I know this is an unpopular viewpoint, but I'm beginning to think that Tokamak is a way to funnel tax dollars into researcher's pockets. If we ever do achieve practical commercial fusion, we may look back at the Tokamak like modern pilots look back at the manned ornithopter attempts of the 1800's.
But if the Tokamak ever is made to be commercially viable, we're probably talking about a few gigantic power generators, which would mean we probably need to do something about that decades-old power line infrastructure.
We all hope not. And past performance is not an indication of future results. (Which is a good thing, in this case.) But the past several decades have pretty much beaten all the enthusiasm out of many of us.
Practical fusion would be a complete game changer in many different areas. Cheap enough, it would not only pretty much kill the oil industry, but may even make the "green" energy industry redundant. (Solar, wind, tides, geothermal.) Dirt cheap electricity, commonly available, would make electric vehicles a lot more interesting. Cheap centralized power would probably reverse the current tendency to diversify power and make upgrading our aging electric power infrastructure a priority. And so forth. Fusion is a very disruptive technology.
Maybe that's the real reason we don't have it yet.
True. This is not WinCE, or Win8 RT. It's "real" Windows. Nevertheless, it *is* Windows 8.1... And anytime Microsoft tries to shoehorn one of their operating systems into the "netbook" (or "chromebook" whatever the concept has morphed into) space, the process is usually (a) yes it work but it's really slow and the battery life is crap, (b) the next generation is heftier to be equal to the demands of the operating system, (c) eventually the product grows in capabilities and price to the point where it's really just a low end laptop. If MS is lucky, you then get (d), the market is muddied to the point where it becomes unprofitable and goes away.
It's the hardware equivalent of embrace, extend, extinguish.
Doesn't this pretty much eliminate any usage of a camera equipped drone anywhere in the city? How could you avoid filming bystanders if you were filming anything using a drone -- a high school football game, for instance.
I understand the reasons for the law -- we don't want people intentionally flying drones in areas where privacy would be expected -- and I include a back patio in that definition, if the owner has made a reasonable effort to make it a private space. But I'm concerned that a too-broad interpretation would ban all uses where there is any chance of unintentionally filming a stranger.
Photographers deal with this issue frequently. It's generally understood that if I take a photo of a street or a building, I don't need signed releases from every passer-by. But if I put my camera on a pole and raise it over the fence in someone else's enclosed back yard, I could get arrested (and would deserve to). Now that I think about it, wouldn't privacy issues regarding drones be covered by existing law?
After all, we know it's from MS so it's going to be buggy and crappy.
That's actually a good point. What they really need is to disassociate the products from the parent company in some fashion. Maybe call the group of internet enabled apps...xfinity... nope, that's taken. And that wouldn't follow the apparently required theme of naming things generic. They probably can't call it "the internet". Hm. I got nuthin.
Well obviously, any plan to rename IE would eventually fall through when they realized the damn thing still sucks and then they'd just be gaining ANOTHER product under their brand that is universally recognized as a steaming pile of crap.;P
Right, but hasn't that been pretty much the way its gone for decades now?
I don't have a reference handy, (would have to ask a certain member of my family who would know all about this) but I seem to remember that the banning of hemp had nothing to do with THC. That was only an excuse. The real reason was that hemp was competing too well with some other part of the textile industry.
That's going to bug me. I'll have to do research tonight and get more details.
Actually when I was in high school electronics class we had great fun charging up big capacitors then tossing them to our classmates yelling "Here, catch!". A few of us were smart enough not to catch.
In my high school electronics class the instructor announced on the first day of class that anyone charging up a capacitor and tossing it to someone else as a joke would automatically fail the class. (Apparently this was not his first rodeo.)
Up to that point, we'd never even realized this was possible. That Halloween was fun.
So the state (of which I am an unhappy citizen) can use environmental laws to harass the shit of out walmart, chevron and and other business not in favor, but simply be waived for favored industries ? In the name of money ? I hope someone sues the state
Yeah, it's called picking the winners and losers. Someone always is suing the state for something or other, but I don't expect much movement on this issue. The state (most states, I suspect) will continue to favor the hip and trendy businesses at the expense of businesses they don't like.
But you can't blame Musk for considering the deal. Because hey, free money.
My perception is that libraries carry books because they are books, and not for trendy or financial reasons. If I can't find an obscure title online, (admittedly, this happens less and less often) I can often find it at the library.
Mind you, I've never done business with Qwest. The point is, the person in question did have options other than Comcast that he had never considered. Maybe they weren't viable options. He doesn't know, because he's never checked.
