Depending on how you describe it, there is no way to slow something without blocking it, even if the block is only temporary.
ITWorld says "The DoJ did not require and Comcast did not promise to not throttle or slow traffic from Netflix -- or a business customer's videoconferencing provider -- if Comcast thought it needed to do so to keep its network running to its satisfaction."
But the AP says " Comcast can't interfere with Internet video traffic flowing over its broadband network. That means that it cannot prevent its subscribers from accessing Netflix and other Web video services, or slow down traffic from these services to make them jerky, unreliable and hard to watch."
The point is that if the DOJ, or any group says "Comcast is not permitted to block Netflix" it implies that Comcast can block things. That is very important.
Big whoop. Comcast is still allowed to slow...
your...
Netflix...
stream.
Comcast doesn't have to block it to make it unwatchable.
I'm sending this from a 2004 iBook. First computer I bought was a LCII. Had to throw it out ten years later. It still worked. Bought a Bondi Blue iMac to send to college. Gave it away ten years later, still working, replaced it with a MacBook Pro. Replaced the LCII with a Power Mac G3. Had to discard it ten years later. It still worked. Where it used to sit is an eMac bought for a student. It still works, and I am looking to give it away. It was replaced by a MacBook. Bought an iMac a couple of years ago because the eMac was too slow.
Only hardware problem I ever had was in the G3, which had a loose connection inside. While it was in the shop, I bought a used Mac Plus in a thrift shop for $5. Used it to word process. When the G3 came back, I put the Mac Plus in the garage and used it to write on when all the other computers were occupied.
I have tossed or given away a lot of retail value because they just got overtaken by technology.
DuPont is not an oil company. They are a chemical company. They have lots of patents and lots of lawyers, but DuPont has always been good at making money by advancing science and technology, not suppressing it.
Oh, there's no question that a large corporation, with the resources of a Du Pont or a British Petroleum, can do both. Matter of fact, it's the companies that have large R&D investments that are most into the "suppression" business.
I see. This explains why we are still using DuPont black powder in our muskets.
DuPont is not an oil company. They are a chemical company. They have lots of patents and lots of lawyers, but DuPont has always been good at making money by advancing science and technology, not suppressing it.
But of course, lurking in the back of everyone's mind is the simple possibility that it might not be possible to pay for a non-tiered, flat-rate, uniform quality-of-service internet of sufficient capacity to deliver on-demand HD video or SIP telephone from any particular content provider in the US, independent of geography and service provider, to every terminal in the United States with flat monthly or even per-byte pricing on either end. The costs of building and maintaing the system simply don't map to consumption of the system's resources. Some parts of such a price structure are really lucrative for a network operator and some of them don't pay off for decades.
And if there were ways of doing it this way, it would require a hell of a lot more regulation than mere mandatory "Net Neutrality."
I would be with you except for one thing: the company which is delivering the content is becoming the company which makes and profits from the content. If Comcast were to say that video - from any source - was expensive, and those who wanted to send/deliver it should pay more, then maybe you would have a point. But we all know what is going to happen: NBC Universal traffic goes to the head of the queue. E!, Style, G4, Golf Channel, Versus - web traffic out of my way! Content from competitors will come along when there is an opening.
During the game, the QB is often seen reviewing formations from plays just run - as overhead photographs of the field faxed down from the team box high in the stands. That's cutting edge for the 1970s. The offensive line, whose members have the highest IQs on the team, sit on the bench while a coach yells/encourages/coaches them. With a tablet like an iPad, the staff could send down video of the previous plays with audio and onscreen comments. The linemen, running backs, ends, etc, could all get specific instructions and adjustments.
The playbook could be more than static Xs and Ox - the formations would move, the concepts could be illustrated with game footage of your team and opponents. You could show how plays are supposed to go using Madden emulations. You could show what to look for happening across the line from a field level vantage.
Players drive to the stadium to review films with their position coaches and coordinators. With a tablet, communal film viewing could be complemented by the players watching any game film any time they want.
Sports often seem to me to be behind the curve when it comes to utilizing tech. When a pitcher comes out of a baseball game and wraps his $10 million a year arm in a towel to try and keep it at the optimal temperature, I shake my head.
Adjective unctuous 1. Oily or greasy. 2. Rich, lush, intense, with layers of concentrated, soft, velvety flavor. 3. Profusely polite, especially unpleasantly so and insincerely earnest.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, there's a concept you may find interesting, that you really can't spend more than you can afford, no matter how much you want something...
Farkin' A! That's why I dropped my homeowners, my car, and my life insurance. Waste and fat trimmed from my budget.
You are demonstrating the original point that Americans don't even know what socialism means.
I know that socialists are communists and fascists. Jesus said it, and I believe it. That's all I need to know.
Both American political parties seem to be for corporations before people so both are right wing.
If this were true, the committee vote would have been unanimous instead of split along party lines.
The article goes on to say coaches will be needed for coaching, but computers are better at play calling.
But won't my defensive computer know what your offensive computer tends to call, given the situation?
Apple has kept their overpriced ipods on top largely by providing consumers with the most physically attractive product.
Translation: His mom won't buy him one.
Some person in a flashy car demanding from you in no uncertain terms to pull over? I'd say that warrants an emergency call!
Not sure if serious.
http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-fake-cop-pulls-over-woman-illinois-20110223,0,2232948.story
http://www.news.com.au/national/fake-cop-attacks-woman-driver/story-e6frfkvr-1225939259419
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/How-to-tell-a-real-police-officer-from-a-fake-one/Ts58RNrvCE2-BH6BCLYRhw.cspx
http://www.fugitive.com/archives/24676
etc.
