They not only pull in more subscribers, they've transformed the "computer gaming" activity almost singlehandedly from nerdville to nearly-mainstream, particularly with 20-somethings and under.
Hello. Consoles would like to have a word with you outside.
How do you know that the government doesn't already snoop Google's data?
Well, my point was kinda that I believe they do. However, afaik, Google isn't snooping all of AT&T's traffic. Yet. Of course, maybe they are. Who knows what our masters are doing behind our backs? Did I say masters? I meant overlords. Er, authorities. Er, domestic existence coordinators. Whatever the new term is that makes it sound less bad.
That it's only AT&T doing the looking...for now. Wait until the gov't gets Google on it. Then we're all doomed. We'll actually have to pay for music, movies, and pr0n again. The humanity!
Who the hell starts playing games at 21? Well, I suppose if the whiny crybabies get their way, we'll receive the 'privilege' of playing games at age 21. Kids can buy crack, heroin, guns, whatever they want on the street, but hey, at least they aren't playing WoW.
Unfortunately, the frog-boiling thing is a bad analogy. See, the frog doesn't just sit in the water. When it gets too hot, the frog jumps out. We're not nearly as smart (you can read that as 'survival-minded' if you get offended easily) as the average frog. It's a shame, really.
It wont stop as long as these corporations can keep buying the laws. So until the system is changed, we are stuck with it. And just think, as more countries move towards some form of fascism, they will get to share in the grief as well.
FTFY. Remember, gov't collusion with big business, buying (and usually writing) of legislation by large companies, and mountains of regulations designed to thwart entrepeneurs is NOT capitalism.
Well, except that there seems to be some disagreement about whether representational republics fall under the umbrella of democracy. I contest that they do not. A true democracy would be along the lines of 'one person, one vote, on every single issue or decision' and that simply isn't what we have here. The founding fathers of our country were not too keen on democracy. Here is a link which illustrates this point: Link. We may have devolved into a democracy, but that is in NO WAY what was intended. Democracy is mob rule.
The definition in your.sig is wrong. I believe you're thinking of "Keynesian Economics". That said, libertarianism does require more personal responsibility than the average 'civilized' citizen has anymore. Which is sad, really. We've abdicated most of our personal responsibility to the government... the irony is that it would have been difficult for us to have mucked it up quite so badly on our own. At least, if some people did, THEY would have to suffer the consequences of it, instead of everyone having to suffer.
No it isn't. It's SUPPOSED to be a Constitutional Republic. Not that I'd call it one of those anymore, either. 'Democracy' is a meme spread around by those in power to imply that normal people have some sort of control of what goes on. De Tocqueville defined democracy as the "tyranny of the masses" and he was quite correct. Most people are 'for' democracy when they are of the majority opinion, but when the majority is against something they hold dear, well then 'those damned bureacrats' did it again!
Due to religion, people forget what the main issues are.
I would say rather that religion is only *one* of the distractions used to keep people's eyes away from the main issues. Sports, "celebrity news", TV, movies, the consumer culture, emphasis on working longer hours...those are some of the others.
I agree with most of what you said, so please don't take this as me trying to contradict you. I'm just clarifying a few points, although I certainly understand that you may not agree with those clarifications.
This only works on drives which are failing from stiction (static friction). This usually occurs when heat causes parts of the hard drive to expand and rub against one another. Freezing the drive can shrink them enough to allow you to get data off the drives. However, due to the large size of modern hard drives, it is possible that you will not have enough time to transfer the full contents of a drive before it heats up again. This used to work really well, and in the field, it was a crowd-pleaser.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with it. In your analogy, there's only one lane. Your solution is to micromanage each vehicle. My solution would be to add more lanes. However, I'd be ok with your solution if it were stated up front, but it isn't. Especially in universities. They're kind of a special case, because most universities require some sort of fee for network access, so you really don't have much choice in what you get. However, this prioritization is happening in retail ISPs also, and if a retail ISP promises 'unlimited access', it does not seem reasonable to place limits on that access. But they're still raking in the cash promising 'unlimited access'. Now, I understand that there will ALWAYS be a limiting factor. However, I'm not the one marketing ISPs. It's like selling an "all-you-can-eat for 10 bucks" platter, then refusing to serve seconds by saying, "Well, one plate is all you CAN eat for 10 bucks."
I understand oversubscription just fine. However, as another poster already said, I don't care. It isn't my job to help you sustain your business model. If you cannot provide the service you are selling, don't sell it. If you're going to give me internet access, give me internet access. If you're going to give me a limited connection, tell me about it up front. If you want my money, I want my internet access.
Yes, of course I did. Now, ask me if I care. Actually, you shouldn't ask me that. It starts out harmless enough, but soon you'll be asking me much worse things. It's inevitable!
Either that or get their own Internet access and get off the school's network.