> I can get comcast internet for a total monthly bill of $65. I can get the same internet service and their basic cable for a total monthly bill of $45. I view this as being paid $20/month to warehouse one of their cable boxes
Comcast made the same argument to me, but my current ISP charges just over $40 a month for internet only. So the $45 Comcast price only looks good when compared to other Comcast prices. Assuming, as you implied, that you don't watch basic cable. (I don't either.) I think the deal is meant to suck you in -- you get basic cable as a loss leader, and then you upgrade so you can watch Game of Thrones, and they've got you.
Last time I did bussines with Comcast all I wanted was internet, but it was actually $7.00 cheeper to get basic TV + internet than internet alone.
But was that the ongoing price or a "limited time" price? I think the business model assumes that you'll take the really sweet six month deal, and then you'll just grit your teeth and pay the ongoing, much higher price because it's too inconvenient to change.
Some of the problems people are having is that Comcast is making it difficult or impossible to drop the service. Having them drop you might be a relief.
They offer (some speed) and Qwest only offers (some slightly slower speed)." "Ok, do you really understand what those speeds mean? How much faster is your pr0n going to download at, for instance, 15 Mbps vs 30 Mbps? In real minutes." "30 is twice as fast." "That's only the top peak speed possible from the connection. The actual speed can and does vary wildly. Besides, the speed at the head end of the service you're accessing is much more significant.
I think you're wrong. I started with Qwest, switch to Comcast out of frustration, moved house to a different neighborhood in Seattle, switched to Qwest out of frustration, and switched back to Comcast out of frustration.
Qwest does reliably deliver the "slower than comcast" part of its promise. The headline slower peak speeds are indicative of overall slower peak speeds. Qwest slows things down uniformly and irritatingly no matter what is at the head end of the service.
But how slow is slow? For years I used Speakeasy at 3 Mb/sec rather than deal with Comcast. And then fiber became available, and I was perfectly happy with 15 Mb/sec for a few more years. Most recently, the fiber provider (not Verizon) bumped the download speed to 25, and I'm told that soon I'll be seeing 25/25 at no extra cost. Comcast advertises a faster speed, but why do I care? Past 15, only geeks will notice. Hell, past 3, Ma and Pa Kettle won't really notice.
"Comcrap screwed me again. I couldn't get them to reverse this charge."
"Why do you do business with them anyway? You regularly call them things like 'comcrap' and are complaining about them constantly. Why not move to another carrier?"
"I'd love to, but they're the only game in my part of town."
(after a few minutes of research) "No they aren't, you have Qwest Fiber available in your area. Why not switch to that?"
"Well, Comcrap is faster. They offer (some speed) and Qwest only offers (some slightly slower speed)."
"Ok, do you really understand what those speeds mean? How much faster is your pr0n going to download at, for instance, 15 Mbps vs 30 Mbps? In real minutes."
"30 is twice as fast."
"That's only the top peak speed possible from the connection. The actual speed can and does vary wildly. Besides, the speed at the head end of the service you're accessing is much more significant."
"I've had comcrap for six years."
"And you've HATED every minute of it! You haven't called the company by its real name in all of that time! You're regularly telling me how they promise a discount and then don't give it to you, or charge you for stuff you haven't ordered, and how you can't get any charges reversed. What the hell?"
"I got a good price on the bundle."
"You never answer your home phone! And you only watch stuff you've illegally downloaded."
"I don't like commercials."
"Ok..." (deep breath) "So, let's summarize. Of the three services you're currently paying for, you only commonly use one of them (internet), so despite the great deal you got on the bundle, any cost you're paying over and above internet is A WASTE OF MONEY. And the company regularly busts your chops. Yet you stay with them. Are you an abused spouse?"
...the conversation doesn't go well from there.
This is only slightly paraphrased from a real conversation. The conclusion I've drawn from speaking to comcast subscribers is that some stick with it under the impression that they're "getting a deal", and some because they have been sold on the idea that "it's the only game in town", but I suspect that some people just like to have something to complain about.
And, recording or not, they'll soon just start ditching "troublemaking" customers, like the hospitals do.
So, let's all be troublemaking customers. Let's make it as unpleasant and difficult as possible for Comcast to do business. We will be doing the world a service.
"This post was written on a Microsoft Surface Pro 3" By a MS Fanboy that gets paid for posting 'good' reviews
Or perhaps, this was written by a MS employee on the free Surface Pro 3 issued to same, with the understanding that it be used to increase visibility of the platform. Or face the dungeons below Redmond.
Trying something and not following through. In the meantime they proved once again that you can't be market leader in a new segment by killing the existing market leader and wearing the skin you've peeled off it.
That's a vivid metaphor, and describes the situation precisely.:-) I may use that.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because trial can set precedent and the city *really* doesn't want that.
I know this is an unpopular viewpoint, but I'm beginning to think that Tokamak is a way to funnel tax dollars into researcher's pockets. If we ever do achieve practical commercial fusion, we may look back at the Tokamak like modern pilots look back at the manned ornithopter attempts of the 1800's.
