Sure, so you could randomly limit people's bandwidth. Oh, the network is busy right now and you're historically a heavy user so we're going to throttle you. Because THAT goes over so well, and is definitely fair and cannot be abused.
A monthly transfer cap is a fair way of doing it. It's not arbitrary and you know in advance how much you're going to get (and can complain if you don't get it). If a company wanted to be really fair maybe they could give you some bandwidth after you'd hit your limit, as it was available, but once you were past the cap you're the first in line to get throttled.
Depending on where the traffic is going and what the transit agreement is, capacity might not be as free as you think either. The ISP may need to pay transit fees.
You missed the "according to relativity" on the end of the sentence I guess?
Einstein's theories are a remarkable achievement but they're not quite how you describe. If Einstein hadn't been around there were several other people working along similar lines. It might have taken a little longer, but nowhere near a century.
Take the bandwidth of a network (measured in bits per second) and multiply by some customary amount of time (say a month). See that number? That's the maximum number of bits you can squeeze through the network in that time period. It's finite. Limited. It really is bandwidth, just measured over a different time period, but we like to call it an amount because the time period is so long we don't think of it as a rate.
Exactly. The problem is not with caps, the problem is implying there are no caps. Everybody (in the US) seems to get mad when a company announces they're imposing a cap, but all they're doing is being honest about something that was always true.
My internet plan is advertised with a speed and an amount of data, both per month. I think it's overpriced, but it is honest.
You're obviously not a scientist. If you make a high profile claim that gets shot down, you definitely lose credibility. Maybe not publicly, but certainly in the scientific community. And guess who reviews your grant applications?
The number Google gives you isn't quite right, since it's the distance assuming a vacuum. A signal in a copper wire will propagate slower than that, depending on, among other things, how well the wire is insulated and the frequency of the signal.
"but not too long ago scientists were 100% certain that the world was flat too."
No they weren't. The ancient Greeks knew very well the Earth was round, and even calculated it's circumference. The common man five hundred years ago MIGHT have thought the Earth was flat (that's far from certain), but even then it was commonly known by educated people that it was round.
Neutrinos going faster than light aren't impossible. Just very improbable. If the result really is true then we've discovered something extraordinary.
"That's a fallacy. Just because he's been crazy in the past doesn't necessarily mean he's being crazing now. Argue about the idea not the person."
It's a logical fallacy, which means it's technically a fallacy in a formal logic system. The fact that he's been crazy in the past doesn't PROVE he's crazy now. However, being crazy in the past is significantly correlated with being crazy now, so the likelihood he is crazy now is increased by his being crazy in the past.
As for the "idea," his basic idea is summed up by the sentence "Of course they're wrong, but I can't tell you exactly why." The quoted paragraph, for example, is ridiculous - you can take a noisy but unbiased measurement and improve the margin of error by averaging over many measurements (which is of course what they did). As for the rest of it, he brings up a lot of things that suggest faster than light particles are theoretically problematic - of course they are. I didn't see any part where he actually addresses the experiment itself, although I did start skimming a bit after reading a page long random story about a pigeon shitting in his pants.
"Because this is claimed to be a 6-sigma signal, their total error margin of the timing should be 10 nanoseconds (3 meters over c); recall that the distance is 732 km. I leave it to the reader to decide whether this accuracy is plausible given the messy birth and detection of the particles."
Ah, somebody doesn't understand what standard error of the mean is.
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same. The speed of light in a material is slower than the speed of light in a vacuum and is quite possible to exceed.
That one is easy to address. Neutrinos have non-zero mass. If that mass is negative then going faster than the speed of light would be just fine. Causality would still be a problem of course, along with a few other things.
"Caps are arbitrary limitations for the purpose of stealing as much profit as possible from consumers;"
That's ridiculous. Capacity will always be finite and so there will always be some kind of cap. In the past connections were so slow that you could get away without an actual transfer cap. Now, not so much. All they're doing is putting an actual number on the cap instead of selectively enforcing some ill defined limit.
