You mean T-Mobile's spokesbimbo is lying to us???? If you can't trust hot chicks who can you trust?
Strippers!!! They're known the world over for there honesty and forthright conduct!
Well, if nothing else when it comes to a stripper you know exactly where you stand. The same can't be said for the sociopaths that run our cellular companies. Or most of corporate America, for that matter.
There's a bit better coverage, but they're just going to move to a provider that'll throttle their connections at 5Gb or maybe 10Gb and then bill them for the privilege at $10 per every Gb over. The ONLY reason I use Verizon is that they've got more consistent coverage for data and Voice than the others based off of personal experience.
I dunno... I've had a really good experience with T-Mobile so far. Just lucky, I guess.
The way you're using 4G and 3G is kind of confusing. The numbers themselves are rather broad, and technologies differ between GSM and CDMA. You probably want to refer to things like EDGE (3G)/HSPA+ (3.5G) (for GSM networks) and EVDO (for CDMA networks). And Verizon isn't doing anything wrong, inherently, the speed and lack of simultaneous data and voice is part of EVDO's standard and you'll notice that Sprint too has the same problems.
I'll stick with T-Mobile, for now. Maybe not for much longer, since I understand that Sprint is about to buy them.
At this moment the "Speed Test" app from speedtest.net shows 1173kbps down and 196kbps up.
All other aspects of the Atrix are great. I love it vs my old iPhone 3GS.
I benchmarked my T-Mobile G2 (using a USB-tethered laptop) at 7 mbit/sec. That's not too shabby, regardless of how many "G"s you have attached to it.
As it happens, I've been paying the extra five bucks a month for the T-Mobile's "4G" service. However, I'm going to repeat that test, because the SIM card in my G2 died Saturday, and the tech who replaced it told me, "Sir, the card you had only allowed 3G service: the new one will allow you to connect at the faster rate." Funny... the thing is so fast as it is that I never even noticed.
Of course this is an opinion: this matter should be decided with democratic and direct expression of The People.
The popular will is an idiot, which is why direct democracy so rarely works out on any kind of scale. For decades now, "The People" have failed miserably at making rational decisions regarding nuclear or any other important issue facing this country. There are many reasons for that, but it's true nevertheless. Ignorance is not bliss, although many parade their lack of knowledge, and feel free to make judgments about topics of which they know nothing and refuse to educate themselves.
What needs to be done is a correct risk-benefit analysis. Get the facts first, and your course of action often becomes clear (well, it will if you're intellectually honest and willing to accept that life cannot ever be risk-free.) Factor in the guaranteed death and misery that occur every year due to (for example) the burning of megatons of radioactive coal for power, and the issue of nuclear energy is not so black and white.
Does there exist many subs in the world which you can hook up the the grid and provide electricity from? I guess their reactors provide much less power than a reactor on land but I think I remember reading about such capability before. Maybe it could work for hospitals and other emergency units at least?
Any kind of portable nuclear power plant so to speak:)
U.S. nuclear-powered capital ships can do that, I understand. I don't know how much power they can produce for shore facilities. Does anyone?
It's cleaner because all the waste is concentrated - in solid form, to boot - and there aren't any carbon emissions beyond those resulting from the construction of the plant.
Now you, like me, might not feel that CO2 should count as unclean when it comes to these sort of statistics but most people apparently disagree.
Yes, and when comparing it to coal, you have to understand that coal fields are naturally radioactive. Burn it, and those radioactive substances (thorium, for one) are now air pollution.
Just curious, but why does the government get to selectively warn some sites in advance (like Google) about a possible infringement, and other sites are quickly shut down without any due process or recourse?
Because in one case, they have a massive, well-funded legal department with which to contend. Can you imagine the uproar if the DoJ tried to seize Google.com? Whereas with the other, issuing a pre-emptive, punitive strike to seize all assets makes the individual unable to defend himself (regardless of the fact that he is, in effect, being punished for a crime only allegedly committed.) Very efficient though: you just manufactured a helpless victim.
