Yes, everyone is being paid. But the ISP's see their networks being used to generate a lot of cash that they are not getting a piece of. There are two things that come to mind.
1: General ISP's look at companies like Google that consume a lot of bandwidth, and the ISP's are realizing that they have something Google needs. Customers. The ISPs are in a position to choke off Google's revenue source by degrading the user's experience. If Google doesn't play, the ISP can make sure that YouTube doesn't work well for their customers, who will find video clips elsewhere. Or they could delay search results by a few seconds, and people will switch to search engines that perform better for them. Either way, Google looses advertising revenue.
2: The cable companies are loosing highly lucrative cable TV subscribers to online programming distributors. Rather than paying 100 bucks a month for a high end digital cable package, customers can pay 50 bucks per month and get nearly all the content they want from Netfix, Hulu, etc. They want this revenue back. They can make it so that Netflix has to pay a kickback or else their customers will see worse performance, and Netflix will loose paying customers.
Without net neutrality the cost to online businesses will be immense. Every major content provider will have to pay thousands if ISP's for reliable and consistent access to their customers. Startups or non-profits who consume alot of bandwidth may be locked out entirely. It would be different if we had any competition in the US and consumers could choose an ISP who doesn't play these games. In some ways, the old days of dial-up ISP's and 56k modems were better. I only have two internet access options, and only one of them has a stable network.
Possible but unlikely. The point in QOS is generally latency reduction, not bandwidth increase. VOIP is a very low-bandwidth application, and pushing FTP sorts of loads through it would look fishy. Although pushing 1080-P HD video conferences through the Internet can get pretty bandwidth intensive.
Part of my comment seems to have disappeared. Or I just filed to finish a thought.
What I meant to say, is that if we are lucky, effective treatments will allow domestic hives to survive while continuing to kill feral bees.
Where I live in Ohio this is called "extended local". Around here we have a patchwork quilt of phone companies. Any call to a phone number serviced by the same phone company is a local call. However, many of them have local peering agreements with neighboring telcos for extended local service. These calls bill at a lower rate than long distance calls and don't require the preceding 1 before the phone number. I believe the only significant difference is that the extended local calls don't get handed off to the national long distance carriers. The only way I know of to determine what numbers are extended local is to look them up in the front of the phone book.
This is not a problem world wide, and it is only a problem for professional bee keepers and farmers in the US. Even farmers are able to compensate by keeping their own hives, as non-mobile colonies tend to fare better, or by providing habitat for native pollinators. All of the wild honey bees in the Americas are really feral bees, escaped domesticated bees. The interesting point here is that the decline of the honey bee, a European species, is allowing American native pollinators to return. This includes dozens of species of American bees that are not being killed off by this fungus/virus combination. Since the colony collapse disorder spread to my region, I have seen an explosion of bumble bees and other interesting native bee species now that they are not being out-competed by the feral honey bees. If we are lucky, this disease will continue to kill off feral honey bee hives, sparing native bees.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this because you are a Geek Squad Agent and not a sales associate. I don't believe the Best Buy sales force are seeing the same memos that you are. A coworker went into Best Buy over the Summer to help a relative buy a laptop. When she refused the crapware uninstallation service the sales rep challenged her on on the sales floor, demanding to know where she got her IT certificates and insisted that she had to be certified to remove software. They left without buying that day. The entire consumer electronics/computer sales force is full of technical ignoramuses and charlatans. But Best Buy's sales force seems to be worse then most. I'm sure there are some decent sales associates out there, and even some stores that look for knowledgeable sales staff, but the good apples are few and far between.
If it means not having to take anti-rejection drugs, then yes. I do not have access to embryonic stem sells that are genetically identical to me. I don't have my cord-blood stem cells either, as I am old enough that it is a moot point. I do have skin cells a plenty ready to be harvested and grown into a new pancreas.
I have met a few people who really are pro-abortion. They told me that abortion is always preferable to giving birth. They were not being sarcastic. Sadly, there seem to be more people out there who are so rabidly anti-abortion (as opposed to being pro-life) that they are willing to commit murder.
How is that viable? According to Wikipedia, In the 1992 election, Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote vs Bush Sr.'s 37.4% and Clinton's 43%. Perot's 18.9% was thought to have been mostly siphoned from the Republicans. If so, if Perot had not run Bush Sr would probably have won. Instead, we got a president that 57% of the population voted against.