But if the Tokamak ever is made to be commercially viable, we're probably talking about a few gigantic power generators, which would mean we probably need to do something about that decades-old power line infrastructure.
We all hope not. And past performance is not an indication of future results. (Which is a good thing, in this case.) But the past several decades have pretty much beaten all the enthusiasm out of many of us.
Practical fusion would be a complete game changer in many different areas. Cheap enough, it would not only pretty much kill the oil industry, but may even make the "green" energy industry redundant. (Solar, wind, tides, geothermal.) Dirt cheap electricity, commonly available, would make electric vehicles a lot more interesting. Cheap centralized power would probably reverse the current tendency to diversify power and make upgrading our aging electric power infrastructure a priority. And so forth. Fusion is a very disruptive technology.
Maybe that's the real reason we don't have it yet.
True. This is not WinCE, or Win8 RT. It's "real" Windows. Nevertheless, it *is* Windows 8.1... And anytime Microsoft tries to shoehorn one of their operating systems into the "netbook" (or "chromebook" whatever the concept has morphed into) space, the process is usually (a) yes it work but it's really slow and the battery life is crap, (b) the next generation is heftier to be equal to the demands of the operating system, (c) eventually the product grows in capabilities and price to the point where it's really just a low end laptop. If MS is lucky, you then get (d), the market is muddied to the point where it becomes unprofitable and goes away.
It's the hardware equivalent of embrace, extend, extinguish.
Doesn't this pretty much eliminate any usage of a camera equipped drone anywhere in the city? How could you avoid filming bystanders if you were filming anything using a drone -- a high school football game, for instance.
I understand the reasons for the law -- we don't want people intentionally flying drones in areas where privacy would be expected -- and I include a back patio in that definition, if the owner has made a reasonable effort to make it a private space. But I'm concerned that a too-broad interpretation would ban all uses where there is any chance of unintentionally filming a stranger.
Photographers deal with this issue frequently. It's generally understood that if I take a photo of a street or a building, I don't need signed releases from every passer-by. But if I put my camera on a pole and raise it over the fence in someone else's enclosed back yard, I could get arrested (and would deserve to). Now that I think about it, wouldn't privacy issues regarding drones be covered by existing law?
Wait, didn't I hear something similar back in the seventies? Hope this works out better.
After all, we know it's from MS so it's going to be buggy and crappy.
That's actually a good point. What they really need is to disassociate the products from the parent company in some fashion. Maybe call the group of internet enabled apps ...xfinity... nope, that's taken. And that wouldn't follow the apparently required theme of naming things generic. They probably can't call it "the internet". Hm. I got nuthin.
Well obviously, any plan to rename IE would eventually fall through when they realized the damn thing still sucks and then they'd just be gaining ANOTHER product under their brand that is universally recognized as a steaming pile of crap. ;P
Right, but hasn't that been pretty much the way its gone for decades now?
Because that tactic worked so well for Comcast. (Xfinity.)
I don't have a reference handy, (would have to ask a certain member of my family who would know all about this) but I seem to remember that the banning of hemp had nothing to do with THC. That was only an excuse. The real reason was that hemp was competing too well with some other part of the textile industry.
That's going to bug me. I'll have to do research tonight and get more details.
Actually when I was in high school electronics class we had great fun charging up big capacitors then tossing them to our classmates yelling "Here, catch!". A few of us were smart enough not to catch.
In my high school electronics class the instructor announced on the first day of class that anyone charging up a capacitor and tossing it to someone else as a joke would automatically fail the class. (Apparently this was not his first rodeo.)
Up to that point, we'd never even realized this was possible. That Halloween was fun.
Experimenter bias?
So the state (of which I am an unhappy citizen) can use environmental laws to harass the shit of out walmart, chevron and and other business not in favor, but simply be waived for favored industries ? In the name of money ? I hope someone sues the state
Yeah, it's called picking the winners and losers. Someone always is suing the state for something or other, but I don't expect much movement on this issue. The state (most states, I suspect) will continue to favor the hip and trendy businesses at the expense of businesses they don't like.
But you can't blame Musk for considering the deal. Because hey, free money.
My perception is that libraries carry books because they are books, and not for trendy or financial reasons. If I can't find an obscure title online, (admittedly, this happens less and less often) I can often find it at the library.
Ob. youtube.
Mind you, I've never done business with Qwest. The point is, the person in question did have options other than Comcast that he had never considered. Maybe they weren't viable options. He doesn't know, because he's never checked.
