Also a lot of blacks and hispanics are actually quite conservative. The only reason they are not republicans is that they don't feel particularly welcome in a party that blames them for all the nations problems. So then I guess it makes sense to vote for the most republican democrat.
Android logs the amount of data transferred by each app running on a device and lets the user sort a list of apps by decreasing data volume. Is this not enough?
I'm not saying that it's too complicated for software. I am saying that it's too complicated for the average customer. And it's not that they can't do it, it's just a question of whether the the added complexity for the customer is worth the increase in efficiency. I don't think telecoms want better efficiency (lower prices, higher profit) if it means a large portion of their customers are angry and frustrated.
So let me get this straight: Unlike satellite ISPs, cellular ISPs have failed to offer a reward for moving away from congested times of day, and you're rationalizing it as because the device communicates with more distinct destinations than when voice calls dominated cellular usage. Let me see if I can think of a way to interact with Internet data transfer accounting mechanisms already present in mobile operating systems.
I am not rationalizing anything. I am giving you what I think the reason is that telecoms have had different prices for voice for different times of the day, but not yet for data.
Windows 8, Windows 10, and Android operating systems allow users to mark particular SSIDs as metered, and an application is expected to respect that by querying cost [microsoft.com] whenever it receives a notification of change in the device's Internet connection. I guess the real solution is for carriers to signal to a device when the connection has become unmetered or has become metered, so that applications can switch to more conservative download schedules.
I am not saying it is technically impossible. I am saying that currently the benefits do not outweigh the costs in frustrated elderly customers. That will change when enough of the customers are savvy enough to understand data metering without needing to attend a class.
Even though it is inefficient, having a constant monthly price is simple, and there is a value to that.
I would say that voice calls were a little easier to deal with, which made more complicated rate plans feasible. Currently data can be transferred on your phone by apps that may be running in the background. Voice calls were never made without the customers knowledge, and logs of the data were kept and easy to understand. If there is a dispute over voice minutes, the telecom can produce a log showing phone numbers of the calls and how long they lasted. It is not really feasible or helpful to keep logs of every IP address and size of every packet transferred to/from your phone.
So why do cellular carriers charge a flat rate for airtime regardless of demand?
This is what is known as a market failure.
The best model would probably be one that charges people per byte transferred, with the rate varying depending on demand at the time of transfer. If the network is below capacity the rate could be very low to simply cover operating costs.
If a supermarket has some food that is about to expire (no longer able to be sold), one might argue that the market should give this food away for free because it will simply be wasted otherwise. That's true, but a better solution would probably be to sufficiently discount the food well before it is about to expire to ensure it is sold for some >0 price (even if still at a loss) when it is still reasonably fresh.
The network analog of this would be to heavily discount off peak hours to the point that the network is always operating near capacity. If your network is operating significantly below capacity, or if your supermarket has lots of food expiring on the shelf, that's a result of inefficiencies. We should be more concerned with preventing these inefficiencies from existing rather than what to do with them once they manifest.
When we have more savvy customers and more savvy producers, the market will be more efficient at transferring goods and services from producers to customers.
Telecom customers (and probably producers as well) as a whole are just not savvy enough to deal with a complicated pricing system, and we have inefficiencies as a result. I expect this will change when we have a higher percentage of tech savvy customers of data.
Something *is* being lost. Every packet transmitted for you is a packet that could not be transmitted for someone else. When you rent a car, you don't consumer the car (well you kind of do through wear and tear but ignoring that), but you are still consuming a resource, which is the use of that car.
This is different than a television broadcast, for example, where you receiving the television broadcast does not prevent anyone else from receiving the broadcast. It is not consuming a resource (at least not until line of sight access to the tower becomes a limited resource).
Higher inflation:
Winners: People with pre-existing debt. People with assets.
Losers: Lenders of pre-existing loans. People with money.