In 1996, Perot got only 8.4% of the popular vote vs Clinton's 49.2% and Dole's 40.7%. Clinton would still have been re-elected had Perot not been in the race.
In 2000, Gore won the popular vote vs Bush 48.4% to 47.9. If Nader had not run, Gore would have won Florida and the overall election
In two cases, we had a strong third party candidate result in a president that the majority did not want. In a third case a strong third party candidate resulted in no appreciable impact. It seems to me, that the only viable third-party strategy is to get people from your opposing party to vote for the third-party candidate.
Censorship is an effort by an authority to control society. If I tell my kids not to swear, is not censorship, it is encouraging people to censor themselves. Not at all the same thing. Self-censorship is a practice of restraint that gives the individual the power to choose their language to fit the scenario. Even when media is censored to remove swear words, it is the most innocuous form of censorship. I care a great deal more about censorship of ideas than not being allowed to say "cunt" on American air waves.
Does he point at his penis or at his toys? Here's where I have a problem with the over use of swearing and slang. Americans seem more afraid of the words "penis", "vagina", and "genitalia" than with vulgarities and slag. My mother can't even say "penis" or "vagina" in a voice louder than a whisper, and she's not a prude.
bah, if this means i have to get my head around quantum-physics to continue working as a programmer i'd better start learning a new job..
Nah. Assuming the 10 year prediction cones true, there will be a select few applications where supergeek programmers manage to make this thing work. Then about 5 years later a double plus good supergeek, who double majors in quantum mechanics and computer engineering (but never learns to tie his shoes), will invent a beautifully elegant programming language to do all the heavy lifting for you. Unfortunately, his work will get caught up in IP conflicts, and the dev tools will cost you one year's salary.
Not entirely. Many (Most? All?) huge crime organizations make money by supplying illegal goods. These goods would not be illegal if not for government involvement. The classic American mafia-type organizations would not exist if not for prohibition. Drug cartels would not exist if not for the illegal drug trade.
I'm a NetFlix subscriber. Let's say Hulu kowtows to Comcast but Netflix doesn't. What will Comcast do? Will they comparatively downgrade my Netflix service? Will they block Netflix entirely? It's impossible to make that kind of fee neutral and free. That should be illegal. Comcast would basically be extorting video services over access to their customer base.
It's hard to discount genetics. Mormons are largely of Scandinavian decent, along with Minnesotans. Obviously not Hawaiians, but I don't know about Connecticut(ians?). Scandinavians have some of the longest life expectancies in Europe.
On the other hand, what makes you think all Mormons abstain? I have a friend who grew up in Utah who would testify otherwise. When he was a kid in the 50's, his grandpa was the county sheriff because, as a non-Mormon, he was allowed to go into the saloon and chase out the Mormon drinkers.
It's functionally very difficult to separate whether someone hates the taste of ethanol or the taste of alcoholic beverages. Ethanol has very little flavor on its own. Whether you are talking about beer, wine, or liquors, everything is flavored by the ingredients used to brew the beverage or byproducts of fermentation. Even high-end unflavored vodka retains alcohol soluble flavors after distilling. From what I've read, lab grade alcohol is unsafe for drinking, even if you are careful about diluting it to a reasonable proof, so I wouldn't recommend sampling that. If you want to find out, you could take a good, neutral flavored vodka, and run it through a activated charcoal water filter a dozen times or so to get out as many flavors as possible. Cheap vodka tends to be harsh. Many premium vodkas, like Ketel One, have flavors all their own. Grey Goose is probably a good option, but maybe a little pricey for this experiment. Then, dilute a sample down to 5 percent and another to about 12% to 13% alcohol, so you don't get any potential alcohol burn. I would use a good tasting spring water. Distilled water tends to flatten out flavors because it lacks mineral content. Compare the flavor of your samples to beer or wine and see how the flavors compare. Most commercial beers are around 5% alcohol. Most wines are around 10% to 15%.
By the way, I'm not actually trying to convince you to do this. I just like constructing experiments. I never try to pressure anyone into using alcohol even if it is for scientific purposes.
