This mirrors my Comcast experience exactly. I've noticed that the various online bandwidth testers invariably show a much greater link speed than achieved with large downloads. Typically I can get about 750 KBps downloading, but much higher bursts in the beginning of the download. The link will start at about 1.5 MBps then scale back consistently to about half that. Basically, these guys are stealing my money if you go by the advertised speeds. Still, it's faster than my old DSL line. Verizon is busy stringing up FIOS in the area and if it does turn out to be a better deal then Comcast can kiss my butt.
Dunno, but I do and think they are great. I started out by using my laptop screensaver to display my digital photos and kept staring at the pics going "Awwwww". Basically every digital pic goes on it. Frankly it keeps me in touch with the fun times so last year's vacation in Edinburgh doesn't already seem like a distant memory.
Take one to work and place it where you can see it. It actually surprised me how much I love it.
I found the blog post to be fairly persuasive. Sure, I could poke a few holes in it, but the last time I flew, the TSA folks were efficient and courteous despite being obviously stressed. A long-looking screening line turned out to be less than 10 min delay - not much worse than before 9/11. The screeners are PEOPLE - some are good, some are bad, most all will respond positively to cooperation that makes their job easier. I laugh every time I hear about some arrogant asshole getting hassled mainly because he was acting like an arrogant asshole.
Hell, The screeners at Glasgow airport were genuinely upset having to take a liter of top shelf scotch I had stupidly shoved into my carryon.
The blog is a good thing - didnt know the bit about vapor concentration in the baggies. People should save their complaints for things that really matter.
For one thing he's black and racism is alive and well in america. The big question is whether the black vote will outweigh the racist vote. Winning the general election may be difficult based on that alone.
Second, he's a relatively unknown quantity and relatively inexperienced. The latter is why concerns me; I could give a damn about race, religion or party affiliation. Obama's great at rhetoric but I'm not sure he really has the substance for the job. His comments about being willing to talk to the Iranians and North Koreans is particularly worrisome - these regiemes have been playing the west for decades - remember NK's nuke test? Whoops! They were developing them all the time and LIED about it? Whooda thunkit!!!!
Let me also say that I don't think ANY of the candidates are wonderful. With Obama I think people are falling in love without really looking at what he's going to do. Look at Iraq-if the left had their way we would be out by now. OK, fine, US troops are safe but Iraq gets carved up between the Iranians and the extremists. I think a lot of people (IMO correctly) believe we have a responsibility to help clean up the mess rather than walk away. Yes, it's ugly but the situation would be far worse if we didn't make the effort.
The question in my mind is what are Obama's positives and how do they translate into real world politics?
You might be right about McCain's chances. The Dems have a serious dilemma in that Hillary has serious negatives and so does Obama. Huckabee is a sad joke. Romney isn't bad by republican standards but has the whole mormon-negative thing. McCain is only really scary if you believe the negative propaganda being thrown around by his opponents.
Even my die-hard democrat wife wants McCain over Obama.
As for Ron Paul, he really is rather extreme when you look at some of his stated views. If you think about what he is really advocating, well, I don't think most people want to live in his world.
You certainly make a lot of incorrect assumptions, and it is interesting that you have ignored the gist of my post-it wasn't about you personally but about a particular mindset. However if I were to revise my post, the only change would be to the first line so as to seem less personal. That being said, what bothers me is the mindset that governments can and should force people to do things such as you suggested. I don't trust governments, I don't trust the "tyranny of the masses" and I don't trust anyone who says they are doing things for my own good. Hell, I don't trust *my* opinions. I trust people openly working for their own best interests as they are more predictable and easily understood. Governments aren't intrinsically bad or good. Governments are a set of rules created and applied by *people* who are fallible, capricious and very often dead wrong. The founding fathers of the US understood this and atttempted to counter these things.
The point is, the market is very smart since it is the very essence of "putting your money where your mouth is". In the case of fuel technologies, the market appears to be working rather well. Why is a new tax needed? You know damn well that once it's in place it's never going away. If anything, just give tax credits for R&D.
