Actually that's what gets me pissed off at worker/consumers sometimes.
"Well, this guy in India/China/Mexico is willing to work for less than you. Can't compete with those wages? Oh, too bad! STOP! THIEF! SUE! BLOODY MURDER. YOU MUST HIRE ME NOT THE BLOODY FOREIGNERS!!!!"
until
"Well, this CD costs much less in India/China/Mexico. Can't compete with those prices. Too bad man you're just A CAPITALIST PIGOPOLIST tryin to rip me off."
Justin Frankel is no more important than someone who contributes 2 lines of code to Apache
to someone who contributes 2 lines of code to Apache perhaps but he is way more influential.
As for The Internet is not now, never has been, and never will be about celebrity status I can only suggest that if there is at least two humans involved then any communications channel will become about celebrity status.
What's next, an edgy piece on Marconi? You assume they didn't have them at the time. The early 20th century was not averse to gossip and hero worship. eg Lindeberg. How does this sentence sound
The Aeroplane is not now, never has been, and never will be about celebrity status. Lindy is no more important than someone who hands tools to the guy who is tuning Spirits engine before takeoff.
Shutup Cheney and get back in your undisclosed secure location. People are starting to take you seriously and we don't want to give away our plans too soon.
As always they will think exactly what they want you to think they think.
What political repercussions would result if a US president pulled crap like OPEC does
The rest of the world is getting used to that sort of thing from the US so it won't be any more of a problem.
What will mining the moon do to things like tides here on Earth
At one payload a year it will be a long time before gravity is effected.
Do you honestly think this will remove our dependence on fossil fuel completely
Not the point. Most electricity is generated from coal so yes it will remove a big user of fossil fuels. It could fule the hydrogen revolution as well.
how much oil will be required to make non-energy products
They could use the coal. Its got lots of carbon. I presume they could polymerize that somehow.
What humanitarian/technology/quality-of-life improvements do you think we, as people in a social/civilization context will see as a direct result of mining energy from the moon
1. Greenhouse gas emmissions would drop even if we started polymerizing coal.
2. Do you know how many miners die in coal mining accidents each year. No? Well nor do I but its bound to be more than 10 which is how many astronauts we would loose each year if there was a 50% failure rate on shuttle launches to bring this stuff back.
3. Low harm power for hydrogen generation.
4. H3 is pretty cool.
Call me a pessimist bastard
OK. You're a pessimistic bastard.
If we get our energy from the moon, whoopty-friggin'-do, we'll be getting it from the moon, we'll still pay for it.
See I told you you'd think exactly what they want you to think.
Think my Windows box will be upset when it knows how much I hate it?"
Well, you'll know it wants to find out if you love it or not when all of a sudden it starts wearing glasses.
Cause AFAIK Windows boxes don't have too many eyesight problems. Nor from my experience do they hear well. Though they respond quickly, if erratically, to physical discipline.
.... all the starts will be dead and there will not be enough energy to send a ping form one place to the other (since all matter will be so widely dispersed that the energy available to you would not be enough to transmit anything to the nearest place).
Cheer up. That sounds like any Sunday at our place. But at least it couldn't get worse.
You really aught not limit your thinking like that. There is more than one galaxy you know. And if there are more than 340,282 then we are in trouble aren't we.
I will listen to AnarchoCapitalists and Libertarians when they agree that under the new rules there will be no limited liability for investors in joint stock companies
The only time capitalism has failed is when government has intervened
Which is everytime it's been tried.
Socialism and capitalism both fail for the same reason. They are rational systems for organizing irrational objects - people.
Well that might explain it because to the rest of the world Mercantilism is more commonly an economic doctrine associated with maintaining a positive balance of trade with ALL trading partners by protecting the home market while exploiting cheap resources in other areas.
It has little if anything to do with internal taxation for infrastructure development.
To the upholders of Mercantilism, trade is a zero-sum game. Ricardo effectively destroyed the theoretical underpinnings of pure Mercantilism by showing how trade can benefit all parties if they each produced and traded things that they were good at.
Today remnants of mercantilism live on in extreme protectionism usually associated with loss of jobs to lower cost jurisdictions.
