Like companies holding monopolies, the tipping point seems to be whether website owners pay ISPs to avoid getting slowed down. Here's hoping that affected sites put up an intro page on any ISPs that slow them down, explaining to the user that the site is slow not because of problems on the site's end, but rather that it's the user's ISP, the company he pays to get access to the internet, that is artificially slowing things down.
If it's a kill-switch, then the software is dead afterwards and cannot be revived. This sounds like it merely just disables the add-in by default. Hardly a kill-switch. Might as well say that it bricks the skype add-in, sheesh.
The problem is that the audience laughing is an audience phenomenon, not an individual thing. Maybe they could circulate a terrible smell before any scenes showing toilets. That'd teach them to laugh!
And you're making it such that any contamination from a disaster will be limited to irradiated seawater instead of airborne fallout, which is a good trade off as far as limiting both human and environmental damage goes. Not that contaminating the water is a good thing, but airborne fallout is much, much worse.
Given the same volume of release. You think they'll be just as careful about releasing stuff with it underwater and out of sight?
No, it just shows that what he tested wasn't merely not washing jeans for 15 months, but doing that and putting them in the freezer regularly. So, to all of you who go 15 months without washing jeans and freeze them regularly, you're OK!
Bottled water is considered to have an indefinite safety shelf life if it is produced in accordance with CGMP and quality standard regulations and is stored in an unopened, properly sealed container. Therefore, FDA does not require an expiration date for bottled water. However, long-term storage of bottled water may result in aesthetic defects, such as off-odor and taste. Bottlers may voluntarily put expiration dates on their labels.
It's when the water's optimal taste "expires". On the other hand, bottled water accumulates that crap that the plastic leaks into the water, so there's more and more of that as time passes.
Is it theft when they replace a damaged component, or upgrade something in the phone while they have it open? Or what if they accidentally use different screws than the ones that were in it? Get real.
This is the problem. This is why there are monopolies: companies get special funding from the government, or special rules that allow them to monopolize. The fix is to stop this preferential treatment, not to screw with the market even more.
I suppose so. If this guy shot 15GB in a vacation, and vacationed every year for 50 years, he'd only have 750GB. This of course ignores that his camera will be higher resolution in 50 years, but that is probably offset by greater hard disk storage densities (yeah, like the hard drive is going to be obsoleted anytime soon... ha). Still, the question becomes one of being able to make use of all that data, rather than it becoming a chore to maintain because you don't want to delete it, but never use it either. Maybe we'll have better data mining tools in the future that make it more accessible via various means.
Yep, it's like a software project where they keep changing the requirements, after you've implemented part of the system. Your eventual response is to just avoid implementing areas that are regularly changing, because it's too expensive to keep rewriting.
Some people don't want to feed their "save everything in case you need it some day" neurosis. It leads to houses filled with junk. Better to learn how to accept that you can't hold on to everything, and sift out the things that are likely to have some value. After all, if you advocate saving every shot, why not advocate taking more pictures? At each layer, you filter out junk so that you don't end up with lots of junk mixed in with the good stuff. You do this when you decide when to even take a picture, and then later after you are looking at the picture full-screen and in the context of the others.
These are obviously images that I want to keep for my life.
Every single one? Why? Everything you feel you must have for life is another thing you'll be "paying" interest on for the rest of your life, in the time and money spent managing it. When you die, will anyone want to continue saving these thousands of photos from a single trip, or even have time to look through them?
While A sends encrypted data to B using one time pad P1, new one time pads are sent from crypto server C to both A and B using separate encryption keys/pads.
A needs one-time pads totaling the same amount of data he sends and receives. If he receives new encrypted one-time pads, he needs to already have one-time pads of the same size. Thus, your scheme would work as long as he never did anything except receive new (encrypted) one-time pads. He would be able to receive them securely, though.
My comment was entirely about their logic, that professional drivers would be safer because human error is responsible for 80% of crashes. I suppose if human error were responsible for 0% of crashes, a professional driver couldn't make any improvement, so the fact that it's >0 is necessary, but it's still mostly a non-sequitur.
SARTRE researchers say that around 80% of accidents on the road are due to human error so using professional lead drivers to take the strain on long journeys could, they say, see road accidents fall.
I don't follow the logic here: Most crashes are due to human error, therefore using human drivers will reduce crashes? Sounds like a non-sequitur.
Not qwest, but real ISP to remain nameless, WTF?
on
DSL Installation Fail
·
· Score: 1
He's removed the pictures (why?) and now put up a single one saying that it's not Qwest (shoot first, ask questions later, eh?), but that the ISP who did it will remain nameless. WTF? So if it had been Qwest, he would have been fine shaming them (a good thing), but since it's not, whoever did do it doesn't deserve to be shamed? I don't really care which ISP did it, anyway, I just want to see the pictures. Why are they gone?