"Notice how small cars are the norm in Europe, Latin America and Asia (consumer preference)"
Tell that to all the fricking soccer moms driving explorers and suburbans with *ONE* precious little snowflake strapped in back.
Fearmongering propaganda may have something to do with it. They buy these things thinking they're "safer" because they're big, ignoring the fact that the safety margin due to size is cancelled out by the increased rollover risk.
Please pardon the language, but who the f*ck are you to make these decisions for me? One thing I actually like about the republican mindset is that they don't give a damn about anyone else so long as they can make money. None of the do-gooder, hand wringing, worrying about the consequences; just bank the fucking checks. One thing they intuitively understand is that business means profits, jobs and an increase in the standard of living for everyone getting paid. This is a basic truth and as a small business owner it's damned hard to swallow when someone tells me I have to increase my costs by X% because it's for my own good. Screw that - *I* know what's for my own good.
In the case of fuel prices, the market is ALREADY increasing prices - we don't need any artificially induced "incentive" to look for alternative means - now that these technologies are becoming economically viable the problem takes care of itself thanks to ingenuity and entrepreneurship. No government intervention necessary, thank you very much.
Rofl - Time sink? More like a time vortex that not only wastes time playing, but wastes productive hours thinking about it when you should be working. I quit when I got sick of running on the hamster wheel. I still don't get laid, but that's because I have small children.
Yup, you have to admit that there has been a whole lot of bullshit thrown around regarding terrorism and security. I have to wonder what this red herring is meant to distract us from noticing.
What with ReadID being rammed down our throats, it's just a matter of time before we all get chipped.
Heh. NIMBY is bad enough. The greens are far worse - they're stupid, misinformed, radical and have influence far larger than their constituency. Personally I kind of like the look of windmills and if a bunch of birds get whacked, so what? You can make exactly the same argument about roads and land bound animals. Windmills aren't going to kill off any species. The californians built their house, now they have to live in it. Thank god for the east coast.
Hear, hear! Some of the other ideas are ok- getting a discount for adding a relay, etc., so long as there is a payback for lack of service, however none of them address the root of the problem. Where I live, the utilities have an agreement with some local high-consumption industrial facilities to shut down during peak consumption times like heat waves. No further measures have been needed.
What I just can not believe is that people are actually putting up with the kind of bullshit they are shoveling in California. Why aren't they screaming to get more power plants built? Why aren't folks putting up solar panels and selling the excess back to the grid? Anything to increase the supply. It's one thing to be willing to pay for electricity, it's another to put up with insufficient supply.
Heh. Agree. This dude seems to have that particularly sophomoric notion that everything should be free. If they could make OLPC's for free they would. Didn't you hear about OLPC's buy one/give one program? Nothing is free; someone, somewhere has to pay for it.
Single out Intel? It's the topic of the article? Besides, they didn't have to do what they did/are doing.
Intel didn't sit down and say "let's screw over OLPC", they said "hey, we could lose money here". Companies will abuse monopolies, but Intel doesn't have a monopoly-that's the point; they did what a monopoly WOULD do. What M$ does isn't a special brand of evil, it's merely a particulary voracious approach toward getting and maintaining market share. See the similarities here? Before AMD became a force, Intel did exhibit some very M$ like behavior.
Intel missed an opportunity. If they got their chips into the OLPC, they could have turned it into a huge PR campaign and gained name recognition in vast areas of the world that have no idea who they are. Besides, OLPC is a nonprofit deliberately trying to bring low cost computing to areas of the world that have little or no access to the current market. Why didn't they have a Classmate program BEFORE OLPC existed?
If not for AMD, Intel would be the M$ of the processor market. Although I fully understand the benefits of a free market, etc., Intel's behavior regarding the OLPC is reprehensible. Instead of offering cut-rate chips to support the project and potentially gain goodwill and new loyal customers worldwide they took the low road.
