they just got elected and disappeared to CSPAN, then they're missing part of their job. The whole "fire-side chat" thing that FDR tried was a good idea.
Apophasis. Thanks man, I was looking for that.
I'm not going to condemn President Obama for DOING it however. Heck, on this very thread on slashdot you saw people condemning President Obama for doing it. I think it's stupid, I don't think it's a sin. How about that?
That's.... exactly like your first post. You claim to NOT condemn him. Then you point out how others have condemned him. Apophasis. Same tactics, still trollish.
Here, lemme try ghost-writing your posts for you:
"This mythbusters thing is kinda stupid, I don't think Obama is giving the presidency the respect it deserves. Republicans haven't been much better, but at least Regan and the Bushes were never seen in the Oval Office out of a suit and tie."
Blunt. To the point. Less whiny and pussy-footed.
The usability of the e-mail client and browser is probably ten times as important as...
And for average user, the e-mail client IS the browser. So the usability of the OS (which is what we're talking about here) starts and stops with a button that opens firefox. And hell, that's not even the OS, that's the desktop. But users DO occasionally use the other programs, or want to affect the OS in some way. Sure, most of their time is on the browser, on facebook, doing whatever. But completely ignoring the use-case where they plug in another monitor, or whatever, hurts the usability of Linux.
Hmm, you know how linux geeks can over estimate user's technical skills? Well I think you're failing in the other direction by treating the users as neanderthals that need instructions on how to move the mouse.
As commander in chief of the armed forces, he can force a couple million personnel to do certain things
And look how much good that did for the last president....
First off, you see these two parts:
I think it's kind of stupid, but I'm not going to criticize him by saying he shouldn't be on a TV show or anything like that... But, I think that most people think there are different standards for the President versus a private citizen.
And:
Reagan and I think Bush (for instance) always wore formal clothes (suit jacket) in the oval office, afaik. I'm not saying I care one iota about that, but people have very different ideas of what's expected of the president.
I don't think you raped and murdered a girl in 1990, in fact I don't think you did, and I wouldn't care one itoa if you did. But OTHER people might care and think you shouldn't be hanging around their children.
You see, it's the act of mentioning something by mentioning how you're not mentioning it. It's classic weaselese, and that'll get you a troll point right there.
Secondly:
but the president is supposed to be above partisanship,
AHAHAHAHAaaaah. Yeah, you must have been crying your ass off since, oh, George Washington left office.
And while Regan and Bush (both of them maybe?) somehow get a free-ride for appealing to, ah, wait, not YOU of course, but to YOUR FRIENDS views of the presidency for "always wearing formal clothes (suit jacket) in the oval office", your OTHER friends (see, I've got liberal friends, I'm not partisan as I'm accusing other of being) have had an issue with it.
Let me be clear about this: He could dance naked in whatever room he wants and broadcast it live as long as he doesn't preemptively invade any more nations. And if he can avert a econopocalypse and manage to turn it around, I'll even let him have a smoke break now and then.
But hey, maybe you were just trying to be polite. But inserting your complaints within layers of bullshit doesn't really make it any more polite. It adds a veneer of political correctness, but that in turn just pisses some people off even more. And if you truly, honestly, just don't care about it... then why did you post anything at all?
I understand that elitism can divide people and make someone seem "removed", but that doesn't mean us "elite college types" can't have a beer and be a neighbor.* Nor does it mean that social skills make for the best leaders. I mean, a big part of the job is talking to the masses, meeting other figureheads, and all the jazz, but that's the fluff. The important part of the presidency is making big plans about fixing the problems that plague the land and setting the course so such problems don't arise. "I know how it feels to be poor and wretched" doesn't make anyone less poor or less wretched. And then there's probably a reason they were poor and wretched to start with. I'm just saying that electing someone from the "bottom half" and putting them in charge isn't the best idea.
*hmmm, upon reflection though, I can't really say much about this topic. I hardly know any of my neighbors and meeting people is mostly a sham of acting "normal". But I think most people try to put on a good face when meeting others. I only really relax around my friends, because they've accepted my weirdness and I put up with their shit.
Usability is a lot more then the desktop UI. If those are simply synonyms in your head, you're just plain old wrong. It's how easy it is to go get software. It's how fast you can find a file that you need which you saved a month ago... somewhere. It's how intuitive it is to find out where to adjust the how screensaver comes up. It's about how many panes you can have open in the file browser. It's how fast a newb can figure out how to set up a router and get to the web.
In my own recent experience switching from XP to Ubuntu, which may not count for much, the Linux platform is better usability wise.
uhhhhh.... Ok, I like Eldavojohn, his posts are usually well thought out, reasonable, and add something to the original article. He's a good poster.
Buuuuuuuut this kinda seems like a lame abuse of wuffie. A highschool math trick isn't really slashdot material.
I guess the monty hall problem was a similar case, but that just makes this a copy-cat. And the monty hall problem was causing a stir in other places, so it kinda warranted some news. But this? meh.
How about a cell phone scanner in your garage? These things phone home somehow right?
hmmm, some local storage and delayed output would work around this though. You wouldn't be able to differentiate it from other people out on the road.
Sure, it may be a rubber-stamp, but it makes it official. It's a mother-may-I that puts them on the books as having done the deed. It means that when Agent Alice gets a divorce, there's evidence that she abused her power when she tracked her husband. Remove the formality, and you may as well have wholesale tracking of every car and citizen. But it's worse then a GPS in every car, because this way they only target who they don't like, and politicians', CEOs', lobbiests', and their own cars are tracker free.
A meaningful warrant system would undoubtedly be best, and the minimum for being constitutional, but requiring rubber-stamp warrants is still better then needing nothing at all.
That's kinda funny, as I considered making a point about how it'd be cheaper for the community as a whole if one of them simply hired a hit-man.
But I opted out of that as they're suing the school, which continues on regardless if the offenders are dead, and the school is worth a lot more than a half mill and provides a required service.
So while it may be natural to take matters into your own hands, it doesn't actually accomplish anything, and just causes more troubles. Indeed, this isn't even a case where the guilty-as-sin are getting off scott free, you just don't like the outcome.
pft, this is just a cheap cynical bid to get some mod points. The slashdot community won't stand for this gategategate.
...people expect lawyers (and everyone else) to work for free.
Indeed how DARE the proles expect the legal system to function without ludicrous fees!
Enix
The problem with your assumption is that Eirecom is going to lose money off of this. Now, I'm not sure how it works in Ireland, but if this exact scenario went down in the USA, Eirecom would be congradulating themselves as they found a way to shluff off all the "band-width hogs". You know, those 'technical users' that actually use the connection they purchase. ISPs here make bank on mom and pop who check their email.
Especially since freezing them would kill them.
So sit down, shut up, and don't question the ministry, Peasant!
No. Well, you track down boxes with receivers hidden in car, but it's usually a bomb.