AT&T may have a point if it comes to the reliability of available bandwidth.
If I have 5 nines uptime and I deliver 1mbps consistently, I am no more or less reliable than a provider that has 5 nines uptime and delivers 10mbps consistently.
However, if that other provider has 5 nines of uptime, and delivers somewhere between 1mbps and 10mbps at any given moment, I may have a strong claim to reliability than they do. IMO, consistency is part of reliability.
Statistically, lane sharing carries about the same level of risk as sitting in traffic. Realize that these statistics account for both responsible lane sharers, and irresponsible riders, whereas the riders sitting in traffic where sharing is legal tend to be rather conservative in their riding.
Lane sharing carries additional benefits in that it reduces congestion, and encourages riding instead of driving.
As a motorcyclist, I don't take it personally that other drivers can't see me -- I don't expect them to. Driving in heavy traffic requires a lot of attention, even from a competent driver (who isn't distracted on their cell phone, radio, book(!), or newspaper.) I do take it personally when a driver violates my right of way without first signaling -- When I'm lane sharing, I'm watching out for you because you aren't watching out for me. If you fail to signal your intentions, you've failed to meet your side of the bargain -- if we're both doing our jobs, you don't have to see me for us both to be safe.
I really don't care that you think it's a war out there, or that someone's might cut you off - use your damn signals.
I think your question speaks (to me at least) of a more basic question. Do all actions have to be to benefit 'others' in your opinion? I think most actions most people take, are soley to benefit themselves....especially where money/wealth is involved. I don't see anything wrong with that...but, it almost sounds like you do?
It seems like a basic argument behind deregulation and a free market is that the free market makes the best use of people's self interest to benefit the common good.
When self interest starts harming the common good, it undermines the argument for a free market. As the harm done by self interest increases, it starts to support the idea that the public (our government) should step in to prevent an action that harms the common good.
A farmer selling food to a store, which sells to consumers is in the common good, and the individual self interest of everyone involved. A man breaking into houses late at night and stealing valuables is acting strongly in his own self interest, and not in the common good. These are black and white examples, but the GPs question is far from trivial, and far from black and white.
But, I think you missed the point... Not all actions have to benefit the common good. But, we should start asking questions when those actions harmed the common good. I have a hard time believing that millisecond trading added much value to the market. I doubt it created many jobs.
I just finished reading a book (Prisoner's Dilemma) discussing the development of the Nuclear Bomb, and among other things, the period of time between the US development of the bomb, and Russia's development of the bomb.
One of the more interesting factoids I took from the book was a comment about the power of a single traditional fusion weapon: although incredibly powerful, a nuke is not powerful enough to level a major city -- a hydrogen bomb would be needed for that level of destruction.
In fact, I doubt that the worst case scenario for a nuclear reactor would cause a level of devastation and loss of life comparable to what we've already experienced in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Some people reject the "real" world because it is too overwhelming to them. Concerts, comedy clubs, bars, etc., wear them out. They still do these things, but only once in a while. They just don't have the will do do them on a regular basis.
Okay, I've really got to comment on this.
So you know where I'm coming from: I have a bit of a mixed personality. I enjoy being around friends, and I like being the center of attention. But I really don't enjoy clubs, bars, and other major social events -- I never feel like I fit in.
This is extremely important: Concerts, comedy clubs, bars, etc. are not the real world. The real world is about life experience, and there are amazing experiences to be had that don't involve being out in a large group of people you don't relate to.
I enjoy Motorcycling: I can spend hours on the roads, enjoying the mountains without saying a word to another person. I practiced Martial Arts, and while that often involves groups, it does not involve a lot of awkward social interaction involving topics I don't care about. I love to travel. I saw England and Paris on my own.
Life experience helps me to relate to other people. At the end of the day, I can get together with some motorcycling friends and enjoy a movie. We can talk about things I care about. I can share travel stories and compare notes.
Open yourself to some life experiences! Try doing things that you wouldn't ordinarily do! I developed some great relationships when I was volunteering with the poor. I took dance lessons. You never know what you'll enjoy till you try it.
There is a saddle point the frequency of an accident and it's impact (amount of damage causes should the accident occur.) For instance, I prefer a 1 in 100,000 chance of death to a 1 in 1,000 chance of being maimed. If we were to slowly increase the risk of death for a specific activity, there would come a point I would prefer the slightly higher risk of a lesser injury -- I would prefer a 1 in 1000 chance of being maimed to a 1 in 1500 chance of death, for instance.