You are taking definition as written by those who WANT the deficit of mercantilism
Presumably your definitions are written by those who DON'T WANT the deficit of [American] mercantilism so they will be as self serving as the others.
but it wouldn't have meant any sort of endorsement on the part of Time
Perhaps but Time doesn't put bad people on the Person Of The Year anymore because the average idiot sees that allocade as an endorsement. If I am not mistaken that was a reason Osama wasn't put up in 2002.
Surely he was Person of the Year that year if we are merely talking about influence. I understand how sensitive Americans would be to that but there was discussion and the main reason given for not seemed to be that it would be mistaken for tacit endorsement.
Hitler was another 'honored' as Man Of The Year (as it then was) (but that could very well have been an endorsement given early attitudes to his promises).
I can't see how there not being a contract helps you. (you rhetorically, not personally)
Apart from the fact that ads are not offers but inducements to consider a product or service, the ads would not say the 'unlimited' service will be provided forever.
So if there is no contract either of you can back out at any time. Or change the arrangement, them by reducing the speed or you by reducing your payment. In either case the other party would probably leave the arrangement.
Another reason why 'charge-per-GB' plans would be nice
But the point is that most users don't go anywhere near the limits ISPs set as unacceptable use. It is only those who go over by factors of 30 or so whoi might have a problem.(and that is a number picked out of the air so don't pick on it)
Most people* like broadband because for them it really is unlimited; it's an always-on connection, no timed call charges and as much email and lightning fast web surfing and chatting as they can fit into the 3 hours a day they use the internet. They wouldn't have a clue how much they download or upload, nor should they. It would be a massive imposition on 100 of them to have to worry about bandwidth usage just so one geek can bit torrent Linux ISOs and anime.
*This is based on a survey I saw in Australia on why people liked ADSL. The main reason why most users liked it was that there was no connect or time charges so they could use it at any time and not have to worry about running up a huge bill. I suspect most of them wouldn't have understood the term bandwidth even after it had been explained to them. Their answer might have been 'How big can a web page be?'
Thats because you will use it in non-business hours. Business rates are generally based on max usage in the daytime. Selling them to nighttime home users would be a bad idea for the ISP.
Complaining that you download too much is a violation of their promise of "unlimited" service.
Its an Advertisement, not a promise. An inducement for you to look more closely at the product or service. Surely as a practiced consumer you are aware of the diference between the Ad and real life. Somewhere in the fine print at the bottom of the page there will be a little clause such as 'Terms and Conditions will apply'.
If you sign up without looking at those Terms and Conditions you deserve the disdain that will be shown you by those to whom you complain.
Ask the ISP what the AUP means. Ask them if 24/7 max speed up and down load is contrary to the AUP. I suspect they will say 'Yes, but that's what our Dedicated Line/Permanent Access Plans are designed for. Look, here is the tariff sheet.'
Or you could ask yourself 'Is my intended usage a real lot more (and I mean a REAL LOT MORE) than the average Joe emailer/surfer might rack up' and if the answer is 'Hell Yes. That's the whole idea' then be prepared for the letter.
Of course that presumes you can imagine what someone else thinks and how they might act, a skill sadly lacking among the youth of today:)
A recent case in Aust of a girl who got a $10,000 bill from Telstra. She left Kaazaa running in the background (closing it doesn't stop it but she didn't know that) and it uploaded for weeks.
And yes Telstra does meter uploads against their monthly allowances (which comes as a surprise to a lot of their customers who didn't read the T&C and AUP)
Luckily after investigation by the regulators I believe she got the bill reduced to her monthy sub. Point is however that its not uncommon. And the excess usage charge per MB is huge, much higher than the base rate.
It is not the responsibility of the customer to manager their throughput in such a way that it remains profitable for the ISP
No, but they should manage it in such a way that doesn't conflict with the AUP which is designed to allow the service to be profitable while serving a wide range of users. But in the end neither is it the responsibility of the ISP to continue indefinately to provide a loss making service to a customer.
The ISP can restructure their service to continue to allow 100% saturation without losing profit.
