I never understood why one would want to have the tabs save when you close the browser. Perhaps someone could enlighten me? maybe provide a few cases where this might actually be useful?
Having a bunch of tabs when you start up the browser usually means things take longer to load, which slows me down when I only want to browse one page. Additionally when closing a browser, I close it because I'm done with whatever's in it. I think the main difference is usage. I use firefox windows as a sort of divider in addition to tabs. If I search for one thing, I'll have a FF window open and it'll contain all the tabs related to this, and another window with whatever else I'm doing. it seems like you don't.
I would certainly be open to that idea... I assume that when he watches movies about assassination, leading assaults, war, his talk of "That's the best job in the world, I wish I could do that" is bullshit.
He was part of the initial invasion force of the Marines, so I have to assume that if anyone saw action - it would have been him. While he was out there he claimed the whole experience sucked, one of his squad members decided to taste brain, etc.
A few years later he wants to go again. His job sucks, but it pays good. He is well on his way to a degree (Wants to get in law enforcement) and has a girlfriend and they are serious. He joins the national guard. Yet he volunteers (several times) to go back out there.
I can't tell you his motivation other than what he tells me, but for someone who thought going out to Iraq in the invasion force sucked.
Even if I assume most of this is bullshit, and he's really never seen action, he's already gotten all the positive benefits of serving - what sane person would want to do it again knowing he risks his life or quality there of?
Well, there are always people like a friend of mine: Who volunteered for deployment AGAIN, and is now disappointed that he isn't shooting people. Who was part of the initial invasion force.
Who was probably changed by his experiences and now feels civilian life is boring and dull.
Oh well, I wonder if he'll still not regret it if he loses a limb or something..
Because nothing will be in that water that wasn't already in there from the treatment center, except maybe some extra copper if they are using copper heatpipes or something. There's nothing additional to treat, and nothing to be any more harmful on reintroduction than it was already. If it's something they add, it's something they monitor. The only things that would accumulate from halving and reintroducing the water into the system is stuff they would add, and thus monitor.
Essentially, in the scenario listed by the post I was replying to:
Water with chemicals x y and z is provided by the water center. The water evaporates, leaving concentrated doses of say, x and y, but z evaporates. Water with high doses of x and y are undrinkable.
I say, it doesn't matter. Since x, y, and z are monitored. Highly concentrated water will be introduced into the water, and will be tested for. The dosage will thus be adjusted accordingly. Those random chemicals you're referring to are irrelevant because they aren't arbitrarily added by the water being processed at a waste water treatment center. Therefore, they aren't going to be any more concentrated than they would have been before. If anything, they are added by us pissing whatever drugs we've taken into our toilets. (which water from a data center is unlikely to have any more of than it did already.)
You can't even really complain about the frequency of testing because the load of the data center is going to be pretty constant. Consistent levels of chloramine, in my example, will be returned to the treatment center. (Btw, chloramine is Chlorine and Ammonia, and is used in place of chlorine to prevent bad stuff from growing in the water.) This stuff is used because it is more stable than chlorine and will/not/ evaporate. It will be stuff like this that survives the return trip into the water system at concentrated levels.
Maybe I am missing something about waste water treatment, and what chemicals are involved, but meh.
On the other hand, when this water gets re-processed, the facility needs to add that much less chemicals to treat the water in order to maintain chloramine levels. If they use chlorine, though - that will evaporate with the water. This is true for anything that a water treatment plant adds, these levels are monitored and a data centers impact will be pretty constant.
Anything else that might be in the water supply that gets concentrated due to not evaporating was already there in the first place and isn't being added by anyone but us.
In short, you are probably right that you wouldn't want to drink the water coming out of the data center, but once it cycles back through the waste water treatment center it's just as drinkable as it ever was.
And yet, anecdotal evidence in itself isn't very meaningful either. It's good to affirm what you experience to be true scientifically. It's also good to be open to the possibility that it's wrong, or we might publically crucify the next person who says the world is round, (Because, you know, that never happened) burn "witches" at the stake, or go on living superstitious lives where we are scared shitless because a black cat walked our path.
My point is anecdotal evidence isn't the be all, end all. It's not even sound.