They should not use the access they're paying for, but instead should go pay another internet provider also? That sounds fair. And by fair, I mean utterly stupid. It's not like you get to choose not to pay your inet fee - most schools either require it or bury it in other fees anyway, so even if you DO pay for your own inet access, you're just double or triple-paying. How about when you pay for internet access, you get to... I know this is crazy... access the internet? If it's too slow for Mark Cuban, he's welcome to run his own, faster network and put whatever policies he wants in to place to govern it. He has enough money. But he, you, and everyone else can stay the fuck out of my internet usage, thank you.
Am I the only one who was disappointed to learn that this article was about BRIDGES?!?! I was hoping to read about an Incan Evel Knievel, not some stupid bridge. Lame.
Well, I suppose my problem with it is that, as I think you meant, we don't know what makes people better off. How will we be able to tell, in the absence of historical data, that the new 'incentive structure' really benefits society? It's pretty clear that the current system of giant record companies at one time DID benefit quite a lot of people, by providing access to recording equipment that few individuals could afford, by providing promotional resources that were not available to most, etc. However, did that really benefit society? It's hard to tell, because we have no idea what society would look like in its absence. I agree with your aims, but I am hard-pressed to determine exactly how we'd go about setting up an incentive structure that benefits society as a whole. Of course, there are a lot of people out there who are smarter than I am, so I'm not saying it's impossible.
Well, Gene Simmons is right, sorta, when he points out the core issue:
The only reason why gold is expensive is because we all agree that it is. There's no real use for it, except we all agree and abide by the idea that gold costs a certain amount per ounce. As soon as you give people the choice to deviate from it, you have chaos and anarchy.
No, he isn't. Gold has utility beyond holding arbitrary worth. It's responsible for jacking up the price of certain cables by 1000% for its presence on connectors. It's also GREAT for plating things with. Plus, it's really dense so it's good for throwing at stuff, too. Plus it's really useful for making idols out of. AND you can look really cool when you get a gold coin and you bite it to make sure it's real. So I have to take exception to Mr. Simmons' words here and to your endorsement of them. Since I can't disagree with Mr. Simmons to his face, I'll take it out on you.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and don't bother. Consoles ARE computers.
They not only pull in more subscribers, they've transformed the "computer gaming" activity almost singlehandedly from nerdville to nearly-mainstream, particularly with 20-somethings and under.
Hello. Consoles would like to have a word with you outside.
Apparently, you were not an English teacher.
Hi, fuck you, fuck irc, and fuck the '90s.
kdieplsthxbye.
How do you know that the government doesn't already snoop Google's data?
Well, my point was kinda that I believe they do. However, afaik, Google isn't snooping all of AT&T's traffic. Yet. Of course, maybe they are. Who knows what our masters are doing behind our backs? Did I say masters? I meant overlords. Er, authorities. Er, domestic existence coordinators. Whatever the new term is that makes it sound less bad.
That it's only AT&T doing the looking...for now. Wait until the gov't gets Google on it. Then we're all doomed. We'll actually have to pay for music, movies, and pr0n again. The humanity!
Who the hell starts playing games at 21?
Well, I suppose if the whiny crybabies get their way, we'll receive the 'privilege' of playing games at age 21. Kids can buy crack, heroin, guns, whatever they want on the street, but hey, at least they aren't playing WoW.
Unfortunately, the frog-boiling thing is a bad analogy. See, the frog doesn't just sit in the water. When it gets too hot, the frog jumps out. We're not nearly as smart (you can read that as 'survival-minded' if you get offended easily) as the average frog. It's a shame, really.
Not all rectangles are squares, I'll give you that, but all squares ARE rectangles.
It wont stop as long as these corporations can keep buying the laws. So until the system is changed, we are stuck with it. And just think, as more countries move towards some form of fascism, they will get to share in the grief as well.
FTFY. Remember, gov't collusion with big business, buying (and usually writing) of legislation by large companies, and mountains of regulations designed to thwart entrepeneurs is NOT capitalism.
Well, except that there seems to be some disagreement about whether representational republics fall under the umbrella of democracy. I contest that they do not. A true democracy would be along the lines of 'one person, one vote, on every single issue or decision' and that simply isn't what we have here. The founding fathers of our country were not too keen on democracy.
Here is a link which illustrates this point: Link.
We may have devolved into a democracy, but that is in NO WAY what was intended. Democracy is mob rule.
The definition in your .sig is wrong. I believe you're thinking of "Keynesian Economics". That said, libertarianism does require more personal responsibility than the average 'civilized' citizen has anymore. Which is sad, really. We've abdicated most of our personal responsibility to the government... the irony is that it would have been difficult for us to have mucked it up quite so badly on our own. At least, if some people did, THEY would have to suffer the consequences of it, instead of everyone having to suffer.
I would not say that the USA is a democracy
I wouldn't say that either.
(it is supposed to be one).
No it isn't. It's SUPPOSED to be a Constitutional Republic. Not that I'd call it one of those anymore, either.