In my experience as a motorcyclist, when traffic is flowing freely, the freeway is generally safer than city streets. When traffic is stop and go, safety is about the same*. When traffic is such that some cars are oscillating between driving at 60 and driving at 20, risk favors city streets.
* Presuming I'm not attempting to lane share at speeds significantly above the speed of traffic; something I consider extremely unsafe.
Main Entry: most Pronunciation: \ËmÅst\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Old English mæÌst; akin to Old High German meist most, Old English mÄra more â" more at more Date: before 12th century
1 : greatest in quantity, extent, or degree 2 : the majority of
I wasn't talking about IQ, because if I had been, I would have commented on the statement that "most people have an IQ of 100," which is also completely incorrect.
Yes, most people have a normal IQ. No shit. But wile people with an IQ of of exactly 100 might be the largest individual group of people with a specific IQ, they will be far outnumbered by the total number of people who have a normal IQ in he 90-110 range. If you take a random person and test their IQ, chances are it's near 100, but not exactly 100.
If you'd like, I could explain the difference between being 'an average person' and 'a person of average intelligence.'
Insurance companies are very much interested in looking for ways to profile drivers into high risk categories. What's next after having GPS devices?
- Variable rates based on how close you are to home? (Most accidents happen within 10 miles of home!) - Variable rates based on what kind of road you are on (I like to ride my motorcycle in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Lots of accidents up happen up there.) - Increased premiums for driving at night, or in the rain? - Variable rates for the speed you drive at?
"The proposal centers on a simple idea: infrequent drivers are less of an insurance risk."
FAIL. My grandmother drives infrequently. She is not a low insurance risk.
Driving frequently increases exposure to risk, but it also reduces the risk along a separate curve. Someone who drives 40,000 miles a year tends to be a better driver than someone who only does 5,000 miles a year. Especially if the 40K driver has a record of being accident free.
Not that that would be a bad thing. The majority of people in the world are average, by definition
I cringe every time I see this statement. Your statement may be reasonable, but it's not correct 'by definition.'
Let's take a small group of numbers:
1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 0.
If we average and round those numbers, we can say that that the average number is '4.'
However, only 1/8th of those numbers are actually 4, and MOST of those numbers are not 4. In fact, it would be more correct to say that 'most of those numbers are 1' even though the numbers are not 1 on average.
It would be technically correct to say 'By definition, most people are not exceptional.' I highly doubt that you'll find a lot of truly average people in the world.
I once wrote a program that got stuck in a endless loop. Is the program demonstrably stupid?
Law is sometimes like code, in that it can create unexpected and unintended behaviors when executed literally. It's not stupid, IMO... It's a sign that we need better law.
Technically, if you don't count the hardware to read the data, we could simply remove the hard disk platters from the drive. Since most of the drive's weight is made up of the casing and read electronics, it would probably swing the data/weight ratio back in the favor of hard disks.
Seriously though... What is the practical fuel economy of this vehicle under normal driving conditions? With a strong tail wind and solid tires, everything I own is 'capable' of 100MPG. In practice, 40 MPG is about what I expect.
How are you delivering that product at a reduced cost?
Have you improved your method of production? Are you running a leaner business? Are you exploiting your employees? Are you undercutting the market in a bid for monopoly power? Have you cut the quality of your product, and stepped up advertising?
There are a lot of ways to produce a product at competitively low price. Some of them are good. Some of them are stupid. Some of them are illegal.
That sounds kind of like dating a Taiwanese Lady Man. Sure, it may be incredibly hot on the outside, but at the back of your mind you'll always know that the wrong equipment is waiting under the hood.
As a motorcyclist: Let me say that while I'd enjoy playing around with one of those, I'd rather drive a ford focus to work every day than that thing (I don't own a car.)
The Tomohawk is neat, but it's not a serious motorcycle.
My experience has been that most vehicles can comfortably drive at 70%-80% of their maximum speed. Pushing beyond 80% usually requires a dangerous level of commitment -- the driver must keep the throttle pinned, despite whatever else might be going on around them.
If you watch the episode of Top Gear where the Bugatti is driven at 407KPH, you'll note that it hits 300KPH (~186MPH) without breaking much of a sweat -- something that is quite difficult to archive in many high performance cars, as per your experience.
Incorrect testimony calls into question the reliability of a witness in any case. Obviously false testimony would do more to benefit the defendant than the prosecution.
Slashdot Mirror
AT&T may have a point if it comes to the reliability of available bandwidth.
