Your family's video usage is distinctly below average even if it's just two of you.
Just ordinary usage, even today, for one person, with quality good enough to keep up with this $120 display I just bought, will put you right up against their cap. That's for what's coming available right now, what someone on a budget could easily afford.
What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.
Because replying with brainless objections and going off on polysyllabic tangents and minutely critiquing tiny details and making idiot demands for evidence one google would supply (and the google to satisfy GGP's demand was already supplied for him) are among the tactics used to derail a point.
The link includes Nielsen's figures, the search returns lots of 5's and 4's and 3's. Nielsen's figure is 4.
You do know that cordcutters who use their streaming subscriptions, HD at 3GB/hr, four hours a day [google.com], already blows that cap, right? That that's just for one person at less than the national average video usage per day?
What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.
Even preferring your source's figures to what Netflix tells you when you select your streaming quality, you couldn't be bothered to get it right. The scumball site you're seo'ing for says 5Mbps, which would mean 2.25GB/hr and average video consumption time at that rate would blow Comcast's cap.
You do know that cordcutters who use their streaming subscriptions, HD at 3GB/hr, four hours a day [google.com], already blows that cap, right? That that's just for one person at less than the national average video usage per day?
What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.
It's linked in the two-line post you're replying to, So not only is the simplest possible google less attractive than braying demands, clicking a link is a bridge too far?
You do know that cordcutters who use their streaming subscriptions, HD at 3GB/hr, four hours a day [google.com], already blows that cap, right? That that's just for one person at less than the national average video usage per day?
What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.
You do know that cordcutters who use their streaming subscriptions, HD at 3GB/hr, four hours a day, already blows that cap, right? That that's just for one person at less than the national average video usage per day?
What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.
Only every experiment that gets readings from instruments with known biases? What the fuck do you think scientific instruments are, oracles? You think they're made of unobtainium and starshine, wishes and wands? Lab instruments can be expensive and delicate and uniform.
Weather stations can't. Lab instruments can be operated in temperature- and humidity- and everyotherfuckingthingelse-controlled environments. Weather stations can't. They degrade, making the instruments behave differently. Conditions change, making the instruments behave differently.
But then, people do tend to judge others' characters by their own.
For what you're saying to be true, not only every one of those organizations would have to be concealing data or faking models, every single organization on the planet would have to be in on it - - because science is science.
So the claim is that the entire global scientific community is suddenly full of shit, but only on this one subject (although of course the implication is that nothing affiliated with any university or mainstream research institute can be trusted, because scientist == liar in that world).
Most users I know were happy to see that icon pop up to find out they would get the next upgrade at no cost.
If the Win10 upgrade notifier is the only thing the stories are about then that's my fault for not digging deeper. Yeah. The upgrade offer is good-guy stuff, I was glad to have it too.
I'm out of the loop on this one. What $80 are you talking about?
Win10 Home: $119. Win10 Pro: $199. On Pro you get the delay/select. capability.
It's their declared intent to force that choice. Grandma ponies up or some morning she'll be cut off and understand only that it's apparently okay for corporations to lock people out of their computers and demand $80 (or she could wait whatever number of days MS think they can get away with) to unlock them again.. That's literally, as in in concrete and exact detail, the situation Microsoft have openly declared their intent to force on their customers.
Switching to unrefusable automatic updates in the face of unavoidable (but forgivable, it's generally acknowledged that no one is immune to at least some of those) system-breaking bugs is pretty awful. As it stands with just a little research you can restore to before the last batch and selectively apply the good ones; unless I'm misreading something there will now be no way you can restore usability at all. It's just a matter of time before some driver incompatibility makes anything beyond safe mode unbootable.
Maybe GP's got a history of overreacting, but being forced to suffer the inevitable system-breaking bug -- taking the downtime from hours to days or for anything that falls through the fissure to finger-pointing hell, weeks -- just because you don't want to pay an extra $80 for the privilege of a system you don't have to let them break -- is pretty clearly unethical. And this from a company that has recently stooped to pushing adware. This deal Microsoft's pushing is laced with shit, no matter how good (and I'm betting they're very good) the good parts are.