If you think you can set up your own cellular network in competition, go for it. "A network of cheap transceivers" isn't cheap when you need to cover a whole city, and neither is a city to city link. And what are you going to do when someone comes along and maxes out your network 24-7? I guess you could impose some sort of limits....
If we cease to continue creating wealth then you won't care at all about how much money you have. So yes, it could happen, sometime in the future, but the possibility shouldn't affect your investment strategy since if it does happen ANY investment, except maybe land, seeds and overwhelming firepower to defend it, will be worthless.
The market as a whole has gone up, long term, since there have been stock markets. Not just in the US and not just in the 20th century. Certainly not individual shares.
In the future it's possible that might change. But if it does, as you point out, you've got a lot more serious things to worry about than how much imaginary money you have.
What they NEED is a captain who's willing to tell the owners to STFU, screw your schedule, you put me in charge for a reason and we're going to slow down because there are icebergs around.
You are FUD spewing, yes. The stock market is more than just high frequency trading. On average, over long time periods, it tends to be the best investment. On a slightly shorter time scale, but still in the multiple years, you can make money by investing in good companies, and by taking advantage of the mistakes of people who rely too much on computerized trading and Wall Street mumbo jumbo.
There are already apps that let you scan barcodes and look up prices. It's not disruptive. Nobody cares. Except maybe the store owner, but if he cares it's because he's trying to get away with charging you more.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, so you could randomly limit people's bandwidth. Oh, the network is busy right now and you're historically a heavy user so we're going to throttle you. Because THAT goes over so well, and is definitely fair and cannot be abused.
A monthly transfer cap is a fair way of doing it. It's not arbitrary and you know in advance how much you're going to get (and can complain if you don't get it). If a company wanted to be really fair maybe they could give you some bandwidth after you'd hit your limit, as it was available, but once you were past the cap you're the first in line to get throttled.
Depending on where the traffic is going and what the transit agreement is, capacity might not be as free as you think either. The ISP may need to pay transit fees.
You missed the "according to relativity" on the end of the sentence I guess?
Einstein's theories are a remarkable achievement but they're not quite how you describe. If Einstein hadn't been around there were several other people working along similar lines. It might have taken a little longer, but nowhere near a century.
Take the bandwidth of a network (measured in bits per second) and multiply by some customary amount of time (say a month). See that number? That's the maximum number of bits you can squeeze through the network in that time period. It's finite. Limited. It really is bandwidth, just measured over a different time period, but we like to call it an amount because the time period is so long we don't think of it as a rate.
However you want to think of it, it is limited.
Exactly. The problem is not with caps, the problem is implying there are no caps. Everybody (in the US) seems to get mad when a company announces they're imposing a cap, but all they're doing is being honest about something that was always true.
My internet plan is advertised with a speed and an amount of data, both per month. I think it's overpriced, but it is honest.
You're obviously not a scientist. If you make a high profile claim that gets shot down, you definitely lose credibility. Maybe not publicly, but certainly in the scientific community. And guess who reviews your grant applications?
The number Google gives you isn't quite right, since it's the distance assuming a vacuum. A signal in a copper wire will propagate slower than that, depending on, among other things, how well the wire is insulated and the frequency of the signal.
Still not a couple centimetres for a 60 ns delay.
"but not too long ago scientists were 100% certain that the world was flat too."
No they weren't. The ancient Greeks knew very well the Earth was round, and even calculated it's circumference. The common man five hundred years ago MIGHT have thought the Earth was flat (that's far from certain), but even then it was commonly known by educated people that it was round.
Neutrinos going faster than light aren't impossible. Just very improbable. If the result really is true then we've discovered something extraordinary.
"That's a fallacy. Just because he's been crazy in the past doesn't necessarily mean he's being crazing now. Argue about the idea not the person."