Netflix currently pays up to $1 per DVD mailed round trip, and the company mails about 2 million DVDs per day. By comparison, the company pays 5 cents to stream the same movie. In other words, the company pays 20 times more in postage per movie than it does in bandwidth. Doing some simple math [...]
$1.00 - $0.05 = $0.95 more per DVD. $0.95 / $0.05 = 19 times more per DVD. QED
Slashdot Mirror
Like companies holding monopolies, the tipping point seems to be whether website owners pay ISPs to avoid getting slowed down. Here's hoping that affected sites put up an intro page on any ISPs that slow them down, explaining to the user that the site is slow not because of problems on the site's end, but rather that it's the user's ISP, the company he pays to get access to the internet, that is artificially slowing things down.
Just be sure that you don't sign a release that allows them to do something like this.
Please share a list of the other sites that you find more useful for technical/medical uses.
B to A: Hey A, you're doing things you don't want to be doing. Mentioning this in case you hadn't notic.
A: I don't see evidence that I am, therefore I am not. You must be imagining it.
If it's a kill-switch, then the software is dead afterwards and cannot be revived. This sounds like it merely just disables the add-in by default. Hardly a kill-switch. Might as well say that it bricks the skype add-in, sheesh.
The problem is that the audience laughing is an audience phenomenon, not an individual thing. Maybe they could circulate a terrible smell before any scenes showing toilets. That'd teach them to laugh!
Fine, a Faraday cage and an EMP before they leave.
Given the same volume of release. You think they'll be just as careful about releasing stuff with it underwater and out of sight?
No, it just shows that what he tested wasn't merely not washing jeans for 15 months, but doing that and putting them in the freezer regularly. So, to all of you who go 15 months without washing jeans and freeze them regularly, you're OK!
But isn't it better to buy products you don't like, and then make laws that force them to make the products the way you like?
It's when the water's optimal taste "expires". On the other hand, bottled water accumulates that crap that the plastic leaks into the water, so there's more and more of that as time passes.
Is it theft when they replace a damaged component, or upgrade something in the phone while they have it open? Or what if they accidentally use different screws than the ones that were in it? Get real.
You passed up a perfect opportunity to say this: the final pentalobular screw in the coffin.
This is the problem. This is why there are monopolies: companies get special funding from the government, or special rules that allow them to monopolize. The fix is to stop this preferential treatment, not to screw with the market even more.
I suppose so. If this guy shot 15GB in a vacation, and vacationed every year for 50 years, he'd only have 750GB. This of course ignores that his camera will be higher resolution in 50 years, but that is probably offset by greater hard disk storage densities (yeah, like the hard drive is going to be obsoleted anytime soon... ha). Still, the question becomes one of being able to make use of all that data, rather than it becoming a chore to maintain because you don't want to delete it, but never use it either. Maybe we'll have better data mining tools in the future that make it more accessible via various means.
Yep, it's like a software project where they keep changing the requirements, after you've implemented part of the system. Your eventual response is to just avoid implementing areas that are regularly changing, because it's too expensive to keep rewriting.
Some people don't want to feed their "save everything in case you need it some day" neurosis. It leads to houses filled with junk. Better to learn how to accept that you can't hold on to everything, and sift out the things that are likely to have some value. After all, if you advocate saving every shot, why not advocate taking more pictures? At each layer, you filter out junk so that you don't end up with lots of junk mixed in with the good stuff. You do this when you decide when to even take a picture, and then later after you are looking at the picture full-screen and in the context of the others.
Every single one? Why? Everything you feel you must have for life is another thing you'll be "paying" interest on for the rest of your life, in the time and money spent managing it. When you die, will anyone want to continue saving these thousands of photos from a single trip, or even have time to look through them?
A needs one-time pads totaling the same amount of data he sends and receives. If he receives new encrypted one-time pads, he needs to already have one-time pads of the same size. Thus, your scheme would work as long as he never did anything except receive new (encrypted) one-time pads. He would be able to receive them securely, though.
My comment was entirely about their logic, that professional drivers would be safer because human error is responsible for 80% of crashes. I suppose if human error were responsible for 0% of crashes, a professional driver couldn't make any improvement, so the fact that it's >0 is necessary, but it's still mostly a non-sequitur.
I don't follow the logic here: Most crashes are due to human error, therefore using human drivers will reduce crashes? Sounds like a non-sequitur.
He's removed the pictures (why?) and now put up a single one saying that it's not Qwest (shoot first, ask questions later, eh?), but that the ISP who did it will remain nameless. WTF? So if it had been Qwest, he would have been fine shaming them (a good thing), but since it's not, whoever did do it doesn't deserve to be shamed? I don't really care which ISP did it, anyway, I just want to see the pictures. Why are they gone?
And now the photo album isn't even there. But this is why it was in idle.
Once a topic becomes politicized, it invites riders like this.
$1.00 - $0.05 = $0.95 more per DVD. $0.95 / $0.05 = 19 times more per DVD. QED