It's overkill but I guess it's to make their position clear... You can kill people for breaking and entering into your house, normally... maybe they are preparing for the worst?
Probably something about perspective. Maybe their wife was a total bitch, their family pressured them into staying with the marriage, and lots of alcohol was involved with a close friend and mistakes were made.
Also, some people have different attitudes about different things. One friend of mine ditched school. A lot. Slept through his alarm, etc. Then he got a job and that crap never happens anymore. Voila! The job matters to him and he has incentive! I think you're presuming to know too much about somebody than the evidence really justifies.
Well, this is hearsay - but my roommate works in HR. You have several criteria for hiring someone, and generally flunking one category is not a reason to not hire that person. You can probably take something like that into consideration, but it cannot be the basis of your decision.
Is that really any different than actively taking measures to prevent conception, such as birth control or condoms? You're stopping lots of potential fetuses from ever getting the chance to exist, And you do so willfully because you don't want kids. Is it different because they "might" not have formed? You can always have a miscarriage.
In the end I don't think there's much sense in worrying about what could have happened, particularly if that outcome isn't acceptable to you.
I can't imagine it's really wise to take a disastrous situation and make it worse. How are you going to avoid thousands of bits of space debris when it all has random orbits?
One of my coworkers had an intestinal problem requiring surgery. Her mistake was not even getting the healthcare provided by the contractor employer... but anyway, she wasn't fired - she had to quit. She made a bit too much money to qualify to have the operation covered and her life was at risk if she didn't get it.
In her defense - the insurance provided by the employer is crap, so she's probably better off.. but I haven't seen her since, so I don't even know if she's alive.
Those student loans have interest rates so low you can get SAVINGS accounts that make more interest! Who cares if you have to pay it back if inflation is (or was...) 5% when your loans are 3% ?
Sorry, everyone I know who has student loans never tries to pay them off because it isn't worth it. They make the minimum payment and invest the money elsewhere.
I'll agree with that. My issues with minimum wage is pretty much that it will raise the cost of goods and services. Jack in the box doesn't need to pay a cashier 9$ a hour.. if they do than they have to raise the cost of their products which just keeps going.
Fast food is a bad example, but I honestly don't know too many businesses that pay minimum wage.. Even retail paid 8$ a hour for a starting job and you could afford to live on that. You'd just live in housing complexes that are subsidized for the poor and couldn't afford a car payment.
It has seemed crazy and backwards to you that any of us would even consider having high minimum wages, good unemployment benefits, strong unionised workforces, public health, free education and so on. Such things are apparently "socialist", which to many Americans (especially of the right wing bent) really means a combination of "communist" and "totalitarian".
While I agree that anything that appears socialist is automatically deemed bad by a significant portion of our population..
I just wanted to point out that we actually have a decent chunk of what you said on the list - and have for a while. 1) Minimum wage has been planned to make an increase for at least the last year, if not two or more. Personally I do not agree with it but whatever, off topic. 2) Unemployment benefits are out there, and they are nowhere near what your job was - but they are there. If things get really bad there's welfare. 3) Unions are popular, just depends on the industry and the area. IT isn't one of those - but things like elevator repair are. 4) Public Health - while there is currently no such thing as a Public healthcare system like Canada and Europe have, You won't be denied treatment because you can't pay for it. You might, however, have to quit your job if you don't make enough or the employment benefits are woefully inadequate... 5) There are plenty of grants and loans out there that most people qualify for. I don't think financing an education is really a problem.
I was given stock options for a company several years back that vested over a period of time. I never bought them but when they decided to sell most of the stock to another company (With a vested interest in how it was run) they chose to do so by buying back our options (half of them, anyway) at the current estimated stock value. Basically they took the current stock estimated values, subtracted the value at the time of the stock options offer, and made a pay out bi-anually for whatever had been vested until that point. While I didn't get much more than a few grand, it was free money. This isn't a very likely scenario either, and the payout I did get was taxed as additional income. Still, stock doesn't necessarily have to be worth nothing...
Breeds themselves are already pretty genetically controlled to have tendencies one way or another. My personal objection has more to do with how many are euthanized because people wont adopt them... It doesn't make much sense to clone a dog when so many good dogs will die because there's no place for them to live.