At the moment, Google might not be doing much that you strenuously object to with your data. But SCO (Caldera) was a "nice company" before Darl McBride. It is a bad idea to put yourself at the mercy of a company's "niceness". Especially one like Google that has made a number of gaffes recently but still seems to believe it "does no evil" - over time the definition seems to be creeping from "we must only do good things" to "if we're doing it, it must be ok." The time to rein things in and ensure there are appropriate balances is before the company goes SCO on you.
Never appeal to a man's "better nature". He may not have one. -- Robert A. Heinlein
You're right - everyone notices advertisements. That's why I have a massive HOSTS list, and use AdBlock Plus, along with several other tools. I don't see very many advertisements on the internet. And, because I'm such a disagreeable asshole, those advertisements that I DO SEE help to ensure that I DO NOT buy those products. So, yes, you're right, Mr. Anonymous Coward.
Yep. For some unaccountable reason, some people feel that not viewing advertisements is, somehow, amoral. Or they worry that the Web will no longer be "free" if we don't view the advertising that is pushed on us. Oh well.
Me, on the other hand, feel the same way about it as I do telemarketing: I'm paying for the communications medium, I get to decide how it's used. Now, if a particular Web site wants to get testy about that and deny me access if I don't view its ads.... well, that's okay too. You'll notice, however, that very few sites do that.
Woah. Over reaction, dude. I never said Win7 didn't 'just work'. I said I got a BSOD recently. And I installed Linux on a different machine. That's a lot of hate you got stored up there. Glad you got some of it out. I'm not a microsoft hater. I just decided it wasn't for me anymore. I'm liking Linux a lot more than I did Windows 7. My preference, not yours. I don't push my OS on other people, I was just saying Windows still gives the BSOD. Great story though, bro.
Yes... you don't usually see people defend Microsoft with such vehemence. I use Windows XP, Windows 7 and Linux (various flavors) daily, and I will say this: Windows 7 has come a long way. It's a resource hog of Biblical proportions, true, but stability-wise it's not bad on decent hardware. Not bad at all, and the GUI has some pluses. I still prefer my Linux/Unix machines for a lot of things, and I don't imagine my servers are likely to ever run Windows.
But you're right: Windows still BSODs now and then. Not often, but it does. As a developer I've managed to take down my Win 7 box on several occasions, but then again, I'm not a typical user.
Google is smart. They're playing the nice little guy who give everything for free. Even slashdotters love them because it's free. People fail to see the evil behind all that seemingly nice stuff. All the data mining, selling to advertisers, everything. This is why I prefer to pay for software like Microsoft's - their business model is honest and I get what I pay for. Nothing extra, nothing hidden.
Nuts to that. Google is what it is, but claiming that Microsoft is less evil is... well, hilarious, really. If you're going to pick a counterexample I can't imagine a more ridiculous one than that. And please let me know when you start paying for the likes of Hotmail and Bing, will you? "Honest Steve" would like to talk to you about about the billing arrangements.
if, after a natural disaster, an energy technology has the possibility of redoubling on that disaster, that technology is NOT safe.
You're right. Let's get rid of oil refineries and fossil-fuel based power plants, they tend to explode when damaged.
Absolutely correct. And Japan has already suffered some major refinery explosions, and I will bet that the damage ultimately done to Japan and it's people by those conflagrations and similar industrial disasters will far exceed what happens from their nuclear facilities.
But it's the nukes that get all the media attention.
Chernobyl killing 4,000 people, 60,000 with thyroid cancer, 600,000 others effected in some other way.
Oh, please. Spare me your ridiculous barbs, Major. It's disingenuous, at best, to compare a Russian-designed graphite-moderated power reactor (i.e., a large pile of flammable material stuffed with fuel rods) to reactors built by well, pretty much anyone that actually knows how to build them. And you're also not taking into account decades of research and development in reactor technology. Stop knee-jerking, and start learning. One of the first things you should research is the general toxicity and inherent radioactivity of coal (Thorium, among other things) which results in cancers and other illnesses. There are far worse ways to generate electric power than nuclear energy, and we use them every day.
You do realize that as a society, we've probably will choose a) keep going until oil becomes scarce enough that we stop using it as fuel for cars. Then we'll switch over to something very similar, and keep going.
Nuclear on the other hand when something goes wrong thers no putting it off and everyone dies slow painfull deaths and the land is useless for centerys.