Yes it does, in the "God waved a magic wand and it appeared" sort of way. Science is an attempt to explain the universe without resorting to wand-waving. Science by definition MUST rely on a logical, open debate about verifiable and repeatable evidence. At it's essence, science is simply an effort to be as convincing as possible. Religious arguments ultimtely rely on citing the authority of various religious texts or traditions and exclude new or different evidence.
Overall I think science education has done a poor job of differentiating between science and faith. This has been exacerbated by the exclusion of any discussion of religion in public education, as you need to talk about religion and faith to understand the difference.
You just nailed it. How many different linux os's are there? "Linux", in it's perpetual drive to get everywhere at once, will fail to get anywhere. This is precisely what I hate about "linux".
The problems associated with this massive fragmentation can only be solved if one distro takes precedence. Frankly, I don't think Ubuntu can do it. Sure, it works great when it works, but look at wifi - if there's a problem you have to SUDO everything and go back to the command line of the 1980's. Ubuntu desperately needs a better way to tweak stuff.
Granted, the problem starts with the vendors failing to provide developers with the information they need (Hello? Broadcom? Are you there?) but there's a long way to go.
Software developers and consumers alike need to know that all linux compatible software will work on all the (major) distros, otherwise FUD is king and windows wins.
No, I wasn't, good call but Dell isn't Walmart, though - there isnt a dell outlet in every town, nor do they have the volume of product available - the linux box was "mass market" AND linux. That's the essential difference. I'm guessing you can dig up similar deals ir you want to look hard enough.
Yup. It's what starbucks is to coffee. The product itself isn't bad, but when you take a closer look at it, you're paying double for something with lots of room for improvement.
Apple has traditionally done a great job at product design and marketing. By fostering a "community" feel they're catering directly to exactly the type of folks that might buy Apple stuff.
Don't be surprised if you see an Apple/Starbucks alliance with coffee sold in the Apple stores.
Slashdot Mirror
This mirrors my Comcast experience exactly. I've noticed that the various online bandwidth testers invariably show a much greater link speed than achieved with large downloads. Typically I can get about 750 KBps downloading, but much higher bursts in the beginning of the download. The link will start at about 1.5 MBps then scale back consistently to about half that. Basically, these guys are stealing my money if you go by the advertised speeds. Still, it's faster than my old DSL line. Verizon is busy stringing up FIOS in the area and if it does turn out to be a better deal then Comcast can kiss my butt.
Dunno, but I do and think they are great. I started out by using my laptop screensaver to display my digital photos and kept staring at the pics going "Awwwww". Basically every digital pic goes on it. Frankly it keeps me in touch with the fun times so last year's vacation in Edinburgh doesn't already seem like a distant memory.
Take one to work and place it where you can see it. It actually surprised me how much I love it.
Newsflash! Quarks on strike for more pay, recognition. Film at 11!
Probably because there isn't a "you missed the point" mod. Get that sense of humor to the shop NOW sailor!
I found the blog post to be fairly persuasive. Sure, I could poke a few holes in it, but the last time I flew, the TSA folks were efficient and courteous despite being obviously stressed. A long-looking screening line turned out to be less than 10 min delay - not much worse than before 9/11. The screeners are PEOPLE - some are good, some are bad, most all will respond positively to cooperation that makes their job easier. I laugh every time I hear about some arrogant asshole getting hassled mainly because he was acting like an arrogant asshole.
Hell, The screeners at Glasgow airport were genuinely upset having to take a liter of top shelf scotch I had stupidly shoved into my carryon.
The blog is a good thing - didnt know the bit about vapor concentration in the baggies. People should save their complaints for things that really matter.
For one thing he's black and racism is alive and well in america. The big question is whether the black vote will outweigh the racist vote. Winning the general election may be difficult based on that alone.
Second, he's a relatively unknown quantity and relatively inexperienced. The latter is why concerns me; I could give a damn about race, religion or party affiliation. Obama's great at rhetoric but I'm not sure he really has the substance for the job. His comments about being willing to talk to the Iranians and North Koreans is particularly worrisome - these regiemes have been playing the west for decades - remember NK's nuke test? Whoops! They were developing them all the time and LIED about it? Whooda thunkit!!!!