If I have 5 nines uptime and I deliver 1mbps consistently, I am no more or less reliable than a provider that has 5 nines uptime and delivers 10mbps consistently.
However, if that other provider has 5 nines of uptime, and delivers somewhere between 1mbps and 10mbps at any given moment, I may have a strong claim to reliability than they do. IMO, consistency is part of reliability.
Statistically, lane sharing carries about the same level of risk as sitting in traffic. Realize that these statistics account for both responsible lane sharers, and irresponsible riders, whereas the riders sitting in traffic where sharing is legal tend to be rather conservative in their riding.
Lane sharing carries additional benefits in that it reduces congestion, and encourages riding instead of driving.
As a motorcyclist, I don't take it personally that other drivers can't see me -- I don't expect them to. Driving in heavy traffic requires a lot of attention, even from a competent driver (who isn't distracted on their cell phone, radio, book(!), or newspaper.) I do take it personally when a driver violates my right of way without first signaling -- When I'm lane sharing, I'm watching out for you because you aren't watching out for me. If you fail to signal your intentions, you've failed to meet your side of the bargain -- if we're both doing our jobs, you don't have to see me for us both to be safe.
I really don't care that you think it's a war out there, or that someone's might cut you off - use your damn signals.
It seems like a basic argument behind deregulation and a free market is that the free market makes the best use of people's self interest to benefit the common good.
When self interest starts harming the common good, it undermines the argument for a free market. As the harm done by self interest increases, it starts to support the idea that the public (our government) should step in to prevent an action that harms the common good.
A farmer selling food to a store, which sells to consumers is in the common good, and the individual self interest of everyone involved. A man breaking into houses late at night and stealing valuables is acting strongly in his own self interest, and not in the common good. These are black and white examples, but the GPs question is far from trivial, and far from black and white.
But, I think you missed the point... Not all actions have to benefit the common good. But, we should start asking questions when those actions harmed the common good. I have a hard time believing that millisecond trading added much value to the market. I doubt it created many jobs.
That 21 billion had to come from somewhere.
I just finished reading a book (Prisoner's Dilemma) discussing the development of the Nuclear Bomb, and among other things, the period of time between the US development of the bomb, and Russia's development of the bomb.
One of the more interesting factoids I took from the book was a comment about the power of a single traditional fusion weapon: although incredibly powerful, a nuke is not powerful enough to level a major city -- a hydrogen bomb would be needed for that level of destruction.
In fact, I doubt that the worst case scenario for a nuclear reactor would cause a level of devastation and loss of life comparable to what we've already experienced in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Okay, I've really got to comment on this.
So you know where I'm coming from: I have a bit of a mixed personality. I enjoy being around friends, and I like being the center of attention. But I really don't enjoy clubs, bars, and other major social events -- I never feel like I fit in.
This is extremely important: Concerts, comedy clubs, bars, etc. are not the real world. The real world is about life experience, and there are amazing experiences to be had that don't involve being out in a large group of people you don't relate to.
I enjoy Motorcycling: I can spend hours on the roads, enjoying the mountains without saying a word to another person. I practiced Martial Arts, and while that often involves groups, it does not involve a lot of awkward social interaction involving topics I don't care about. I love to travel. I saw England and Paris on my own.
Life experience helps me to relate to other people. At the end of the day, I can get together with some motorcycling friends and enjoy a movie. We can talk about things I care about. I can share travel stories and compare notes.
Open yourself to some life experiences! Try doing things that you wouldn't ordinarily do! I developed some great relationships when I was volunteering with the poor. I took dance lessons. You never know what you'll enjoy till you try it.
'Bad news, everyone' usually implied something that impacted Farnsworth himself, or news that the crew would not be sent on some suicidal task.
If it sucked for someone else, it was usually good news. :)
There is a saddle point the frequency of an accident and it's impact (amount of damage causes should the accident occur.) For instance, I prefer a 1 in 100,000 chance of death to a 1 in 1,000 chance of being maimed. If we were to slowly increase the risk of death for a specific activity, there would come a point I would prefer the slightly higher risk of a lesser injury -- I would prefer a 1 in 1000 chance of being maimed to a 1 in 1500 chance of death, for instance.
In my experience as a motorcyclist, when traffic is flowing freely, the freeway is generally safer than city streets. When traffic is stop and go, safety is about the same*. When traffic is such that some cars are oscillating between driving at 60 and driving at 20, risk favors city streets.
* Presuming I'm not attempting to lane share at speeds significantly above the speed of traffic; something I consider extremely unsafe.