'The ultimate result could be lower crime rates, at a reduced cost'
Where is the evidence to this? As I already mentioned in a previous post on similar topic, gang leaders already successfully continue with their business even while incarcerated, and this retarded measure will only make their job even easier. Once again, the law-abiding citizens will end up looking as fools and criminals will be laughing in the face of their victims and the society as whole.
The counter argument is that by getting the non violent and petty criminals out of prison, you reduce prison populations and make them easier to control. I'd rather see smaller prisons with more intense scrutiny than large prisons that maximize economy.
Which is exactly what happened when prohibition ended. The gangs that made fortunes smuggling and selling booze branched out into other forms of organized crime. But, over the past 60 years or so, the mafia's power has waned. I predict that if drugs are legalized, the street gangs that currently fund their operations by selling drugs will branch into more violent crime, and the turf wars will intensify as they fight over their piece of a smaller and smaller pie. But over time, fewer and fewer kids will see the gang life as the path to money and power that it is now.
But this is not a case of "looking" at the car. This was a case of trespassing. As I read this (IANAL), the court is saying that if by not erecting a physical barrier you are implicitly granting anyone permission to walk all over it, and therefore attach tracking devices to your car. In my opinion, unless it is unclear if land is public or private property, any mentally competent human being should know better than to walk up someone's driveway. Failing that, I would expect that a "No Tresspassing" sign at the edge of my property should be enough of a indication that random persons are not welcome to saunter about my driveway.
I have not made a specific study of car tires. But, rolling friction is a function of deformation of the wheel and the surface it's rolling on. Basically, due to tire and road deformation, a car is constantly driving uphill. Contact area is not specifically relevant. Because it spreads the car's weight out more, a wider tire would, in theory, deform less and deform the road surface less and reduce rolling friction. However, a wider tire would weigh more, increasing rotational inertia. The car would need more gas to get moving. Once up to speed, a wider tire should help gas mileage, unless the wider cross-section increases wind resistance too much.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, everyone is being paid. But the ISP's see their networks being used to generate a lot of cash that they are not getting a piece of. There are two things that come to mind.
1: General ISP's look at companies like Google that consume a lot of bandwidth, and the ISP's are realizing that they have something Google needs. Customers. The ISPs are in a position to choke off Google's revenue source by degrading the user's experience. If Google doesn't play, the ISP can make sure that YouTube doesn't work well for their customers, who will find video clips elsewhere. Or they could delay search results by a few seconds, and people will switch to search engines that perform better for them. Either way, Google looses advertising revenue.
2: The cable companies are loosing highly lucrative cable TV subscribers to online programming distributors. Rather than paying 100 bucks a month for a high end digital cable package, customers can pay 50 bucks per month and get nearly all the content they want from Netfix, Hulu, etc. They want this revenue back. They can make it so that Netflix has to pay a kickback or else their customers will see worse performance, and Netflix will loose paying customers.
Without net neutrality the cost to online businesses will be immense. Every major content provider will have to pay thousands if ISP's for reliable and consistent access to their customers. Startups or non-profits who consume alot of bandwidth may be locked out entirely. It would be different if we had any competition in the US and consumers could choose an ISP who doesn't play these games. In some ways, the old days of dial-up ISP's and 56k modems were better. I only have two internet access options, and only one of them has a stable network.
Possible but unlikely. The point in QOS is generally latency reduction, not bandwidth increase. VOIP is a very low-bandwidth application, and pushing FTP sorts of loads through it would look fishy. Although pushing 1080-P HD video conferences through the Internet can get pretty bandwidth intensive.
The POE spec was designed for Cat5/Cat6 cabling, not for Coax. So no, POE is not an advantage for cable.
Part of my comment seems to have disappeared. Or I just filed to finish a thought. What I meant to say, is that if we are lucky, effective treatments will allow domestic hives to survive while continuing to kill feral bees.
The difference is that Apple tried to make it illegal to jailbreak your iPhone.
Where I live in Ohio this is called "extended local". Around here we have a patchwork quilt of phone companies. Any call to a phone number serviced by the same phone company is a local call. However, many of them have local peering agreements with neighboring telcos for extended local service. These calls bill at a lower rate than long distance calls and don't require the preceding 1 before the phone number. I believe the only significant difference is that the extended local calls don't get handed off to the national long distance carriers. The only way I know of to determine what numbers are extended local is to look them up in the front of the phone book.