Let me also say that I don't think ANY of the candidates are wonderful. With Obama I think people are falling in love without really looking at what he's going to do. Look at Iraq-if the left had their way we would be out by now. OK, fine, US troops are safe but Iraq gets carved up between the Iranians and the extremists. I think a lot of people (IMO correctly) believe we have a responsibility to help clean up the mess rather than walk away. Yes, it's ugly but the situation would be far worse if we didn't make the effort.
The question in my mind is what are Obama's positives and how do they translate into real world politics?
You might be right about McCain's chances. The Dems have a serious dilemma in that Hillary has serious negatives and so does Obama. Huckabee is a sad joke. Romney isn't bad by republican standards but has the whole mormon-negative thing. McCain is only really scary if you believe the negative propaganda being thrown around by his opponents.
Even my die-hard democrat wife wants McCain over Obama.
As for Ron Paul, he really is rather extreme when you look at some of his stated views. If you think about what he is really advocating, well, I don't think most people want to live in his world.
You certainly make a lot of incorrect assumptions, and it is interesting that you have ignored the gist of my post-it wasn't about you personally but about a particular mindset. However if I were to revise my post, the only change would be to the first line so as to seem less personal. That being said, what bothers me is the mindset that governments can and should force people to do things such as you suggested. I don't trust governments, I don't trust the "tyranny of the masses" and I don't trust anyone who says they are doing things for my own good. Hell, I don't trust *my* opinions. I trust people openly working for their own best interests as they are more predictable and easily understood. Governments aren't intrinsically bad or good. Governments are a set of rules created and applied by *people* who are fallible, capricious and very often dead wrong. The founding fathers of the US understood this and atttempted to counter these things.
The point is, the market is very smart since it is the very essence of "putting your money where your mouth is". In the case of fuel technologies, the market appears to be working rather well. Why is a new tax needed? You know damn well that once it's in place it's never going away. If anything, just give tax credits for R&D.
"Notice how small cars are the norm in Europe, Latin America and Asia (consumer preference)"
Tell that to all the fricking soccer moms driving explorers and suburbans with *ONE* precious little snowflake strapped in back.
Fearmongering propaganda may have something to do with it. They buy these things thinking they're "safer" because they're big, ignoring the fact that the safety margin due to size is cancelled out by the increased rollover risk.
ok, here goes...
"The oil companies will never go for it because they dont want to cannibalize sales"
how was that?
Please pardon the language, but who the f*ck are you to make these decisions for me? One thing I actually like about the republican mindset is that they don't give a damn about anyone else so long as they can make money. None of the do-gooder, hand wringing, worrying about the consequences; just bank the fucking checks. One thing they intuitively understand is that business means profits, jobs and an increase in the standard of living for everyone getting paid. This is a basic truth and as a small business owner it's damned hard to swallow when someone tells me I have to increase my costs by X% because it's for my own good. Screw that - *I* know what's for my own good.
In the case of fuel prices, the market is ALREADY increasing prices - we don't need any artificially induced "incentive" to look for alternative means - now that these technologies are becoming economically viable the problem takes care of itself thanks to ingenuity and entrepreneurship. No government intervention necessary, thank you very much.
Just out of curiosity, what does it taste like?
Rofl - Time sink? More like a time vortex that not only wastes time playing, but wastes productive hours thinking about it when you should be working. I quit when I got sick of running on the hamster wheel. I still don't get laid, but that's because I have small children.
Yup, you have to admit that there has been a whole lot of bullshit thrown around regarding terrorism and security. I have to wonder what this red herring is meant to distract us from noticing.
What with ReadID being rammed down our throats, it's just a matter of time before we all get chipped.
Heh. NIMBY is bad enough. The greens are far worse - they're stupid, misinformed, radical and have influence far larger than their constituency. Personally I kind of like the look of windmills and if a bunch of birds get whacked, so what? You can make exactly the same argument about roads and land bound animals. Windmills aren't going to kill off any species. The californians built their house, now they have to live in it. Thank god for the east coast.
