While we're on the topic, what's with all the people on slashdot using plural verbs with individual corporations, i.e. Microsoft are thinking, BT are planning, the FCC are considering. The sheer awkwardness of reading the sentences in my mind is driving me nuts.
So what do you to the people in Japan, South Korea, and Sweden who have had 100mbit connections for years now? Or the people who are starting to get access to 1gbps connections?
The hardware is becoming cheaper all the time.
Millions of companies are started and fail every year. The few who are successful are oftentimes just blessed with good luck and a slightly higher ability to gauge the market. Either way they don't 'work harder' than anyone else.
Look, the point is a very tiny % of people control the vast majority of wealth in most developed countries. The accumulation and concentration of wealth in those individuals is detrimental to the general well-being of society, as the money doesn't go anywhere except reside in off-shore bank accounts.
Most progressive taxes don't take into account just how much disposable income the very rich have, and how little of it they need to use to maintain their lifestyles. The average person on the other hand, who *works just as hard*, has much less disposable income. These are the people who truly drive a national economy.
Installation of fiber in the last mine is never going to get any cheaper because it's based on physical labor. Either you do it now, or you will forever procrastinate by reasoning it's still too expensive. Heck, it was time to "do it now" 10 years ago.
You are aware drug companies make insane amounts of profit, right?
You're a sad, sad fool, you know that? It amazes me you decry the media for their supposedly overblown estimation of the cost of healthcare, but base your assessment of US healthcare off of a few personal anecdotes. You know, there are in fact numerous scientific studies done on the topic, all of which point to gross inefficiency and expense.
You make it sound like the vast majority of people don't work and live off of the labor of others. But if that were true then how would the very rich make any more money? They charge the hard-working lower classes for services, and become rich off of the plebeians. National wealth and GDP isn't produced from thin air.
Your rants are so ridiculous I can't even feel annoyed at you, only sorry that you live in such a narrow-minded world.
What makes you think rich people worked harder than the lower or middle classes? Do CEOs who maintain the status quo of their companies but get paid millions in salaries and bonuses 'work harder' than the average factory worker? How about the average university researcher who makes 3 times less than industry scientist?
It is worth doing. It is definitely worth doing.
Also BT has been able to profit heartily off of UK users subscriptions, so it's not like they're not able to invest in upgrading their infrastructure.
"Bits" are not a finite resource. The use of them doesn't cost the ISP any more money than a lack of use of them. The main costs of a network are the initial deployment of infrastructure. From there all costs are very low maintenance-based ones.
Charging by bit is completely illogical.
Why do you keep saying "BT are"??? BT is a single entity. an individual corporation. It's not a plural noun. Doesn't "BT internet buy their" sound remotely uncomfortable and ill-fitting to you???
Since BT was originally a giant nation-wide monopoly that operated Tier 1, then went private... UK does in fact have only one Tier 1 carrier. That's why their broadband is so slow.
Every law put into practice is interpreted according to the views of the administration. Many details were left up to the executive office to decide on. Things like the Military Commissions Act of 2006 wouldn't have gone down under a Democratic President.
Besides, there are so, so many issues that Bush screwed up. Whether it be his horrible mishandling of our economy, the near annihilation of our relations with foreign powers, his stupidly slow reaction to Hurricane Katrina, the stagnation of the broadband industry, the slowdown of meaningful R & D, the list goes on and on and on and on.
You can say there's not much difference between Republicans and Democrats, but these policies all have real effects on the way we grow and live our lives. No one thinks on the scale of 50 or 100 years.
You prefer a third Bush term with endless trespasses of civil liberties and overstepping of the chief executive powers' boundaries over Obama?
You prefer the same irresponsible fiscal and foreign policies that led to massive budget deficits, a trashed economy (dragging the rest of the world with it), 2 wars, and the complete alienation of all our military allies, over a man who's nearly entire MO is to fix those problems brought by his predecessor?
While Obama is far from the liberal's ideal candidate, I can say he's a lot more pro-average American, pro-consumer interests, anti-big business than Bush ever as.