This is not a problem world wide, and it is only a problem for professional bee keepers and farmers in the US. Even farmers are able to compensate by keeping their own hives, as non-mobile colonies tend to fare better, or by providing habitat for native pollinators. All of the wild honey bees in the Americas are really feral bees, escaped domesticated bees. The interesting point here is that the decline of the honey bee, a European species, is allowing American native pollinators to return. This includes dozens of species of American bees that are not being killed off by this fungus/virus combination. Since the colony collapse disorder spread to my region, I have seen an explosion of bumble bees and other interesting native bee species now that they are not being out-competed by the feral honey bees. If we are lucky, this disease will continue to kill off feral honey bee hives, sparing native bees.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this because you are a Geek Squad Agent and not a sales associate. I don't believe the Best Buy sales force are seeing the same memos that you are. A coworker went into Best Buy over the Summer to help a relative buy a laptop. When she refused the crapware uninstallation service the sales rep challenged her on on the sales floor, demanding to know where she got her IT certificates and insisted that she had to be certified to remove software. They left without buying that day. The entire consumer electronics/computer sales force is full of technical ignoramuses and charlatans. But Best Buy's sales force seems to be worse then most. I'm sure there are some decent sales associates out there, and even some stores that look for knowledgeable sales staff, but the good apples are few and far between.
If it means not having to take anti-rejection drugs, then yes. I do not have access to embryonic stem sells that are genetically identical to me. I don't have my cord-blood stem cells either, as I am old enough that it is a moot point. I do have skin cells a plenty ready to be harvested and grown into a new pancreas.
I have met a few people who really are pro-abortion. They told me that abortion is always preferable to giving birth. They were not being sarcastic. Sadly, there seem to be more people out there who are so rabidly anti-abortion (as opposed to being pro-life) that they are willing to commit murder.
How is that viable? According to Wikipedia, In the 1992 election, Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote vs Bush Sr.'s 37.4% and Clinton's 43%. Perot's 18.9% was thought to have been mostly siphoned from the Republicans. If so, if Perot had not run Bush Sr would probably have won. Instead, we got a president that 57% of the population voted against.
In 1996, Perot got only 8.4% of the popular vote vs Clinton's 49.2% and Dole's 40.7%. Clinton would still have been re-elected had Perot not been in the race.
In 2000, Gore won the popular vote vs Bush 48.4% to 47.9. If Nader had not run, Gore would have won Florida and the overall election
In two cases, we had a strong third party candidate result in a president that the majority did not want. In a third case a strong third party candidate resulted in no appreciable impact. It seems to me, that the only viable third-party strategy is to get people from your opposing party to vote for the third-party candidate.
No, that's why you never buy a caravan from a pikey. The dog was thrown in for free.
Censorship is an effort by an authority to control society. If I tell my kids not to swear, is not censorship, it is encouraging people to censor themselves. Not at all the same thing. Self-censorship is a practice of restraint that gives the individual the power to choose their language to fit the scenario. Even when media is censored to remove swear words, it is the most innocuous form of censorship. I care a great deal more about censorship of ideas than not being allowed to say "cunt" on American air waves.
Does he point at his penis or at his toys? Here's where I have a problem with the over use of swearing and slang. Americans seem more afraid of the words "penis", "vagina", and "genitalia" than with vulgarities and slag. My mother can't even say "penis" or "vagina" in a voice louder than a whisper, and she's not a prude.
bah, if this means i have to get my head around quantum-physics to continue working as a programmer i'd better start learning a new job..
Nah. Assuming the 10 year prediction cones true, there will be a select few applications where supergeek programmers manage to make this thing work. Then about 5 years later a double plus good supergeek, who double majors in quantum mechanics and computer engineering (but never learns to tie his shoes), will invent a beautifully elegant programming language to do all the heavy lifting for you. Unfortunately, his work will get caught up in IP conflicts, and the dev tools will cost you one year's salary.
Not entirely. Many (Most? All?) huge crime organizations make money by supplying illegal goods. These goods would not be illegal if not for government involvement. The classic American mafia-type organizations would not exist if not for prohibition. Drug cartels would not exist if not for the illegal drug trade.