While we are being pedantic...
Main Entry: most
Pronunciation: \ËmÅst\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English mæÌst; akin to Old High German meist most, Old English mÄra more â" more at more
Date: before 12th century
1 : greatest in quantity, extent, or degree
2 : the majority of
Which number would you say appears the most often in that group?
Thanks for this post. I'm surprised by how poorly my original post was received.
I wasn't talking about IQ, because if I had been, I would have commented on the statement that "most people have an IQ of 100," which is also completely incorrect.
Yes, most people have a normal IQ. No shit. But wile people with an IQ of of exactly 100 might be the largest individual group of people with a specific IQ, they will be far outnumbered by the total number of people who have a normal IQ in he 90-110 range. If you take a random person and test their IQ, chances are it's near 100, but not exactly 100.
If you'd like, I could explain the difference between being 'an average person' and 'a person of average intelligence.'
Insurance companies are very much interested in looking for ways to profile drivers into high risk categories. What's next after having GPS devices?
- Variable rates based on how close you are to home? (Most accidents happen within 10 miles of home!)
- Variable rates based on what kind of road you are on (I like to ride my motorcycle in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Lots of accidents up happen up there.)
- Increased premiums for driving at night, or in the rain?
- Variable rates for the speed you drive at?
FAIL. My grandmother drives infrequently. She is not a low insurance risk.
Driving frequently increases exposure to risk, but it also reduces the risk along a separate curve. Someone who drives 40,000 miles a year tends to be a better driver than someone who only does 5,000 miles a year. Especially if the 40K driver has a record of being accident free.
Not that that would be a bad thing. The majority of people in the world are average, by definition
I cringe every time I see this statement. Your statement may be reasonable, but it's not correct 'by definition.'
Let's take a small group of numbers:
1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 0.
If we average and round those numbers, we can say that that the average number is '4.'
However, only 1/8th of those numbers are actually 4, and MOST of those numbers are not 4. In fact, it would be more correct to say that 'most of those numbers are 1' even though the numbers are not 1 on average.
It would be technically correct to say 'By definition, most people are not exceptional.' I highly doubt that you'll find a lot of truly average people in the world.
Alpha status and pre-release regression testing would be nice too. :D
I once wrote a program that got stuck in a endless loop. Is the program demonstrably stupid?
Law is sometimes like code, in that it can create unexpected and unintended behaviors when executed literally. It's not stupid, IMO... It's a sign that we need better law.
Technically, if you don't count the hardware to read the data, we could simply remove the hard disk platters from the drive. Since most of the drive's weight is made up of the casing and read electronics, it would probably swing the data/weight ratio back in the favor of hard disks.
1,336 MPG? Is that city or highway?
Seriously though... What is the practical fuel economy of this vehicle under normal driving conditions? With a strong tail wind and solid tires, everything I own is 'capable' of 100MPG. In practice, 40 MPG is about what I expect.
How are you delivering that product at a reduced cost?
Have you improved your method of production?
Are you running a leaner business?
Are you exploiting your employees?
Are you undercutting the market in a bid for monopoly power?
Have you cut the quality of your product, and stepped up advertising?
There are a lot of ways to produce a product at competitively low price. Some of them are good. Some of them are stupid. Some of them are illegal.
That sounds kind of like dating a Taiwanese Lady Man. Sure, it may be incredibly hot on the outside, but at the back of your mind you'll always know that the wrong equipment is waiting under the hood.
As a motorcyclist: Let me say that while I'd enjoy playing around with one of those, I'd rather drive a ford focus to work every day than that thing (I don't own a car.)
The Tomohawk is neat, but it's not a serious motorcycle.
This is why, despite my passion for cars, I could never own a Ferrari.
I'd rather have a sleeper that I could drive, than a show car I had to haul.
My experience has been that most vehicles can comfortably drive at 70%-80% of their maximum speed. Pushing beyond 80% usually requires a dangerous level of commitment -- the driver must keep the throttle pinned, despite whatever else might be going on around them.
If you watch the episode of Top Gear where the
Bugatti is driven at 407KPH, you'll note that it hits 300KPH (~186MPH) without breaking much of a sweat -- something that is quite difficult to archive in many high performance cars, as per your experience.
I'd take this moment to point out that the Porsche group owns a majority stake in VW, mot the other way around.
Incorrect testimony calls into question the reliability of a witness in any case. Obviously false testimony would do more to benefit the defendant than the prosecution.