Heck, just look at the state of the internet in the US? Its uttery mediocrity perfectly reflects everything that's happened to US industries in the last 8 years.
Actually, if you go into a "fetish" website, one of the most common fetishes in the West is "cuckoldry", where a woman cheats on her man with another extremely large specimen of a male. It's a very masochistic fetish. Since at least a tiny bit of masochism exists in everyone (except for sadistic sociopaths)
In my explorations of East Asian sites, that entire fetish doesn't exist whatsoever. Personally I think this Western fetish stems from the Ancient Greeks, when male-male relationships were considered quite normal.
In this day and age of anti-gay attitudes, another man sleeping with your woman is the closest closet gays can get to fulfilling their fantasies.
Most white people, southern or not, are closet homos. The kinds of things white people joke about, think about, talk about, fantasize about... if someone did that in any other non-white majority country they would be considered gay.
Comes from the Greeks, that it does.
You're the only one who thinks that. It's true that over the long haul, in terms of multiple decades the Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. But in the short term they both represent significantly different viewpoints.
Having a president who has a different viewpoint than Congress or the Senate would make it that much more difficult for laws to be passed. Do you honestly believe all the executive trespasses that occurred under Bush would have occurred under Gore?
Look, either way the fact that your sig is a quote from Limbaugh makes me question your sanity. I could probably spend a year arguing with you over the annals of political history and never convince you otherwise.
Your logic is horribly flawed. Why would Nintendo release a new console when the one they have is STILL selling like hotcakes and is extremely profitable for them? They don't care about speed advances in the hardware tech industry. They'll milk the Wii for as long as they can, just like they're doing with the DS and did for the Game Boy.
Slashdot Mirror
While we're on the topic, what's with all the people on slashdot using plural verbs with individual corporations, i.e. Microsoft are thinking, BT are planning, the FCC are considering. The sheer awkwardness of reading the sentences in my mind is driving me nuts.
So what do you to the people in Japan, South Korea, and Sweden who have had 100mbit connections for years now? Or the people who are starting to get access to 1gbps connections? The hardware is becoming cheaper all the time.
Millions of companies are started and fail every year. The few who are successful are oftentimes just blessed with good luck and a slightly higher ability to gauge the market. Either way they don't 'work harder' than anyone else. Look, the point is a very tiny % of people control the vast majority of wealth in most developed countries. The accumulation and concentration of wealth in those individuals is detrimental to the general well-being of society, as the money doesn't go anywhere except reside in off-shore bank accounts. Most progressive taxes don't take into account just how much disposable income the very rich have, and how little of it they need to use to maintain their lifestyles. The average person on the other hand, who *works just as hard*, has much less disposable income. These are the people who truly drive a national economy.
Installation of fiber in the last mine is never going to get any cheaper because it's based on physical labor. Either you do it now, or you will forever procrastinate by reasoning it's still too expensive. Heck, it was time to "do it now" 10 years ago.
You are aware drug companies make insane amounts of profit, right? You're a sad, sad fool, you know that? It amazes me you decry the media for their supposedly overblown estimation of the cost of healthcare, but base your assessment of US healthcare off of a few personal anecdotes. You know, there are in fact numerous scientific studies done on the topic, all of which point to gross inefficiency and expense. You make it sound like the vast majority of people don't work and live off of the labor of others. But if that were true then how would the very rich make any more money? They charge the hard-working lower classes for services, and become rich off of the plebeians. National wealth and GDP isn't produced from thin air. Your rants are so ridiculous I can't even feel annoyed at you, only sorry that you live in such a narrow-minded world.
What makes you think rich people worked harder than the lower or middle classes? Do CEOs who maintain the status quo of their companies but get paid millions in salaries and bonuses 'work harder' than the average factory worker? How about the average university researcher who makes 3 times less than industry scientist?
"I usually spend some time playing with my Wii before I go to bed, as it's more relaxing and helps me fall asleep." Sigh... CURSE YOU NINTENDO!
Uh...Red Steel 2? Prepare to drop your jaw to the floor when you watch the trailer.