Hear, hear! Some of the other ideas are ok- getting a discount for adding a relay, etc., so long as there is a payback for lack of service, however none of them address the root of the problem. Where I live, the utilities have an agreement with some local high-consumption industrial facilities to shut down during peak consumption times like heat waves. No further measures have been needed.
What I just can not believe is that people are actually putting up with the kind of bullshit they are shoveling in California. Why aren't they screaming to get more power plants built? Why aren't folks putting up solar panels and selling the excess back to the grid? Anything to increase the supply. It's one thing to be willing to pay for electricity, it's another to put up with insufficient supply.
Heh. Agree. This dude seems to have that particularly sophomoric notion that everything should be free. If they could make OLPC's for free they would. Didn't you hear about OLPC's buy one/give one program? Nothing is free; someone, somewhere has to pay for it.
Nonsense. Why did they launch the classmate?
Single out Intel? It's the topic of the article? Besides, they didn't have to do what they did/are doing.
Intel didn't sit down and say "let's screw over OLPC", they said "hey, we could lose money here". Companies will abuse monopolies, but Intel doesn't have a monopoly-that's the point; they did what a monopoly WOULD do. What M$ does isn't a special brand of evil, it's merely a particulary voracious approach toward getting and maintaining market share. See the similarities here? Before AMD became a force, Intel did exhibit some very M$ like behavior.
Intel missed an opportunity. If they got their chips into the OLPC, they could have turned it into a huge PR campaign and gained name recognition in vast areas of the world that have no idea who they are. Besides, OLPC is a nonprofit deliberately trying to bring low cost computing to areas of the world that have little or no access to the current market. Why didn't they have a Classmate program BEFORE OLPC existed?
Shame.
If not for AMD, Intel would be the M$ of the processor market. Although I fully understand the benefits of a free market, etc., Intel's behavior regarding the OLPC is reprehensible. Instead of offering cut-rate chips to support the project and potentially gain goodwill and new loyal customers worldwide they took the low road.
Shame.
I dont care how you do it - I want one, or at least I want to fly in one.
Yes it does, in the "God waved a magic wand and it appeared" sort of way. Science is an attempt to explain the universe without resorting to wand-waving. Science by definition MUST rely on a logical, open debate about verifiable and repeatable evidence. At it's essence, science is simply an effort to be as convincing as possible. Religious arguments ultimtely rely on citing the authority of various religious texts or traditions and exclude new or different evidence.
Overall I think science education has done a poor job of differentiating between science and faith. This has been exacerbated by the exclusion of any discussion of religion in public education, as you need to talk about religion and faith to understand the difference.
You just nailed it. How many different linux os's are there? "Linux", in it's perpetual drive to get everywhere at once, will fail to get anywhere. This is precisely what I hate about "linux".
The problems associated with this massive fragmentation can only be solved if one distro takes precedence. Frankly, I don't think Ubuntu can do it. Sure, it works great when it works, but look at wifi - if there's a problem you have to SUDO everything and go back to the command line of the 1980's. Ubuntu desperately needs a better way to tweak stuff.
Granted, the problem starts with the vendors failing to provide developers with the information they need (Hello? Broadcom? Are you there?) but there's a long way to go.
Software developers and consumers alike need to know that all linux compatible software will work on all the (major) distros, otherwise FUD is king and windows wins.
No, I wasn't, good call but Dell isn't Walmart, though - there isnt a dell outlet in every town, nor do they have the volume of product available - the linux box was "mass market" AND linux. That's the essential difference. I'm guessing you can dig up similar deals ir you want to look hard enough.
Yup. It's what starbucks is to coffee. The product itself isn't bad, but when you take a closer look at it, you're paying double for something with lots of room for improvement.
Apple has traditionally done a great job at product design and marketing. By fostering a "community" feel they're catering directly to exactly the type of folks that might buy Apple stuff.
Don't be surprised if you see an Apple/Starbucks alliance with coffee sold in the Apple stores.