People with "money" (i.e. wealthy people), don't always have a lot of "money" (cash). If they have investments in things like stock, gold, real estate, etc, they will not be affected by higher inflation. If they have a mortgage on a giant mansion, higher inflation means that paying it off just became a lot easier.
Higher inflation just shifts money between different groups of rich people.
No single person invented the programming languages/compiler. According to wikipedia, Grace Hopper wrote the first compiler in 1952, but it was for the A-0 language, not COBOL.
Also according to Wikipedia:
At the University of Manchester, Alick Glennie developed Autocode in the early 1950s. A programming language, it used a compiler to automatically convert the language into machine code. The first code and compiler was developed in 1952 for the Mark 1 computer at the University of Manchester and is considered to be the first compiled high-level programming language.
and
The FORTRAN team led by John Backus at IBM is generally credited as having introduced the first complete compiler in 1957
Like most advents in computer science, this one seems to be furthered by a lot of different people over a long stretch of time, especially if we include the people like Turing, Von Neumann, etc. I am not trying to say that business people did not help to foster this field/industry where these big (not and not so big) names in computer science could thrive. But I credit the people who came up with the solutions to the problems as being the "idea people" , and not the people funding them.
Providing tasks is easy. I don't go to work to have tasks provided to me. I go to work because that's where I can get money from. I am perfectly capable of providing myself with tasks (and I do), but those tasks don't come with a salary.
All problems are big when they get solved. Small computing problems were solved back when nobody even heard of computers. In the future they will probably talk about all the easy quantum computing problems that were yet to be solved in the early 21st century.
So let's say you where born a long time ago when it was customary to write code in assembly. You're bosses tell you to write a shit ton of assembly code for a bunch of different types of computers. If you had some imagination, you might come up with the idea to create a programming language and compilers that turn programs written in that language into assembly understandable by any number of different computers.
Or you might just keep writing assembly code. And if everyone had such a lack of imagination, then not only would we never have invented compilers and programming languages, we would have probably never invented computers or any sort of automation at all.
If you are going to wait for marketing people to come up with these kinds of ideas, you're going to be waiting a long time. It doesn't take a marketing genius to recognize the utility for a tool yet to be invented. All it takes is the ability to recognize when you want something that doesn't exist and realize that you are capable of making it exist, and a little motivation and pride of workmanship.
Makes sense to me. I just don't think I could trust a company that does this sort of thing. If they are willing to use deceptive practices on users of the free version, then maybe they will be willing to deceive the users of the paid version. They stand to suffer some lost sales profit, but all it takes is for the variables to line up to make it more profitable to deceive their paying users than not, and they will probably do it. We already know they aren't restricted by an ethical obligation to be honest, nor do they have a reputation for honesty to lose.
You seem very important. Has any of this bullshit worked on any girls yet? Or is it mostly for delusional purposes? I would certainly hope that any real whistle blowers holding the fate of civil society in their hands wouldn't be blabbering all over social media about it.
I'm saying that if you are trying to provide evidence for the illusory nature of some phenomenon, they fact that the phenomenon in question, despite appearing real, can't even be objectively described, is potential evidence of that.
When I realized my neighborhood mechanic was sprinkling nails in the street to make money on tire repairs, it made me realize how important it is to support small local businesses./s
Maybe it would be better to be motivated to support all the developers, who don't do stuff like this.
But ever since I said I could levitate, everyone doubted me. They attacked me by saying "Well if you can levitate, prove it by levitating". I was going to levitate, but I just can't bear any more of these attacks on my character. If I proved I could levitate, people would just attack me even more by saying things like "Wow! You've proven you can actually levitate, you asshole. I hate you!" So I've decided I won't be levitating (even though I can). I'm so sorry that you'll never believe me now (because you are all stupid).
Slashdot Mirror
Nowhere to go but up now!
Also a lot of blacks and hispanics are actually quite conservative. The only reason they are not republicans is that they don't feel particularly welcome in a party that blames them for all the nations problems. So then I guess it makes sense to vote for the most republican democrat.