It's a logical fallacy, which means it's technically a fallacy in a formal logic system. The fact that he's been crazy in the past doesn't PROVE he's crazy now. However, being crazy in the past is significantly correlated with being crazy now, so the likelihood he is crazy now is increased by his being crazy in the past.
As for the "idea," his basic idea is summed up by the sentence "Of course they're wrong, but I can't tell you exactly why." The quoted paragraph, for example, is ridiculous - you can take a noisy but unbiased measurement and improve the margin of error by averaging over many measurements (which is of course what they did). As for the rest of it, he brings up a lot of things that suggest faster than light particles are theoretically problematic - of course they are. I didn't see any part where he actually addresses the experiment itself, although I did start skimming a bit after reading a page long random story about a pigeon shitting in his pants.
"Because this is claimed to be a 6-sigma signal, their total error margin of the timing should be 10 nanoseconds (3 meters over c); recall that the distance is 732 km. I leave it to the reader to decide whether this accuracy is plausible given the messy birth and detection of the particles."
Ah, somebody doesn't understand what standard error of the mean is.
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same. The speed of light in a material is slower than the speed of light in a vacuum and is quite possible to exceed.
"Unfortunately, neutrinos have a non-zero mass."
That one is easy to address. Neutrinos have non-zero mass. If that mass is negative then going faster than the speed of light would be just fine. Causality would still be a problem of course, along with a few other things.
You can just look at the equations and figure it out for yourself. That's the great thing about science.
Nothing, anywhere, should be able to go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, from anyone's point of view, according to relativity.
"Caps are arbitrary limitations for the purpose of stealing as much profit as possible from consumers;"
That's ridiculous. Capacity will always be finite and so there will always be some kind of cap. In the past connections were so slow that you could get away without an actual transfer cap. Now, not so much. All they're doing is putting an actual number on the cap instead of selectively enforcing some ill defined limit.
If you think you can set up your own cellular network in competition, go for it. "A network of cheap transceivers" isn't cheap when you need to cover a whole city, and neither is a city to city link. And what are you going to do when someone comes along and maxes out your network 24-7? I guess you could impose some sort of limits....
If we cease to continue creating wealth then you won't care at all about how much money you have. So yes, it could happen, sometime in the future, but the possibility shouldn't affect your investment strategy since if it does happen ANY investment, except maybe land, seeds and overwhelming firepower to defend it, will be worthless.
The market as a whole has gone up, long term, since there have been stock markets. Not just in the US and not just in the 20th century. Certainly not individual shares.
In the future it's possible that might change. But if it does, as you point out, you've got a lot more serious things to worry about than how much imaginary money you have.
They'd be the owners.
What they NEED is a captain who's willing to tell the owners to STFU, screw your schedule, you put me in charge for a reason and we're going to slow down because there are icebergs around.
Except the market isn't random. It goes up, long term.
Yes, high frequency trading is all about price manipulation and superstition. Long term trading isn't.
You're missing the forest because you're staring too much at the pine needles.
You are FUD spewing, yes. The stock market is more than just high frequency trading. On average, over long time periods, it tends to be the best investment. On a slightly shorter time scale, but still in the multiple years, you can make money by investing in good companies, and by taking advantage of the mistakes of people who rely too much on computerized trading and Wall Street mumbo jumbo.
He's been basically running the company for a while now. Through the iPad 2 launch anyway. And it's not the first time he's taken over.
If the ship keeps hitting icebergs, you might want to look at the captain.
ALL of your food is genetically modified, whether it says "organic" on the package or not. The only difference is how it got modified.
Most people consider reducing LDL cholesterol a GOOD thing.
And when someone finds evidence that "alternative" medicine actually works it becomes "mainstream" medicine, "western" medicine or just "medicine."
There's some awesome logic. You know that everything you've ever come in contact with is a chemical, right?
There are already apps that let you scan barcodes and look up prices. It's not disruptive. Nobody cares. Except maybe the store owner, but if he cares it's because he's trying to get away with charging you more.