Not with the Wii Motion+ (my god that name is unwieldy and embarrassing)
Impolite diagreement? Where are from, 18th century England? Proper grammar isn't a triviality.
It is worth doing. It is definitely worth doing. Also BT has been able to profit heartily off of UK users subscriptions, so it's not like they're not able to invest in upgrading their infrastructure.
"Bits" are not a finite resource. The use of them doesn't cost the ISP any more money than a lack of use of them. The main costs of a network are the initial deployment of infrastructure. From there all costs are very low maintenance-based ones. Charging by bit is completely illogical.
Why do you keep saying "BT are"??? BT is a single entity. an individual corporation. It's not a plural noun. Doesn't "BT internet buy their" sound remotely uncomfortable and ill-fitting to you???
Since BT was originally a giant nation-wide monopoly that operated Tier 1, then went private... UK does in fact have only one Tier 1 carrier. That's why their broadband is so slow.
Somehow that strikes me as wrong considering how much profit BT makes, and considering the high-speeds in other countries.
Boy you really hate males don't ya.
Every law put into practice is interpreted according to the views of the administration. Many details were left up to the executive office to decide on. Things like the Military Commissions Act of 2006 wouldn't have gone down under a Democratic President. Besides, there are so, so many issues that Bush screwed up. Whether it be his horrible mishandling of our economy, the near annihilation of our relations with foreign powers, his stupidly slow reaction to Hurricane Katrina, the stagnation of the broadband industry, the slowdown of meaningful R & D, the list goes on and on and on and on. You can say there's not much difference between Republicans and Democrats, but these policies all have real effects on the way we grow and live our lives. No one thinks on the scale of 50 or 100 years.
You prefer a third Bush term with endless trespasses of civil liberties and overstepping of the chief executive powers' boundaries over Obama? You prefer the same irresponsible fiscal and foreign policies that led to massive budget deficits, a trashed economy (dragging the rest of the world with it), 2 wars, and the complete alienation of all our military allies, over a man who's nearly entire MO is to fix those problems brought by his predecessor? While Obama is far from the liberal's ideal candidate, I can say he's a lot more pro-average American, pro-consumer interests, anti-big business than Bush ever as. Heck, just look at the state of the internet in the US? Its uttery mediocrity perfectly reflects everything that's happened to US industries in the last 8 years.
Actually, if you go into a "fetish" website, one of the most common fetishes in the West is "cuckoldry", where a woman cheats on her man with another extremely large specimen of a male. It's a very masochistic fetish. Since at least a tiny bit of masochism exists in everyone (except for sadistic sociopaths) In my explorations of East Asian sites, that entire fetish doesn't exist whatsoever. Personally I think this Western fetish stems from the Ancient Greeks, when male-male relationships were considered quite normal. In this day and age of anti-gay attitudes, another man sleeping with your woman is the closest closet gays can get to fulfilling their fantasies.
I think white people are the only race that are so "open" to such a freakish activity as swapping partners.
Indian teens don't sleep together. Indians wait until marriage.
Most white people, southern or not, are closet homos. The kinds of things white people joke about, think about, talk about, fantasize about... if someone did that in any other non-white majority country they would be considered gay. Comes from the Greeks, that it does.
You're the only one who thinks that. It's true that over the long haul, in terms of multiple decades the Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. But in the short term they both represent significantly different viewpoints. Having a president who has a different viewpoint than Congress or the Senate would make it that much more difficult for laws to be passed. Do you honestly believe all the executive trespasses that occurred under Bush would have occurred under Gore? Look, either way the fact that your sig is a quote from Limbaugh makes me question your sanity. I could probably spend a year arguing with you over the annals of political history and never convince you otherwise.
Right...so you think the condition of the United States would be the same if we had elected Al Gore instead of Bush?
Your logic is horribly flawed. Why would Nintendo release a new console when the one they have is STILL selling like hotcakes and is extremely profitable for them? They don't care about speed advances in the hardware tech industry. They'll milk the Wii for as long as they can, just like they're doing with the DS and did for the Game Boy.