I don't know about where you live, but in Phoenix they have these sensors above most traffic lights that are sensitive to emergency vehicle lights (or something.) Guess what they do? They change the light to allow emergency traffic through. I guess if you really want to get to your destination unimpeded by other traffic you could build your own road. Or you could just use emergency services in an emergency.
I realize that the internet isn't a society funded project but why is everyone so concerned with "getting whats theirs" at everyone else's expense anyway? Because that IS what we're talking about here. Not Cox having the ultimate network that is impossible to saturate - because we know there are applications that will use whatever is possibly available. Consider the alternatives here.
1) Lower bandwidth caps for the same price 2) Much higher prices to pay for massive infrastructure upgrades and higher risk deployment investments. 3) A pay for use service that heavily charges for usage above a certain limit. 4) Enforced monthly bandwidth caps (Which cox does have - and at least for me, do not enforce)
In scenario 1 I would be negatively impacted. Why? I use my internet more heavily after hours for downloading and uploading. I would be limited all the time because of peak usage trends.
In scenario 2 I would be negatively impacted because I would have to pay a hell of a lot more than I do now despite my low network impact during said peak times (IE - when it is a problem)
In scenario 3 I would be negatively impacted because I would get charged out the ASS for bandwidth usage because I use my connection during non peak times. While it does probably cost more, it doesn't interfere with anyone else and it doesn't require massive network upgrades like you're demanding either.
In scenario 4 I might well be limited to only using my connection for work and no file transfers, because I work from home. I have to be available to transfer large files every now and then because sometimes it's required.
In all of the above scenarios, i bet they apply to most other people too. Heavy file transfers during peak usage are already going to be slowed down - I don't think you'll notice much difference if the routers shuffle packet priorities in the buffer because cox has a pretty outstanding network already. other downloads are usually on a "start it and forget it" basis. You can seed your crap overnight - it doesn't matter that much.
Whatever. I'm done trolling this post. Those that get it already get it. those that don't wont. and those that don't give a fuck have bigger problems.
Throttle is probably a bad term to use anyway. If this works like any other QOS service I've ever read about - packets are just shuffled around in the queue. yes - the effect is some things will take a bit longer to be delivered - but it's on a totally different playing field than sending commands to close connections or limiting the bandwidth for protocols to flat amounts because its "peak time" or just doing it all the time. Your bandwidth intensive applications will still be getting whatever is available - it just wont be at the expense of time sensitive stuff.
I did an install a long time ago because I needed an outlet put in my bedroom, and they sent out a contractor for that business too. He was nice enough not to run the cd, and instead called tech support to register the mac address of the modem.
I have a good feeling the tech support guy told him to put in the install disk too, because at one point in the conversation the tech responded by saying "Yea, I don't think this guy would really appreciate me installing this software on his computer."
Since then I haven't had to do much to get service, or pay any install fee. I've also only moved my service. (At the time, it was covered as part of the install too, so I didn't pay anything then either.) The only exception was when I ordered phone service.. They sent a guy out to do the install for that and actually wouldn't let me do it myself. He had to test and certify the line. I suspect this has to do with 911 service and making sure it works.
and imo, I don't mind bandwidth throttling as long as it isn't arbitrarily limiting. You get what is available. By this I mean web traffic and voip SHOULD take priority over someone downloading porn or wares with bittorrent, or anything. The network should also be built to a reasonable capacity - and I guess this just removes your ability to notice such weaknesses - I get that too. But telling an isp not to use QOS is kinda silly. I know I use it on my own network. Typically traffic that requires fast response times is not bandwidth intensive, and services that do require a lot of bandwidth don't need response time. You really wont notice qos affecting bittorrent or downloads over background noise but I guarantee you everyone else who uses responsive applications notices you when traffic reaches peak levels.
Slashdot Mirror
I never understood why one would want to have the tabs save when you close the browser. Perhaps someone could enlighten me? maybe provide a few cases where this might actually be useful?
Having a bunch of tabs when you start up the browser usually means things take longer to load, which slows me down when I only want to browse one page. Additionally when closing a browser, I close it because I'm done with whatever's in it. I think the main difference is usage. I use firefox windows as a sort of divider in addition to tabs. If I search for one thing, I'll have a FF window open and it'll contain all the tabs related to this, and another window with whatever else I'm doing. it seems like you don't.