> I can get comcast internet for a total monthly bill of $65. I can get the same internet service and their basic cable for a total monthly bill of $45. I view this as being paid $20/month to warehouse one of their cable boxes
Comcast made the same argument to me, but my current ISP charges just over $40 a month for internet only. So the $45 Comcast price only looks good when compared to other Comcast prices. Assuming, as you implied, that you don't watch basic cable. (I don't either.) I think the deal is meant to suck you in -- you get basic cable as a loss leader, and then you upgrade so you can watch Game of Thrones, and they've got you.
Last time I did bussines with Comcast all I wanted was internet, but it was actually $7.00 cheeper to get basic TV + internet than internet alone.
But was that the ongoing price or a "limited time" price? I think the business model assumes that you'll take the really sweet six month deal, and then you'll just grit your teeth and pay the ongoing, much higher price because it's too inconvenient to change.
Some of the problems people are having is that Comcast is making it difficult or impossible to drop the service. Having them drop you might be a relief.
They offer (some speed) and Qwest only offers (some slightly slower speed)." "Ok, do you really understand what those speeds mean? How much faster is your pr0n going to download at, for instance, 15 Mbps vs 30 Mbps? In real minutes." "30 is twice as fast." "That's only the top peak speed possible from the connection. The actual speed can and does vary wildly. Besides, the speed at the head end of the service you're accessing is much more significant.
I think you're wrong. I started with Qwest, switch to Comcast out of frustration, moved house to a different neighborhood in Seattle, switched to Qwest out of frustration, and switched back to Comcast out of frustration.
Qwest does reliably deliver the "slower than comcast" part of its promise. The headline slower peak speeds are indicative of overall slower peak speeds. Qwest slows things down uniformly and irritatingly no matter what is at the head end of the service.
But how slow is slow? For years I used Speakeasy at 3 Mb/sec rather than deal with Comcast. And then fiber became available, and I was perfectly happy with 15 Mb/sec for a few more years. Most recently, the fiber provider (not Verizon) bumped the download speed to 25, and I'm told that soon I'll be seeing 25/25 at no extra cost. Comcast advertises a faster speed, but why do I care? Past 15, only geeks will notice. Hell, past 3, Ma and Pa Kettle won't really notice.
"I got a good price on the bundle."
"You never answer your home phone!"
I hope you don't mind, but could you explain the significance of whether one answers one's home phone in this dialogue?
Because the bundle includes the home phone.
"Comcrap screwed me again. I couldn't get them to reverse this charge."
"Why do you do business with them anyway? You regularly call them things like 'comcrap' and are complaining about them constantly. Why not move to another carrier?"
"I'd love to, but they're the only game in my part of town."
(after a few minutes of research) "No they aren't, you have Qwest Fiber available in your area. Why not switch to that?"
"Well, Comcrap is faster. They offer (some speed) and Qwest only offers (some slightly slower speed)."
"Ok, do you really understand what those speeds mean? How much faster is your pr0n going to download at, for instance, 15 Mbps vs 30 Mbps? In real minutes."
"30 is twice as fast."
"That's only the top peak speed possible from the connection. The actual speed can and does vary wildly. Besides, the speed at the head end of the service you're accessing is much more significant."
"I've had comcrap for six years."
"And you've HATED every minute of it! You haven't called the company by its real name in all of that time! You're regularly telling me how they promise a discount and then don't give it to you, or charge you for stuff you haven't ordered, and how you can't get any charges reversed. What the hell?"
"I got a good price on the bundle."
"You never answer your home phone! And you only watch stuff you've illegally downloaded."
"I don't like commercials."
"Ok..." (deep breath) "So, let's summarize. Of the three services you're currently paying for, you only commonly use one of them (internet), so despite the great deal you got on the bundle, any cost you're paying over and above internet is A WASTE OF MONEY. And the company regularly busts your chops. Yet you stay with them. Are you an abused spouse?"
This is only slightly paraphrased from a real conversation. The conclusion I've drawn from speaking to comcast subscribers is that some stick with it under the impression that they're "getting a deal", and some because they have been sold on the idea that "it's the only game in town", but I suspect that some people just like to have something to complain about.
And, recording or not, they'll soon just start ditching "troublemaking" customers, like the hospitals do.
So, let's all be troublemaking customers. Let's make it as unpleasant and difficult as possible for Comcast to do business. We will be doing the world a service.
"This post was written on a Microsoft Surface Pro 3"
By a MS Fanboy that gets paid for posting 'good' reviews
Or perhaps, this was written by a MS employee on the free Surface Pro 3 issued to same, with the understanding that it be used to increase visibility of the platform. Or face the dungeons below Redmond.
Trying something and not following through. In the meantime they proved once again that you can't be market leader in a new segment by killing the existing market leader and wearing the skin you've peeled off it.
That's a vivid metaphor, and describes the situation precisely. :-) I may use that.