Android logs the amount of data transferred by each app running on a device and lets the user sort a list of apps by decreasing data volume. Is this not enough?
I'm not saying that it's too complicated for software. I am saying that it's too complicated for the average customer. And it's not that they can't do it, it's just a question of whether the the added complexity for the customer is worth the increase in efficiency. I don't think telecoms want better efficiency (lower prices, higher profit) if it means a large portion of their customers are angry and frustrated.
So let me get this straight: Unlike satellite ISPs, cellular ISPs have failed to offer a reward for moving away from congested times of day, and you're rationalizing it as because the device communicates with more distinct destinations than when voice calls dominated cellular usage. Let me see if I can think of a way to interact with Internet data transfer accounting mechanisms already present in mobile operating systems.
I am not rationalizing anything. I am giving you what I think the reason is that telecoms have had different prices for voice for different times of the day, but not yet for data.
Windows 8, Windows 10, and Android operating systems allow users to mark particular SSIDs as metered, and an application is expected to respect that by querying cost [microsoft.com] whenever it receives a notification of change in the device's Internet connection. I guess the real solution is for carriers to signal to a device when the connection has become unmetered or has become metered, so that applications can switch to more conservative download schedules.
I am not saying it is technically impossible. I am saying that currently the benefits do not outweigh the costs in frustrated elderly customers. That will change when enough of the customers are savvy enough to understand data metering without needing to attend a class.
Even though it is inefficient, having a constant monthly price is simple, and there is a value to that.
I would say that voice calls were a little easier to deal with, which made more complicated rate plans feasible. Currently data can be transferred on your phone by apps that may be running in the background. Voice calls were never made without the customers knowledge, and logs of the data were kept and easy to understand. If there is a dispute over voice minutes, the telecom can produce a log showing phone numbers of the calls and how long they lasted. It is not really feasible or helpful to keep logs of every IP address and size of every packet transferred to/from your phone.
So why do cellular carriers charge a flat rate for airtime regardless of demand?
This is what is known as a market failure.
The best model would probably be one that charges people per byte transferred, with the rate varying depending on demand at the time of transfer. If the network is below capacity the rate could be very low to simply cover operating costs.
If a supermarket has some food that is about to expire (no longer able to be sold), one might argue that the market should give this food away for free because it will simply be wasted otherwise. That's true, but a better solution would probably be to sufficiently discount the food well before it is about to expire to ensure it is sold for some >0 price (even if still at a loss) when it is still reasonably fresh.
The network analog of this would be to heavily discount off peak hours to the point that the network is always operating near capacity. If your network is operating significantly below capacity, or if your supermarket has lots of food expiring on the shelf, that's a result of inefficiencies. We should be more concerned with preventing these inefficiencies from existing rather than what to do with them once they manifest.
When we have more savvy customers and more savvy producers, the market will be more efficient at transferring goods and services from producers to customers.
Telecom customers (and probably producers as well) as a whole are just not savvy enough to deal with a complicated pricing system, and we have inefficiencies as a result. I expect this will change when we have a higher percentage of tech savvy customers of data.
or 20 septillion micronibbles
Or 10 sextillion millibytes!
Something *is* being lost. Every packet transmitted for you is a packet that could not be transmitted for someone else. When you rent a car, you don't consumer the car (well you kind of do through wear and tear but ignoring that), but you are still consuming a resource, which is the use of that car.
This is different than a television broadcast, for example, where you receiving the television broadcast does not prevent anyone else from receiving the broadcast. It is not consuming a resource (at least not until line of sight access to the tower becomes a limited resource).
If only they could make people accept being charged for exchanging data...
That's like 10 billion gigabytes!!
Which makes sense if you really believe abortion is murder.
He is for torturing the family members of suspected terrorists.
Winners: People with pre-existing debt. People with assets.
Losers: Lenders of pre-existing loans. People with money.