I would certainly be open to that idea ...
I assume that when he watches movies about assassination, leading assaults, war, his talk of "That's the best job in the world, I wish I could do that" is bullshit.
He was part of the initial invasion force of the Marines, so I have to assume that if anyone saw action - it would have been him. While he was out there he claimed the whole experience sucked, one of his squad members decided to taste brain, etc.
A few years later he wants to go again. His job sucks, but it pays good.
He is well on his way to a degree (Wants to get in law enforcement) and has a girlfriend and they are serious.
He joins the national guard.
Yet he volunteers (several times) to go back out there.
I can't tell you his motivation other than what he tells me, but for someone who thought going out to Iraq in the invasion force sucked.
Even if I assume most of this is bullshit, and he's really never seen action, he's already gotten all the positive benefits of serving - what sane person would want to do it again knowing he risks his life or quality there of?
Well, there are always people like a friend of mine:
Who volunteered for deployment AGAIN, and is now disappointed that he isn't shooting people.
Who was part of the initial invasion force.
Who was probably changed by his experiences and now feels civilian life is boring and dull.
Oh well, I wonder if he'll still not regret it if he loses a limb or something ..
Because nothing will be in that water that wasn't already in there from the treatment center, except maybe some extra copper if they are using copper heatpipes or something. There's nothing additional to treat, and nothing to be any more harmful on reintroduction than it was already. If it's something they add, it's something they monitor. The only things that would accumulate from halving and reintroducing the water into the system is stuff they would add, and thus monitor.
Essentially, in the scenario listed by the post I was replying to:
Water with chemicals x y and z is provided by the water center.
The water evaporates, leaving concentrated doses of say, x and y, but z evaporates.
Water with high doses of x and y are undrinkable.
I say, it doesn't matter. Since x, y, and z are monitored.
Highly concentrated water will be introduced into the water, and will be tested for. The dosage will thus be adjusted accordingly. Those random chemicals you're referring to are irrelevant because they aren't arbitrarily added by the water being processed at a waste water treatment center. Therefore, they aren't going to be any more concentrated than they would have been before. If anything, they are added by us pissing whatever drugs we've taken into our toilets. (which water from a data center is unlikely to have any more of than it did already.)
You can't even really complain about the frequency of testing because the load of the data center is going to be pretty constant. Consistent levels of chloramine, in my example, will be returned to the treatment center. (Btw, chloramine is Chlorine and Ammonia, and is used in place of chlorine to prevent bad stuff from growing in the water.) This stuff is used because it is more stable than chlorine and will /not/ evaporate. It will be stuff like this that survives the return trip into the water system at concentrated levels.
Maybe I am missing something about waste water treatment, and what chemicals are involved, but meh.
On the other hand, when this water gets re-processed, the facility needs to add that much less chemicals to treat the water in order to maintain chloramine levels. If they use chlorine, though - that will evaporate with the water. This is true for anything that a water treatment plant adds, these levels are monitored and a data centers impact will be pretty constant.
Anything else that might be in the water supply that gets concentrated due to not evaporating was already there in the first place and isn't being added by anyone but us.
In short, you are probably right that you wouldn't want to drink the water coming out of the data center, but once it cycles back through the waste water treatment center it's just as drinkable as it ever was.
And yet, anecdotal evidence in itself isn't very meaningful either. It's good to affirm what you experience to be true scientifically. It's also good to be open to the possibility that it's wrong, or we might publically crucify the next person who says the world is round, (Because, you know, that never happened) burn "witches" at the stake, or go on living superstitious lives where we are scared shitless because a black cat walked our path.
My point is anecdotal evidence isn't the be all, end all. It's not even sound.
I must assume that by consciousness, you mean memory? or the ability to associate said pain with something and therefore avoid it?
It's overkill ... ... maybe they are preparing for the worst?
but I guess it's to make their position clear
You can kill people for breaking and entering into your house, normally
Honestly I'm afraid of heights.
Putting me in a 3000lb machine and then driving onto something like that with a bunch of others? NO THANKS!
