Obviously Netflix will just pass the cost on to its subscribers (where else would they get the money from?). It's very unlikely they'd implement this as a surcharge for their Comcast subscribers only (I wish they would, but I expect their contract with Comcast prohibits it), they'll just absorb it into the single subscription price. So in fact non-Comcast customers will effectively be indirectly paying Comcast to subsidise other users' access.
From an engineer's point of view it's all baffling (Netflix and their customers are both paying for a certain amount of bandwidth, so where's the need for anything more?), but when you view it through the lens of capitalist incentives it all makes perfect sense.
I think to really accentuate the difference between the two violins we need to commit them to vinyl. How else can we really appreciate the true richness and colour of the sound?
I think a fire alarm is an instance where I'd like something to have as simple and foolproof a mechanism as possible. I suppose a smart alarm could perhaps call the emergency services or something... but I'd still probably combine it with a bog standard fire alarm.
As far as cabbies are concerned, the optimum algorithm will be whatever maximises their revenue. Any algorithm that doesn't will probably be vulnerable to cheating, i.e. a rogue cabbie that can make more money exploiting some aspect of the algorithm will do so.
My rule of thumb is, "if the first implementation of this didn't work, and I had to change it, then it needs comments" on the principle that if the "obvious" solution turns out not to work, then the problem is not as obvious as I'd thought.
How do you feel about the current popularity of beards, and what can I do to make sure my own beard style is not incorporated into a proprietary system?
I think you meant that both sync devices need to be on at the same time IF you want the sync to be immediate. Otherwise, BTSync will happily sync at the point where the missing device come online.
Would you rather be successful and miserable, or a happy failure?
I'm told that Hawaii, for example, has an odd vibe where a lot of people lead frugal lives with clapped out cars and McJobs, but they're there because it's a wonderful place to live. Do they deserve contempt for their lack of ambition? Praise for their ability to value the things that really matter? Respect despite having chosen a path we might not choose for ourselves?
It'll be free to get people like me who're still on older versions of the OS to upgrade, so they have fewer versions to support. I expect soon they'll announce no more support for Snow Leopard et al.
The double standard implied is that the Guardian deemed one way of obtaining data unacceptable (hacking into people's voicemail) but not another (downloading your employer's data onto USB sticks and then giving it away).
I would argue the public interest defence. If someone came to me and said, "on that voicemail is X's confession to the abduction and murder, even though he denies it in public", hacking it could be in the public interest, whereas fishing voicemail for gossip is not.
Similarly if Edward Snowden came to me and said, "on this USB stick is proof of illegal and pervasive surveillance by governments, which I've nicked", I'd at least look at it to establish whether there was a public interest case.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm too lazy to evaluate the arguments.
I'm going to wait for Theo de Raadt's Libre remix.
Clearly we should have invested years ago in finding renewable sources of IP addresses...
Obviously Netflix will just pass the cost on to its subscribers (where else would they get the money from?). It's very unlikely they'd implement this as a surcharge for their Comcast subscribers only (I wish they would, but I expect their contract with Comcast prohibits it), they'll just absorb it into the single subscription price. So in fact non-Comcast customers will effectively be indirectly paying Comcast to subsidise other users' access.
From an engineer's point of view it's all baffling (Netflix and their customers are both paying for a certain amount of bandwidth, so where's the need for anything more?), but when you view it through the lens of capitalist incentives it all makes perfect sense.
I think to really accentuate the difference between the two violins we need to commit them to vinyl. How else can we really appreciate the true richness and colour of the sound?
I think a fire alarm is an instance where I'd like something to have as simple and foolproof a mechanism as possible. I suppose a smart alarm could perhaps call the emergency services or something... but I'd still probably combine it with a bog standard fire alarm.
In the post-Snowden world, I think we can replace most instances of the word "paranoid" with "reasonable".
As far as cabbies are concerned, the optimum algorithm will be whatever maximises their revenue. Any algorithm that doesn't will probably be vulnerable to cheating, i.e. a rogue cabbie that can make more money exploiting some aspect of the algorithm will do so.
My rule of thumb is, "if the first implementation of this didn't work, and I had to change it, then it needs comments" on the principle that if the "obvious" solution turns out not to work, then the problem is not as obvious as I'd thought.
Burqas are also handy for hiding one's stash of apo'strophe's.
How do you feel about the current popularity of beards, and what can I do to make sure my own beard style is not incorporated into a proprietary system?
Stop pulling examples out of your ass.
I think you meant that both sync devices need to be on at the same time IF you want the sync to be immediate. Otherwise, BTSync will happily sync at the point where the missing device come online.
Would you rather be successful and miserable, or a happy failure?
I'm told that Hawaii, for example, has an odd vibe where a lot of people lead frugal lives with clapped out cars and McJobs, but they're there because it's a wonderful place to live. Do they deserve contempt for their lack of ambition? Praise for their ability to value the things that really matter? Respect despite having chosen a path we might not choose for ourselves?
Each of you who clicks this link is only increasing their electricity bills!
They need to make sure they do this somewhere where if it all goes wrong, nothing of value is lost, like maybe Croydon.
> Those on low wages get generous benefits
Tune in to "Benefits Street" on Channel 4 to see what it's like on benefits.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/07/tvratings-channel4
If that's the kind of life generous benefits get you, I'll stick to working.
I guess when he rated the desktops it was a tie.
It'll be free to get people like me who're still on older versions of the OS to upgrade, so they have fewer versions to support. I expect soon they'll announce no more support for Snow Leopard et al.
"[...] a scribbled note with the password" was what the intelligence agencies reported. Greenwald denied it (on Newsnight the other day).
The double standard implied is that the Guardian deemed one way of obtaining data unacceptable (hacking into people's voicemail) but not another (downloading your employer's data onto USB sticks and then giving it away).
I would argue the public interest defence. If someone came to me and said, "on that voicemail is X's confession to the abduction and murder, even though he denies it in public", hacking it could be in the public interest, whereas fishing voicemail for gossip is not.
Similarly if Edward Snowden came to me and said, "on this USB stick is proof of illegal and pervasive surveillance by governments, which I've nicked", I'd at least look at it to establish whether there was a public interest case.
I wonder what this means for geopolitics... will the US continue to support the Saudis etc?
OTOH I expect we'll just see Jevons Paradox in action, which would mean we still need the Saudis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Maybe he meant "uncontrolled dump"?
(You seem to write well so you'll probably appreciate being reminded it's "garner" not "garnish")
Maybe there are power savings to be had in further reducing the randomness of rdrand?