Fact is, even the flat-earth theory is still as valid as it ever was -- and unless you're navigating over thousands of miles or doing big-project civil engineering, it's all you ever use.
I think that's because they successfully explained behavior that humans had nothing to do with and had been had been puzzling the curious for hundreds or thousands of years.
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
. . . and it isn't the impossibility part I think you're up against, it's Stephen Hawking putting $100,000,000 into a SETI effort. I think that qualifies as stating it's possible, and I think he's probably got a decent idea what's involved.
I'm on a mailing list or two that get unusual traffic anyway (dev lists carrying patches) and they get steadily spammed. The false-positive rates on those are annoying. I'm looking at five false positives right now.
Proof of what, non-uniqueness? Water is ubiquitous. Planetary formation is ubiquitous.Look at the damn universe crosseyed and you get biological-building-block soup. Just the life forms we we've seen made with that stuff _here_ can live on anything from water superheated by volcanic vents, in the complete absence of oxygen and light, to straight gamma radiation to sulfuric acid.
Thank you. I had dailywtf as more reliable than that. The older I get, the more I see that starting out assuming any publicized outrage -- and the more outrageous the more certain -- is nothing more than hyped-up attention-seeking jackassery is the way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a hell of a lot easier to make minor fixups/additions to code than the frightened are willing to credit.
and George Carlin said it.
Your family's video usage is distinctly below average even if it's just two of you.
Just ordinary usage, even today, for one person, with quality good enough to keep up with this $120 display I just bought, will put you right up against their cap. That's for what's coming available right now, what someone on a budget could easily afford.
What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.
Because replying with brainless objections and going off on polysyllabic tangents and minutely critiquing tiny details and making idiot demands for evidence one google would supply (and the google to satisfy GGP's demand was already supplied for him) are among the tactics used to derail a point.
The link
The link includes Nielsen's figures, the search returns lots of 5's and 4's and 3's. Nielsen's figure is 4.
You do know that cordcutters who use their streaming subscriptions, HD at 3GB/hr, four hours a day [google.com], already blows that cap, right? That that's just for one person at less than the national average video usage per day? What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.
Even preferring your source's figures to what Netflix tells you when you select your streaming quality, you couldn't be bothered to get it right. The scumball site you're seo'ing for says 5Mbps, which would mean 2.25GB/hr and average video consumption time at that rate would blow Comcast's cap.
You do know that cordcutters who use their streaming subscriptions, HD at 3GB/hr, four hours a day [google.com], already blows that cap, right? That that's just for one person at less than the national average video usage per day? What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.
It's linked in the two-line post you're replying to, So not only is the simplest possible google less attractive than braying demands, clicking a link is a bridge too far?
You do know that cordcutters who use their streaming subscriptions, HD at 3GB/hr, four hours a day [google.com], already blows that cap, right? That that's just for one person at less than the national average video usage per day? What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.
You do know that cordcutters who use their streaming subscriptions, HD at 3GB/hr, four hours a day, already blows that cap, right? That that's just for one person at less than the national average video usage per day?
What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.
lol /.ers doing a lot of whiffing on this one. It's sad.
Only every experiment that gets readings from instruments with known biases? What the fuck do you think scientific instruments are, oracles? You think they're made of unobtainium and starshine, wishes and wands? Lab instruments can be expensive and delicate and uniform.
Weather stations can't. Lab instruments can be operated in temperature- and humidity- and everyotherfuckingthingelse-controlled environments. Weather stations can't. They degrade, making the instruments behave differently. Conditions change, making the instruments behave differently.
But then, people do tend to judge others' characters by their own.
because the "global warming" predicted by their models failed to happen
Just for kicks, look at this set of organizations that disagree with you.