(not that this is real, but i wouldn't get on it even if it was structurally sound enough for 30 cars!)
If real television companies did this, I'd watch it with advertisements too. ...
But none of this specialized player and a day (or week) late bullshit
Probably something about perspective. Maybe their wife was a total bitch, their family pressured them into staying with the marriage, and lots of alcohol was involved with a close friend and mistakes were made.
Also, some people have different attitudes about different things. One friend of mine ditched school. A lot. Slept through his alarm, etc.
Then he got a job and that crap never happens anymore. Voila! The job matters to him and he has incentive! I think you're presuming to know too much about somebody than the evidence really justifies.
Well, this is hearsay - but my roommate works in HR.
You have several criteria for hiring someone, and generally flunking one category is not a reason to not hire that person.
You can probably take something like that into consideration, but it cannot be the basis of your decision.
Is that really any different than actively taking measures to prevent conception, such as birth control or condoms?
You're stopping lots of potential fetuses from ever getting the chance to exist, And you do so willfully because you don't want kids.
Is it different because they "might" not have formed? You can always have a miscarriage.
In the end I don't think there's much sense in worrying about what could have happened, particularly if that outcome isn't acceptable to you.
I can't imagine it's really wise to take a disastrous situation and make it worse. How are you going to avoid thousands of bits of space debris when it all has random orbits?
Don't you get paid for life once you serve a term of presidency? Unless you get Impeached or something anyway.
One of my coworkers had an intestinal problem requiring surgery. Her mistake was not even getting the healthcare provided by the contractor employer ... but anyway, she wasn't fired - she had to quit. She made a bit too much money to qualify to have the operation covered and her life was at risk if she didn't get it.
In her defense - the insurance provided by the employer is crap, so she's probably better off .. but I haven't seen her since, so I don't even know if she's alive.
Those student loans have interest rates so low you can get SAVINGS accounts that make more interest! Who cares if you have to pay it back if inflation is (or was ...) 5% when your loans are 3% ?
Sorry, everyone I know who has student loans never tries to pay them off because it isn't worth it. They make the minimum payment and invest the money elsewhere.
I'll agree with that. My issues with minimum wage is pretty much that it will raise the cost of goods and services. Jack in the box doesn't need to pay a cashier 9$ a hour .. if they do than they have to raise the cost of their products which just keeps going.
Fast food is a bad example, but I honestly don't know too many businesses that pay minimum wage .. Even retail paid 8$ a hour for a starting job and you could afford to live on that. You'd just live in housing complexes that are subsidized for the poor and couldn't afford a car payment.
It has seemed crazy and backwards to you that any of us would even consider having high minimum wages, good unemployment benefits, strong unionised workforces, public health, free education and so on. Such things are apparently "socialist", which to many Americans (especially of the right wing bent) really means a combination of "communist" and "totalitarian".
While I agree that anything that appears socialist is automatically deemed bad by a significant portion of our population..
I just wanted to point out that we actually have a decent chunk of what you said on the list - and have for a while. ...
1) Minimum wage has been planned to make an increase for at least the last year, if not two or more. Personally I do not agree with it but whatever, off topic.
2) Unemployment benefits are out there, and they are nowhere near what your job was - but they are there. If things get really bad there's welfare.
3) Unions are popular, just depends on the industry and the area. IT isn't one of those - but things like elevator repair are.
4) Public Health - while there is currently no such thing as a Public healthcare system like Canada and Europe have, You won't be denied treatment because you can't pay for it. You might, however, have to quit your job if you don't make enough or the employment benefits are woefully inadequate
5) There are plenty of grants and loans out there that most people qualify for. I don't think financing an education is really a problem.
well - at the time it was the best job I had come across, and a 130% increase in wages. In retrospect? I just hope I don't go back down to that...
I was given stock options for a company several years back that vested over a period of time. I never bought them but when they decided to sell most of the stock to another company (With a vested interest in how it was run) they chose to do so by buying back our options (half of them, anyway) at the current estimated stock value. Basically they took the current stock estimated values, subtracted the value at the time of the stock options offer, and made a pay out bi-anually for whatever had been vested until that point. While I didn't get much more than a few grand, it was free money. This isn't a very likely scenario either, and the payout I did get was taxed as additional income. Still, stock doesn't necessarily have to be worth nothing...