'Democracy' is a meme spread around by those in power to imply that normal people have some sort of control of what goes on.
De Tocqueville defined democracy as the "tyranny of the masses" and he was quite correct.
Most people are 'for' democracy when they are of the majority opinion, but when the majority is against something they hold dear, well then 'those damned bureacrats' did it again!
Due to religion, people forget what the main issues are.
I would say rather that religion is only *one* of the distractions used to keep people's eyes away from the main issues. Sports, "celebrity news", TV, movies, the consumer culture, emphasis on working longer hours...those are some of the others.
I agree with most of what you said, so please don't take this as me trying to contradict you. I'm just clarifying a few points, although I certainly understand that you may not agree with those clarifications.
Ding! You hit the nail right on the head! You're 100% correct! Ding!
Oh, yeah...Ding!
Actually, in the song, he doesn't say 'Wu'. He says 'somebody'. Plus, I think you meant 'word is bond'.
This only works on drives which are failing from stiction (static friction).
This usually occurs when heat causes parts of the hard drive to expand and rub against one another. Freezing the drive can shrink them enough to allow you to get data off the drives. However, due to the large size of modern hard drives, it is possible that you will not have enough time to transfer the full contents of a drive before it heats up again. This used to work really well, and in the field, it was a crowd-pleaser.
Are you using the royal We or do you have a mouse in your pocket?
I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with it. In your analogy, there's only one lane. Your solution is to micromanage each vehicle. My solution would be to add more lanes. However, I'd be ok with your solution if it were stated up front, but it isn't. Especially in universities. They're kind of a special case, because most universities require some sort of fee for network access, so you really don't have much choice in what you get. However, this prioritization is happening in retail ISPs also, and if a retail ISP promises 'unlimited access', it does not seem reasonable to place limits on that access. But they're still raking in the cash promising 'unlimited access'. Now, I understand that there will ALWAYS be a limiting factor. However, I'm not the one marketing ISPs. It's like selling an "all-you-can-eat for 10 bucks" platter, then refusing to serve seconds by saying, "Well, one plate is all you CAN eat for 10 bucks."
I understand oversubscription just fine. However, as another poster already said, I don't care. It isn't my job to help you sustain your business model. If you cannot provide the service you are selling, don't sell it. If you're going to give me internet access, give me internet access. If you're going to give me a limited connection, tell me about it up front. If you want my money, I want my internet access.
Yes, of course I did.
Now, ask me if I care.
Actually, you shouldn't ask me that. It starts out harmless enough, but soon you'll be asking me much worse things. It's inevitable!
Either that or get their own Internet access and get off the school's network.
They should not use the access they're paying for, but instead should go pay another internet provider also? That sounds fair. And by fair, I mean utterly stupid. It's not like you get to choose not to pay your inet fee - most schools either require it or bury it in other fees anyway, so even if you DO pay for your own inet access, you're just double or triple-paying. How about when you pay for internet access, you get to... I know this is crazy... access the internet? If it's too slow for Mark Cuban, he's welcome to run his own, faster network and put whatever policies he wants in to place to govern it. He has enough money. But he, you, and everyone else can stay the fuck out of my internet usage, thank you.
When distributed networks become truly transparent and ubiquitous, we are going to see a future where todays Internet will look absolutely archaic.
Not to rain on your parade, but doesn't the future tend to make most things look archaic? Isn't that kind of...the definition of archaic?
Am I the only one who was disappointed to learn that this article was about BRIDGES?!?!
I was hoping to read about an Incan Evel Knievel, not some stupid bridge. Lame.
Well, I suppose my problem with it is that, as I think you meant, we don't know what makes people better off. How will we be able to tell, in the absence of historical data, that the new 'incentive structure' really benefits society? It's pretty clear that the current system of giant record companies at one time DID benefit quite a lot of people, by providing access to recording equipment that few individuals could afford, by providing promotional resources that were not available to most, etc. However, did that really benefit society? It's hard to tell, because we have no idea what society would look like in its absence. I agree with your aims, but I am hard-pressed to determine exactly how we'd go about setting up an incentive structure that benefits society as a whole. Of course, there are a lot of people out there who are smarter than I am, so I'm not saying it's impossible.
Well, Gene Simmons is right, sorta, when he points out the core issue:
The only reason why gold is expensive is because we all agree that it is. There's no real use for it, except we all agree and abide by the idea that gold costs a certain amount per ounce. As soon as you give people the choice to deviate from it, you have chaos and anarchy.
No, he isn't. Gold has utility beyond holding arbitrary worth. It's responsible for jacking up the price of certain cables by 1000% for its presence on connectors. It's also GREAT for plating things with. Plus, it's really dense so it's good for throwing at stuff, too. Plus it's really useful for making idols out of. AND you can look really cool when you get a gold coin and you bite it to make sure it's real. So I have to take exception to Mr. Simmons' words here and to your endorsement of them. Since I can't disagree with Mr. Simmons to his face, I'll take it out on you.