People with "money" (i.e. wealthy people), don't always have a lot of "money" (cash). If they have investments in things like stock, gold, real estate, etc, they will not be affected by higher inflation. If they have a mortgage on a giant mansion, higher inflation means that paying it off just became a lot easier.
Higher inflation just shifts money between different groups of rich people.
My example was hypothetical.
No single person invented the programming languages/compiler. According to wikipedia, Grace Hopper wrote the first compiler in 1952, but it was for the A-0 language, not COBOL.
Also according to Wikipedia:
At the University of Manchester, Alick Glennie developed Autocode in the early 1950s. A programming language, it used a compiler to automatically convert the language into machine code. The first code and compiler was developed in 1952 for the Mark 1 computer at the University of Manchester and is considered to be the first compiled high-level programming language.
and
The FORTRAN team led by John Backus at IBM is generally credited as having introduced the first complete compiler in 1957
Like most advents in computer science, this one seems to be furthered by a lot of different people over a long stretch of time, especially if we include the people like Turing, Von Neumann, etc. I am not trying to say that business people did not help to foster this field/industry where these big (not and not so big) names in computer science could thrive. But I credit the people who came up with the solutions to the problems as being the "idea people" , and not the people funding them.
Providing tasks is easy. I don't go to work to have tasks provided to me. I go to work because that's where I can get money from. I am perfectly capable of providing myself with tasks (and I do), but those tasks don't come with a salary.
All problems are big when they get solved. Small computing problems were solved back when nobody even heard of computers. In the future they will probably talk about all the easy quantum computing problems that were yet to be solved in the early 21st century.
So let's say you where born a long time ago when it was customary to write code in assembly. You're bosses tell you to write a shit ton of assembly code for a bunch of different types of computers. If you had some imagination, you might come up with the idea to create a programming language and compilers that turn programs written in that language into assembly understandable by any number of different computers.
Or you might just keep writing assembly code. And if everyone had such a lack of imagination, then not only would we never have invented compilers and programming languages, we would have probably never invented computers or any sort of automation at all.
If you are going to wait for marketing people to come up with these kinds of ideas, you're going to be waiting a long time. It doesn't take a marketing genius to recognize the utility for a tool yet to be invented. All it takes is the ability to recognize when you want something that doesn't exist and realize that you are capable of making it exist, and a little motivation and pride of workmanship.
Makes sense to me. I just don't think I could trust a company that does this sort of thing. If they are willing to use deceptive practices on users of the free version, then maybe they will be willing to deceive the users of the paid version. They stand to suffer some lost sales profit, but all it takes is for the variables to line up to make it more profitable to deceive their paying users than not, and they will probably do it. We already know they aren't restricted by an ethical obligation to be honest, nor do they have a reputation for honesty to lose.
You seem very important. Has any of this bullshit worked on any girls yet? Or is it mostly for delusional purposes? I would certainly hope that any real whistle blowers holding the fate of civil society in their hands wouldn't be blabbering all over social media about it.
I'm saying that if you are trying to provide evidence for the illusory nature of some phenomenon, they fact that the phenomenon in question, despite appearing real, can't even be objectively described, is potential evidence of that.
Why are you bothered at other people's outrage? You should expect it. This is a free society. Deal with it.
I have a better idea. Leaving a 1 star review.
When I realized my neighborhood mechanic was sprinkling nails in the street to make money on tire repairs, it made me realize how important it is to support small local businesses. /s
Maybe it would be better to be motivated to support all the developers, who don't do stuff like this.
So the best thing for society would be if you died?
But ever since I said I could levitate, everyone doubted me. They attacked me by saying "Well if you can levitate, prove it by levitating". I was going to levitate, but I just can't bear any more of these attacks on my character. If I proved I could levitate, people would just attack me even more by saying things like "Wow! You've proven you can actually levitate, you asshole. I hate you!" So I've decided I won't be levitating (even though I can). I'm so sorry that you'll never believe me now (because you are all stupid).