Breeds themselves are already pretty genetically controlled to have tendencies one way or another.
My personal objection has more to do with how many are euthanized because people wont adopt them... It doesn't make much sense to clone a dog when so many good dogs will die because there's no place for them to live.
I don't know about where you live, but in Phoenix they have these sensors above most traffic lights that are sensitive to emergency vehicle lights (or something.) Guess what they do? They change the light to allow emergency traffic through. I guess if you really want to get to your destination unimpeded by other traffic you could build your own road. Or you could just use emergency services in an emergency.
I realize that the internet isn't a society funded project but why is everyone so concerned with "getting whats theirs" at everyone else's expense anyway? Because that IS what we're talking about here. Not Cox having the ultimate network that is impossible to saturate - because we know there are applications that will use whatever is possibly available. Consider the alternatives here.
1) Lower bandwidth caps for the same price
2) Much higher prices to pay for massive infrastructure upgrades and higher risk deployment investments.
3) A pay for use service that heavily charges for usage above a certain limit.
4) Enforced monthly bandwidth caps (Which cox does have - and at least for me, do not enforce)
In scenario 1 I would be negatively impacted. Why? I use my internet more heavily after hours for downloading and uploading. I would be limited all the time because of peak usage trends.
In scenario 2 I would be negatively impacted because I would have to pay a hell of a lot more than I do now despite my low network impact during said peak times (IE - when it is a problem)
In scenario 3 I would be negatively impacted because I would get charged out the ASS for bandwidth usage because I use my connection during non peak times. While it does probably cost more, it doesn't interfere with anyone else and it doesn't require massive network upgrades like you're demanding either.
In scenario 4 I might well be limited to only using my connection for work and no file transfers, because I work from home. I have to be available to transfer large files every now and then because sometimes it's required.
In all of the above scenarios, i bet they apply to most other people too. Heavy file transfers during peak usage are already going to be slowed down - I don't think you'll notice much difference if the routers shuffle packet priorities in the buffer because cox has a pretty outstanding network already. other downloads are usually on a "start it and forget it" basis. You can seed your crap overnight - it doesn't matter that much.
Whatever. I'm done trolling this post. Those that get it already get it. those that don't wont. and those that don't give a fuck have bigger problems.
Throttle is probably a bad term to use anyway. If this works like any other QOS service I've ever read about - packets are just shuffled around in the queue. yes - the effect is some things will take a bit longer to be delivered - but it's on a totally different playing field than sending commands to close connections or limiting the bandwidth for protocols to flat amounts because its "peak time" or just doing it all the time. Your bandwidth intensive applications will still be getting whatever is available - it just wont be at the expense of time sensitive stuff.
I did an install a long time ago because I needed an outlet put in my bedroom, and they sent out a contractor for that business too. He was nice enough not to run the cd, and instead called tech support to register the mac address of the modem.
I have a good feeling the tech support guy told him to put in the install disk too, because at one point in the conversation the tech responded by saying "Yea, I don't think this guy would really appreciate me installing this software on his computer."
Since then I haven't had to do much to get service, or pay any install fee. I've also only moved my service. (At the time, it was covered as part of the install too, so I didn't pay anything then either.) The only exception was when I ordered phone service .. They sent a guy out to do the install for that and actually wouldn't let me do it myself. He had to test and certify the line. I suspect this has to do with 911 service and making sure it works.
and imo, I don't mind bandwidth throttling as long as it isn't arbitrarily limiting. You get what is available. By this I mean web traffic and voip SHOULD take priority over someone downloading porn or wares with bittorrent, or anything. The network should also be built to a reasonable capacity - and I guess this just removes your ability to notice such weaknesses - I get that too. But telling an isp not to use QOS is kinda silly. I know I use it on my own network. Typically traffic that requires fast response times is not bandwidth intensive, and services that do require a lot of bandwidth don't need response time. You really wont notice qos affecting bittorrent or downloads over background noise but I guarantee you everyone else who uses responsive applications notices you when traffic reaches peak levels.