Why would that happen? It hasn't happened in Chernobyl, for example. The land is already being used as a wildlife refuge and there weren't many deaths in the first place.
It's interesting, really. I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to remember when "atomic power" was looked upon by the public as a safe, clean alternative to fossil fuels. It was the stupid, stupid, antitechnology, antinuclear proponents of the sixties and seventies that managed to frighten people to such a degree that we still haven't recovered from their insidious tactics. That's especially disturbing considering the advances in reactor and fuel-cycle technology that's come about since then. Remember the old Atomic Energy Commission? It's mandate was to promote the use of nuclear power. It was replaced with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, whose only real purpose is to delay the licensing and construction of new power reactors indefinitely, thereby causing more death and suffering as we continue to burn megatons of coal instead. Personally, I'd rather we had more nuclear power plants in operation, so we could use less coal and breathe less Thorium dust.
It is not so much oil itself as much America is quite dependant on oil to grow and deliver food. The entire population is very addicted to that stuff. Several hours without and the withdrawal pangs will set in. Go several days without a fix and you will die.
Sounds awful. Of course, a good portion of the rest of the world is "addicted" (which is a stupid word to apply here anyway, we don't shoot up with the stuff or suck the vapors through our petroleum bongs) to the food which we grow using petroleum-based fertilizers and distribute worldwide with petroleum-powered cargo ships. Go a few weeks without a food fix and you will die.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a god who made a claim about a researcher. Can you even sue Zeus? Under whose jurisdiction does he fall?
You can only sue Zeus if he says it's okay. Lesser gods are more accountable.
Like it or not that is actually our system working.
Sounds more like the sound of our system malfunctioning. Hopefully the appeals court will have more on the ball.
It's like defining a particular fastener as "a length of material with a pointy end."
You just hit the nail on the head!
I dunno ... sounds screwy to me.
You mean T-Mobile's spokesbimbo is lying to us???? If you can't trust hot chicks who can you trust?
Strippers!!! They're known the world over for there honesty and forthright conduct!
Well, if nothing else when it comes to a stripper you know exactly where you stand. The same can't be said for the sociopaths that run our cellular companies. Or most of corporate America, for that matter.
Heh... You're kidding, right?
There's a bit better coverage, but they're just going to move to a provider that'll throttle their connections at 5Gb or maybe 10Gb and then bill them for the privilege at $10 per every Gb over. The ONLY reason I use Verizon is that they've got more consistent coverage for data and Voice than the others based off of personal experience.
I dunno ... I've had a really good experience with T-Mobile so far. Just lucky, I guess.
The way you're using 4G and 3G is kind of confusing. The numbers themselves are rather broad, and technologies differ between GSM and CDMA. You probably want to refer to things like EDGE (3G)/HSPA+ (3.5G) (for GSM networks) and EVDO (for CDMA networks). And Verizon isn't doing anything wrong, inherently, the speed and lack of simultaneous data and voice is part of EVDO's standard and you'll notice that Sprint too has the same problems.
I'll stick with T-Mobile, for now. Maybe not for much longer, since I understand that Sprint is about to buy them.
Where the speeds just taper off to uselessness without telling you why.
Is it really that hard to run a decent network? I mean, really?
... the Internet speed stinks on ice.
At this moment the "Speed Test" app from speedtest.net shows 1173kbps down and 196kbps up.
All other aspects of the Atrix are great. I love it vs my old iPhone 3GS.
I benchmarked my T-Mobile G2 (using a USB-tethered laptop) at 7 mbit/sec. That's not too shabby, regardless of how many "G"s you have attached to it.
... the thing is so fast as it is that I never even noticed.
As it happens, I've been paying the extra five bucks a month for the T-Mobile's "4G" service. However, I'm going to repeat that test, because the SIM card in my G2 died Saturday, and the tech who replaced it told me, "Sir, the card you had only allowed 3G service: the new one will allow you to connect at the faster rate." Funny
I think most whores would take exception to being compared to politicians. I mean, at least SOME whores still have souls.
And if you pay a hooker, you're the only one who gets screwed. Pay a politician, and everybody else gets fucked.