They already do in Australia. It's called a Permanent Connection. Most ISPs offer them and surprise surprise, it's more expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
"Well, this guy in India/China/Mexico is willing to work for less than you. Can't compete with those wages? Oh, too bad! STOP! THIEF! SUE! BLOODY MURDER. YOU MUST HIRE ME NOT THE BLOODY FOREIGNERS!!!!"
until
"Well, this CD costs much less in India/China/Mexico. Can't compete with those prices. Too bad man you're just A CAPITALIST PIGOPOLIST tryin to rip me off."
BAM BAM BAM BAM
Iz 'at smote enough for ya.
to someone who contributes 2 lines of code to Apache perhaps but he is way more influential.
As for The Internet is not now, never has been, and never will be about celebrity status I can only suggest that if there is at least two humans involved then any communications channel will become about celebrity status.
What's next, an edgy piece on Marconi? You assume they didn't have them at the time. The early 20th century was not averse to gossip and hero worship. eg Lindeberg. How does this sentence sound
The Aeroplane is not now, never has been, and never will be about celebrity status. Lindy is no more important than someone who hands tools to the guy who is tuning Spirits engine before takeoff.
Yeah, what was his name again.
Ignorance of the law is not a defence. Otherwise people like you would be able to get away with everything.
But aren't you lucky that Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuala don't think like you do.
And by the way, American companies will sell H3 to whoever will buy it. What makes you think the US government will have any say in it.
Shutup Cheney and get back in your undisclosed secure location. People are starting to take you seriously and we don't want to give away our plans too soon.
As always they will think exactly what they want you to think they think.
What political repercussions would result if a US president pulled crap like OPEC does
The rest of the world is getting used to that sort of thing from the US so it won't be any more of a problem.
What will mining the moon do to things like tides here on Earth
At one payload a year it will be a long time before gravity is effected.
Do you honestly think this will remove our dependence on fossil fuel completely
Not the point. Most electricity is generated from coal so yes it will remove a big user of fossil fuels. It could fule the hydrogen revolution as well.
how much oil will be required to make non-energy products
They could use the coal. Its got lots of carbon. I presume they could polymerize that somehow.
What humanitarian /technology/quality-of-life improvements do you think we, as people in a social/civilization context will see as a direct result of mining energy from the moon
1. Greenhouse gas emmissions would drop even if we started polymerizing coal.
2. Do you know how many miners die in coal mining accidents each year. No? Well nor do I but its bound to be more than 10 which is how many astronauts we would loose each year if there was a 50% failure rate on shuttle launches to bring this stuff back.
3. Low harm power for hydrogen generation.
4. H3 is pretty cool.
Call me a pessimist bastard
OK. You're a pessimistic bastard.
If we get our energy from the moon, whoopty-friggin'-do, we'll be getting it from the moon, we'll still pay for it.
See I told you you'd think exactly what they want you to think.
and the rest of the world is happy as well.
Well, you'll know it wants to find out if you love it or not when all of a sudden it starts wearing glasses.
Cause AFAIK Windows boxes don't have too many eyesight problems. Nor from my experience do they hear well. Though they respond quickly, if erratically, to physical discipline.
Cheer up. That sounds like any Sunday at our place. But at least it couldn't get worse.
Or the big crunch would be on its way
D'oh
You really aught not limit your thinking like that. There is more than one galaxy you know. And if there are more than 340,282 then we are in trouble aren't we.
The only time capitalism has failed is when government has intervened
Which is everytime it's been tried.
Socialism and capitalism both fail for the same reason. They are rational systems for organizing irrational objects - people.
Well that might explain it because to the rest of the world Mercantilism is more commonly an economic doctrine associated with maintaining a positive balance of trade with ALL trading partners by protecting the home market while exploiting cheap resources in other areas.
It has little if anything to do with internal taxation for infrastructure development.
To the upholders of Mercantilism, trade is a zero-sum game. Ricardo effectively destroyed the theoretical underpinnings of pure Mercantilism by showing how trade can benefit all parties if they each produced and traded things that they were good at.
Today remnants of mercantilism live on in extreme protectionism usually associated with loss of jobs to lower cost jurisdictions.