"fake cop" "traffic stop" gets 17,000 results
Depending on how you describe it, there is no way to slow something without blocking it, even if the block is only temporary.
ITWorld says "The DoJ did not require and Comcast did not promise to not throttle or slow traffic from Netflix -- or a business customer's videoconferencing provider -- if Comcast thought it needed to do so to keep its network running to its satisfaction."
But the AP says " Comcast can't interfere with Internet video traffic flowing over its broadband network. That means that it cannot prevent its subscribers from accessing Netflix and other Web video services, or slow down traffic from these services to make them jerky, unreliable and hard to watch."
So which is it?
The point is that if the DOJ, or any group says "Comcast is not permitted to block Netflix" it implies that Comcast can block things. That is very important.
Big whoop. Comcast is still allowed to slow...
your...
Netflix...
stream.
Comcast doesn't have to block it to make it unwatchable.
I'm sending this from a 2004 iBook. First computer I bought was a LCII. Had to throw it out ten years later. It still worked. Bought a Bondi Blue iMac to send to college. Gave it away ten years later, still working, replaced it with a MacBook Pro. Replaced the LCII with a Power Mac G3. Had to discard it ten years later. It still worked. Where it used to sit is an eMac bought for a student. It still works, and I am looking to give it away. It was replaced by a MacBook. Bought an iMac a couple of years ago because the eMac was too slow.
Only hardware problem I ever had was in the G3, which had a loose connection inside. While it was in the shop, I bought a used Mac Plus in a thrift shop for $5. Used it to word process. When the G3 came back, I put the Mac Plus in the garage and used it to write on when all the other computers were occupied.
I have tossed or given away a lot of retail value because they just got overtaken by technology.
I guess the humor in my original post on this thread was lost somewhere.
It was low-quality humor, obviously culled from a humor farm - and thus downgraded.
He is working on Einstein's Tonsorial Problem:
http://www.math.indiana.edu/people/profile.phtml?id=nhkatz
You Americans never seemed to have a problem with the guy who designed the missiles that were actually used on us.
--A Londoner
Widows and orphans who owe their large pensions, etc.
Kip Russell said he would fix it up for me.
Now we can recover all those expensive life jackets.
DuPont is not an oil company. They are a chemical company. They have lots of patents and lots of lawyers, but DuPont has always been good at making money by advancing science and technology, not suppressing it.
Oh, there's no question that a large corporation, with the resources of a Du Pont or a British Petroleum, can do both. Matter of fact, it's the companies that have large R&D investments that are most into the "suppression" business.
I see. This explains why we are still using DuPont black powder in our muskets.
DuPont is not an oil company. They are a chemical company. They have lots of patents and lots of lawyers, but DuPont has always been good at making money by advancing science and technology, not suppressing it.
You laugh.
But of course, lurking in the back of everyone's mind is the simple possibility that it might not be possible to pay for a non-tiered, flat-rate, uniform quality-of-service internet of sufficient capacity to deliver on-demand HD video or SIP telephone from any particular content provider in the US, independent of geography and service provider, to every terminal in the United States with flat monthly or even per-byte pricing on either end. The costs of building and maintaing the system simply don't map to consumption of the system's resources. Some parts of such a price structure are really lucrative for a network operator and some of them don't pay off for decades.
And if there were ways of doing it this way, it would require a hell of a lot more regulation than mere mandatory "Net Neutrality."
I would be with you except for one thing: the company which is delivering the content is becoming the company which makes and profits from the content. If Comcast were to say that video - from any source - was expensive, and those who wanted to send/deliver it should pay more, then maybe you would have a point. But we all know what is going to happen: NBC Universal traffic goes to the head of the queue. E!, Style, G4, Golf Channel, Versus - web traffic out of my way! Content from competitors will come along when there is an opening.
Duh.
Did anyone think differently?
*ring*
Yes, I thought there was a huge double-pole throw switch mounted on the wall over Mubarek's desk labeled "Internet. On. Off."
... really nothing more than a bunch of clever software along with a database of trivia.
Why do you hate Ken Jennings?
Hey! That chair almost hit me!
The majority of atheists are left-leaning because the right doesn't really play nice with atheism.
The majority of atheists are progressive/liberal because that is where the evidence takes you.
CNN said one thing....
time passed
Fox New said the opposite.
No, Glen Beck said one thing.
18 months passed.
Glen Beck said the opposite.
Convert them to unmanned drones. Save money by removing the life support systems.
During the game, the QB is often seen reviewing formations from plays just run - as overhead photographs of the field faxed down from the team box high in the stands. That's cutting edge for the 1970s. The offensive line, whose members have the highest IQs on the team, sit on the bench while a coach yells/encourages/coaches them. With a tablet like an iPad, the staff could send down video of the previous plays with audio and onscreen comments. The linemen, running backs, ends, etc, could all get specific instructions and adjustments.
The playbook could be more than static Xs and Ox - the formations would move, the concepts could be illustrated with game footage of your team and opponents. You could show how plays are supposed to go using Madden emulations. You could show what to look for happening across the line from a field level vantage.
Players drive to the stadium to review films with their position coaches and coordinators. With a tablet, communal film viewing could be complemented by the players watching any game film any time they want.
Sports often seem to me to be behind the curve when it comes to utilizing tech. When a pitcher comes out of a baseball game and wraps his $10 million a year arm in a towel to try and keep it at the optimal temperature, I shake my head.
I read UnXis as "unctuous":
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unctuous
Adjective
unctuous
1. Oily or greasy.
2. Rich, lush, intense, with layers of concentrated, soft, velvety flavor.
3. Profusely polite, especially unpleasantly so and insincerely earnest.