Of course this is an opinion: this matter should be decided with democratic and direct expression of The People.
The popular will is an idiot, which is why direct democracy so rarely works out on any kind of scale. For decades now, "The People" have failed miserably at making rational decisions regarding nuclear or any other important issue facing this country. There are many reasons for that, but it's true nevertheless. Ignorance is not bliss, although many parade their lack of knowledge, and feel free to make judgments about topics of which they know nothing and refuse to educate themselves.
What needs to be done is a correct risk-benefit analysis. Get the facts first, and your course of action often becomes clear (well, it will if you're intellectually honest and willing to accept that life cannot ever be risk-free.) Factor in the guaranteed death and misery that occur every year due to (for example) the burning of megatons of radioactive coal for power, and the issue of nuclear energy is not so black and white.
a double-reverse straw man.
Ha ha ha. Thanks for that.
Does there exist many subs in the world which you can hook up the the grid and provide electricity from? I guess their reactors provide much less power than a reactor on land but I think I remember reading about such capability before. Maybe it could work for hospitals and other emergency units at least?
Any kind of portable nuclear power plant so to speak :)
U.S. nuclear-powered capital ships can do that, I understand. I don't know how much power they can produce for shore facilities. Does anyone?
Sorry if that sounds eilitist, but its true. Just because radiation is involved does not mean it is evil.
Because it it did, the Sun would be the most evil entity in the Solar System.
It's cleaner because all the waste is concentrated - in solid form, to boot - and there aren't any carbon emissions beyond those resulting from the construction of the plant.
Now you, like me, might not feel that CO2 should count as unclean when it comes to these sort of statistics but most people apparently disagree.
Yes, and when comparing it to coal, you have to understand that coal fields are naturally radioactive. Burn it, and those radioactive substances (thorium, for one) are now air pollution.
Just curious, but why does the government get to selectively warn some sites in advance (like Google) about a possible infringement, and other sites are quickly shut down without any due process or recourse?
Because in one case, they have a massive, well-funded legal department with which to contend. Can you imagine the uproar if the DoJ tried to seize Google.com? Whereas with the other, issuing a pre-emptive, punitive strike to seize all assets makes the individual unable to defend himself (regardless of the fact that he is, in effect, being punished for a crime only allegedly committed.) Very efficient though: you just manufactured a helpless victim.
the only other option is to hire a fool and do the opposite of what s/he says.
Which is still better than our current policy of hiring shipfuls of fools, and then blindly following them off the edge of the Earth.
I think their notions of anti-trust are based on an economic theory consisting of fairness and pixie dust
Would that be the soy-based product typically used for server maintenance?
At the moment, Google might not be doing much that you strenuously object to with your data. But SCO (Caldera) was a "nice company" before Darl McBride. It is a bad idea to put yourself at the mercy of a company's "niceness". Especially one like Google that has made a number of gaffes recently but still seems to believe it "does no evil" - over time the definition seems to be creeping from "we must only do good things" to "if we're doing it, it must be ok." The time to rein things in and ensure there are appropriate balances is before the company goes SCO on you.
Never appeal to a man's "better nature". He may not have one. -- Robert A. Heinlein
You're right - everyone notices advertisements. That's why I have a massive HOSTS list, and use AdBlock Plus, along with several other tools. I don't see very many advertisements on the internet. And, because I'm such a disagreeable asshole, those advertisements that I DO SEE help to ensure that I DO NOT buy those products. So, yes, you're right, Mr. Anonymous Coward.
Yep. For some unaccountable reason, some people feel that not viewing advertisements is, somehow, amoral. Or they worry that the Web will no longer be "free" if we don't view the advertising that is pushed on us. Oh well.
.... well, that's okay too. You'll notice, however, that very few sites do that.
Me, on the other hand, feel the same way about it as I do telemarketing: I'm paying for the communications medium, I get to decide how it's used. Now, if a particular Web site wants to get testy about that and deny me access if I don't view its ads
Woah. Over reaction, dude. I never said Win7 didn't 'just work'. I said I got a BSOD recently. And I installed Linux on a different machine. That's a lot of hate you got stored up there. Glad you got some of it out. I'm not a microsoft hater. I just decided it wasn't for me anymore. I'm liking Linux a lot more than I did Windows 7. My preference, not yours. I don't push my OS on other people, I was just saying Windows still gives the BSOD. Great story though, bro.