You are taking definition as written by those who WANT the deficit of mercantilism
Presumably your definitions are written by those who DON'T WANT the deficit of [American] mercantilism so they will be as self serving as the others.
I don't mean to be rude but you are insane. That is exactly what the US has been doing since WW2. Since before that actually.
Perhaps but Time doesn't put bad people on the Person Of The Year anymore because the average idiot sees that allocade as an endorsement. If I am not mistaken that was a reason Osama wasn't put up in 2002.
Surely he was Person of the Year that year if we are merely talking about influence. I understand how sensitive Americans would be to that but there was discussion and the main reason given for not seemed to be that it would be mistaken for tacit endorsement.
Hitler was another 'honored' as Man Of The Year (as it then was) (but that could very well have been an endorsement given early attitudes to his promises).
Apart from the fact that ads are not offers but inducements to consider a product or service, the ads would not say the 'unlimited' service will be provided forever.
So if there is no contract either of you can back out at any time. Or change the arrangement, them by reducing the speed or you by reducing your payment. In either case the other party would probably leave the arrangement.
But the point is that most users don't go anywhere near the limits ISPs set as unacceptable use. It is only those who go over by factors of 30 or so whoi might have a problem.(and that is a number picked out of the air so don't pick on it)
Most people* like broadband because for them it really is unlimited; it's an always-on connection, no timed call charges and as much email and lightning fast web surfing and chatting as they can fit into the 3 hours a day they use the internet. They wouldn't have a clue how much they download or upload, nor should they. It would be a massive imposition on 100 of them to have to worry about bandwidth usage just so one geek can bit torrent Linux ISOs and anime.
*This is based on a survey I saw in Australia on why people liked ADSL. The main reason why most users liked it was that there was no connect or time charges so they could use it at any time and not have to worry about running up a huge bill. I suspect most of them wouldn't have understood the term bandwidth even after it had been explained to them. Their answer might have been 'How big can a web page be?'
Thats because you will use it in non-business hours. Business rates are generally based on max usage in the daytime. Selling them to nighttime home users would be a bad idea for the ISP.
Its an Advertisement, not a promise. An inducement for you to look more closely at the product or service. Surely as a practiced consumer you are aware of the diference between the Ad and real life. Somewhere in the fine print at the bottom of the page there will be a little clause such as 'Terms and Conditions will apply'.
If you sign up without looking at those Terms and Conditions you deserve the disdain that will be shown you by those to whom you complain.
Ask the ISP what the AUP means. Ask them if 24/7 max speed up and down load is contrary to the AUP. I suspect they will say 'Yes, but that's what our Dedicated Line/Permanent Access Plans are designed for. Look, here is the tariff sheet.'
Or you could ask yourself 'Is my intended usage a real lot more (and I mean a REAL LOT MORE) than the average Joe emailer/surfer might rack up' and if the answer is 'Hell Yes. That's the whole idea' then be prepared for the letter.
Of course that presumes you can imagine what someone else thinks and how they might act, a skill sadly lacking among the youth of today :)
And yes Telstra does meter uploads against their monthly allowances (which comes as a surprise to a lot of their customers who didn't read the T&C and AUP)
Luckily after investigation by the regulators I believe she got the bill reduced to her monthy sub. Point is however that its not uncommon. And the excess usage charge per MB is huge, much higher than the base rate.
No, but they should manage it in such a way that doesn't conflict with the AUP which is designed to allow the service to be profitable while serving a wide range of users. But in the end neither is it the responsibility of the ISP to continue indefinately to provide a loss making service to a customer.
The ISP can restructure their service to continue to allow 100% saturation without losing profit.
They already do in Australia. It's called a Permanent Connection. Most ISPs offer them and surprise surprise, it's more expensive.
So you can't complain when they throttle you to 56k up and down for no reason at all because they never agreed to anything in the first place.
Don't worry. There IS a contract and you WILL be made aware of its exact terms and conditions at the appropriate time.
I could tell you but then they'd have to kill me.
Heres your first problem. Anyone with a ton of money doesn't 'invest' $10k in anything except maybe lunch.
Wall Street is an elite version of Las Vegas
I have seen no evidence that the stock market is a zero sum game
Define High and Low before you trade.