For what you're saying to be true, not only every one of those organizations would have to be concealing data or faking models, every single organization on the planet would have to be in on it - - because science is science.
So the claim is that the entire global scientific community is suddenly full of shit, but only on this one subject (although of course the implication is that nothing affiliated with any university or mainstream research institute can be trusted, because scientist == liar in that world).
Will someone please show me Thing One and Thing Two?
. . .
Except for the ones whose computers don't work properly because of a bad update . . .
If you have a non-Pro 7/8 install, your free upgrade is (quite reasonably) to the non-pro 10 install. Microsoft wants $99 to upgrade that to Pro 10.
Most users I know were happy to see that icon pop up to find out they would get the next upgrade at no cost.
If the Win10 upgrade notifier is the only thing the stories are about then that's my fault for not digging deeper. Yeah. The upgrade offer is good-guy stuff, I was glad to have it too.
I'm out of the loop on this one. What $80 are you talking about?
Win10 Home: $119. Win10 Pro: $199. On Pro you get the delay/select. capability.
It's their declared intent to force that choice. Grandma ponies up or some morning she'll be cut off and understand only that it's apparently okay for corporations to lock people out of their computers and demand $80 (or she could wait whatever number of days MS think they can get away with) to unlock them again.. That's literally, as in in concrete and exact detail, the situation Microsoft have openly declared their intent to force on their customers.
Switching to unrefusable automatic updates in the face of unavoidable (but forgivable, it's generally acknowledged that no one is immune to at least some of those) system-breaking bugs is pretty awful. As it stands with just a little research you can restore to before the last batch and selectively apply the good ones; unless I'm misreading something there will now be no way you can restore usability at all. It's just a matter of time before some driver incompatibility makes anything beyond safe mode unbootable.
Maybe GP's got a history of overreacting, but being forced to suffer the inevitable system-breaking bug -- taking the downtime from hours to days or for anything that falls through the fissure to finger-pointing hell, weeks -- just because you don't want to pay an extra $80 for the privilege of a system you don't have to let them break -- is pretty clearly unethical. And this from a company that has recently stooped to pushing adware. This deal Microsoft's pushing is laced with shit, no matter how good (and I'm betting they're very good) the good parts are.
Fact is, even the flat-earth theory is still as valid as it ever was -- and unless you're navigating over thousands of miles or doing big-project civil engineering, it's all you ever use.
I think that's because they successfully explained behavior that humans had nothing to do with and had been had been puzzling the curious for hundreds or thousands of years.
There may be millions if you look far enough, but you have to start with BILLIONS of solar systems to get to that number
You are aware, aren't you, that there are about a hundred billion solar systems in this galaxy? Also,
what I'm discussing the impossibility of
runs up straight against one of Arthur Clarke's more famous quotes,
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
. . . and it isn't the impossibility part I think you're up against, it's Stephen Hawking putting $100,000,000 into a SETI effort. I think that qualifies as stating it's possible, and I think he's probably got a decent idea what's involved.
I'm on a mailing list or two that get unusual traffic anyway (dev lists carrying patches) and they get steadily spammed. The false-positive rates on those are annoying. I'm looking at five false positives right now.
Proof of what, non-uniqueness? Water is ubiquitous. Planetary formation is ubiquitous.Look at the damn universe crosseyed and you get biological-building-block soup. Just the life forms we we've seen made with that stuff _here_ can live on anything from water superheated by volcanic vents, in the complete absence of oxygen and light, to straight gamma radiation to sulfuric acid.
We no longer have the church as a buffer for excess labor, so now the only big one is hahadon'tmakemecry "security".
The circumstances for life are pretty darned unique here on Earth
Got me laughing out loud right there.
Thank you. I had dailywtf as more reliable than that. The older I get, the more I see that starting out assuming any publicized outrage -- and the more outrageous the more certain -- is nothing more than hyped-up attention-seeking jackassery is the way to go.