Yes ... you don't usually see people defend Microsoft with such vehemence. I use Windows XP, Windows 7 and Linux (various flavors) daily, and I will say this: Windows 7 has come a long way. It's a resource hog of Biblical proportions, true, but stability-wise it's not bad on decent hardware. Not bad at all, and the GUI has some pluses. I still prefer my Linux/Unix machines for a lot of things, and I don't imagine my servers are likely to ever run Windows.
But you're right: Windows still BSODs now and then. Not often, but it does. As a developer I've managed to take down my Win 7 box on several occasions, but then again, I'm not a typical user.
Google is smart. They're playing the nice little guy who give everything for free. Even slashdotters love them because it's free. People fail to see the evil behind all that seemingly nice stuff. All the data mining, selling to advertisers, everything. This is why I prefer to pay for software like Microsoft's - their business model is honest and I get what I pay for. Nothing extra, nothing hidden.
Nuts to that. Google is what it is, but claiming that Microsoft is less evil is ... well, hilarious, really. If you're going to pick a counterexample I can't imagine a more ridiculous one than that. And please let me know when you start paying for the likes of Hotmail and Bing, will you? "Honest Steve" would like to talk to you about about the billing arrangements.
Nice shill, anyway.
You're right. Let's get rid of oil refineries and fossil-fuel based power plants, they tend to explode when damaged.
Absolutely correct. And Japan has already suffered some major refinery explosions, and I will bet that the damage ultimately done to Japan and it's people by those conflagrations and similar industrial disasters will far exceed what happens from their nuclear facilities.
But it's the nukes that get all the media attention.
Chernobyl killing 4,000 people, 60,000 with thyroid cancer, 600,000 others effected in some other way.
Oh, please. Spare me your ridiculous barbs, Major. It's disingenuous, at best, to compare a Russian-designed graphite-moderated power reactor (i.e., a large pile of flammable material stuffed with fuel rods) to reactors built by well, pretty much anyone that actually knows how to build them. And you're also not taking into account decades of research and development in reactor technology. Stop knee-jerking, and start learning. One of the first things you should research is the general toxicity and inherent radioactivity of coal (Thorium, among other things) which results in cancers and other illnesses. There are far worse ways to generate electric power than nuclear energy, and we use them every day.
You do realize that as a society, we've probably will choose a) keep going until oil becomes scarce enough that we stop using it as fuel for cars. Then we'll switch over to something very similar, and keep going.
Nuclear on the other hand when something goes wrong thers no putting it off and everyone dies slow painfull deaths and the land is useless for centerys.
Why would that happen? It hasn't happened in Chernobyl, for example. The land is already being used as a wildlife refuge and there weren't many deaths in the first place.
It's interesting, really. I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to remember when "atomic power" was looked upon by the public as a safe, clean alternative to fossil fuels. It was the stupid, stupid, antitechnology, antinuclear proponents of the sixties and seventies that managed to frighten people to such a degree that we still haven't recovered from their insidious tactics. That's especially disturbing considering the advances in reactor and fuel-cycle technology that's come about since then. Remember the old Atomic Energy Commission? It's mandate was to promote the use of nuclear power. It was replaced with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, whose only real purpose is to delay the licensing and construction of new power reactors indefinitely, thereby causing more death and suffering as we continue to burn megatons of coal instead. Personally, I'd rather we had more nuclear power plants in operation, so we could use less coal and breathe less Thorium dust.
It is not so much oil itself as much America is quite dependant on oil to grow and deliver food. The entire population is very addicted to that stuff. Several hours without and the withdrawal pangs will set in. Go several days without a fix and you will die.
Sounds awful. Of course, a good portion of the rest of the world is "addicted" (which is a stupid word to apply here anyway, we don't shoot up with the stuff or suck the vapors through our petroleum bongs) to the food which we grow using petroleum-based fertilizers and distribute worldwide with petroleum-powered cargo ships. Go a few weeks without a food fix and you will die.