I'm a NetFlix subscriber. Let's say Hulu kowtows to Comcast but Netflix doesn't. What will Comcast do? Will they comparatively downgrade my Netflix service? Will they block Netflix entirely? It's impossible to make that kind of fee neutral and free. That should be illegal. Comcast would basically be extorting video services over access to their customer base.
It's hard to discount genetics. Mormons are largely of Scandinavian decent, along with Minnesotans. Obviously not Hawaiians, but I don't know about Connecticut(ians?). Scandinavians have some of the longest life expectancies in Europe.
On the other hand, what makes you think all Mormons abstain? I have a friend who grew up in Utah who would testify otherwise. When he was a kid in the 50's, his grandpa was the county sheriff because, as a non-Mormon, he was allowed to go into the saloon and chase out the Mormon drinkers.
It's functionally very difficult to separate whether someone hates the taste of ethanol or the taste of alcoholic beverages. Ethanol has very little flavor on its own. Whether you are talking about beer, wine, or liquors, everything is flavored by the ingredients used to brew the beverage or byproducts of fermentation. Even high-end unflavored vodka retains alcohol soluble flavors after distilling. From what I've read, lab grade alcohol is unsafe for drinking, even if you are careful about diluting it to a reasonable proof, so I wouldn't recommend sampling that. If you want to find out, you could take a good, neutral flavored vodka, and run it through a activated charcoal water filter a dozen times or so to get out as many flavors as possible. Cheap vodka tends to be harsh. Many premium vodkas, like Ketel One, have flavors all their own. Grey Goose is probably a good option, but maybe a little pricey for this experiment. Then, dilute a sample down to 5 percent and another to about 12% to 13% alcohol, so you don't get any potential alcohol burn. I would use a good tasting spring water. Distilled water tends to flatten out flavors because it lacks mineral content. Compare the flavor of your samples to beer or wine and see how the flavors compare. Most commercial beers are around 5% alcohol. Most wines are around 10% to 15%.
By the way, I'm not actually trying to convince you to do this. I just like constructing experiments. I never try to pressure anyone into using alcohol even if it is for scientific purposes.
'The ultimate result could be lower crime rates, at a reduced cost'
Where is the evidence to this? As I already mentioned in a previous post on similar topic, gang leaders already successfully continue with their business even while incarcerated, and this retarded measure will only make their job even easier. Once again, the law-abiding citizens will end up looking as fools and criminals will be laughing in the face of their victims and the society as whole.
The counter argument is that by getting the non violent and petty criminals out of prison, you reduce prison populations and make them easier to control. I'd rather see smaller prisons with more intense scrutiny than large prisons that maximize economy.
Which is exactly what happened when prohibition ended. The gangs that made fortunes smuggling and selling booze branched out into other forms of organized crime. But, over the past 60 years or so, the mafia's power has waned. I predict that if drugs are legalized, the street gangs that currently fund their operations by selling drugs will branch into more violent crime, and the turf wars will intensify as they fight over their piece of a smaller and smaller pie. But over time, fewer and fewer kids will see the gang life as the path to money and power that it is now.
So... It's cool if me and my buddies come get drunk in your driveway without asking you first?
But this is not a case of "looking" at the car. This was a case of trespassing. As I read this (IANAL), the court is saying that if by not erecting a physical barrier you are implicitly granting anyone permission to walk all over it, and therefore attach tracking devices to your car. In my opinion, unless it is unclear if land is public or private property, any mentally competent human being should know better than to walk up someone's driveway. Failing that, I would expect that a "No Tresspassing" sign at the edge of my property should be enough of a indication that random persons are not welcome to saunter about my driveway.
I have not made a specific study of car tires. But, rolling friction is a function of deformation of the wheel and the surface it's rolling on. Basically, due to tire and road deformation, a car is constantly driving uphill. Contact area is not specifically relevant. Because it spreads the car's weight out more, a wider tire would, in theory, deform less and deform the road surface less and reduce rolling friction. However, a wider tire would weigh more, increasing rotational inertia. The car would need more gas to get moving. Once up to speed, a wider tire should help gas mileage, unless the wider cross-section increases wind resistance too much.
If they were, they would be easier (for women) to steal. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/19/mobile_phone_thief/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/04/14/stolen_mobile_rings_in_body/