The reason for the increased price isn't bandwidth (though I suppose it is in a sense). The reason for the increased price is that for the WAV files they burn them onto a CD and mail them to you. I remember hearing something about them offering WAV downloads, but I don't know if that has gone into effect yet.
Part of the reason for the higher prices when compared to iTunes or most of the other places, is that you are getting speciality items. When the price of tracks on Beatport is compared to the cost of going into a speciality DJ shop to get the vinyl or the CD of a recently released track, it's comperable in price.
Though I have never been into the DC Goth scene, I do know I have run into many really good DJs in the DC area who spin Breakbeat and Drum and Bass at various places as well as working normal jobs. These folks are regular DJs at various clubs in the area as well. If I am not mistaken, most of the folks working at 12" Dance Records off of Dupont Circle actually have regular DJ spots at local clubs (I haven't been in there in a few years, so I could be wrong).
Nah, I know a great many DJs who use MP3s, though I do still like vinyl. I primarily pick up tunes from Beatport when I want a digital copy. Though it costs a premium, they also offer WAV downloads now, apparently (320Kbps w/o DRM works fine for me). Slightly more expensive than iTunes because it's a speciality item of sorts, and not all of the labels are onboard yet, but they still have a fairly nice collection. If you haven't you might want to check them out.
The only thing I can say negatively about Beatport is the use of Flash.
On the plus side for Beatport, you can buy tracks on CD, as MP3s, or as MP4s, or supposedly as of a recent update can purchase and download the same WAV files which would be placed on the CDs (I haven't tried this). In addition they also provide all tracks in any format with no DRM. Throw on a rather strong listing of record labels, as well as low prices for what you are getting, and it's a great deal in my opinion.
Yet, the problem is, you aren't being objective. Unless you are omniscient, you can't objectively assign values to various states of being, and I doubt that you are, or that anyone else I have encountered is. In other words, what you are stating has no basis in objective fact. Since you can't know the value of someone's life (including your own), including the consequences of their existance (ALL of the consequences), you can't say in any objective way how "good" or "bad" their existance is.
In the grand scheme of things (with or without some concept of God/Creation/etc), perhaps none of these states actually matter. Perhaps they matter a great deal and have weights assigned to them as being "good" or "bad". However, useful as it may be, assigning weights and values to these things in the case of humanity is still subjective interpretation based on our small sphere of experience. Is it useful within a society, more than likely, but that doesn't make it objective. It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that somewhere out there some alien species would assign the same values to these things, and even then it's their subjective interpretation based on their own sphere of experience. It doesn't mean that on a universal scale these things have any kind of value, and it doesn't mean that if there is some kind of universal value we are assigning the correct one to an attribute.
Note, the above has nothing to do with optimism and hope, it has to do with facing the idea that we, as humans, aren't objective. Rather simple, really. Perhaps no one is created equal to anyone else. Perhaps we are all created equal. We can't know, because we are bound by the confines of our subjectivity, or at least, that's my admittedly subjective interpretation of it.
I want to second this. I have 10 Lite-On drives in my apartment, and not a single one has ever given me problems. For the price they make the best product I have seen where CD and DVD writers/readers are concerned. If I am not mistaken quite a few drives out there are rebranded Lite-Ons (I could be wrong about this, admittedly).
While not specifically what you are talking about, A Tale In the Desert was somewhat similar. While you didn't get to vote on say, alterations to the graphics used for the interface, you did get to make changes to the gaming world based on proposing laws and then allowing the other game players to vote on them.
It worked for ATITD, and I don't see why the same thing couldn't be applied for a change such as this. If they can add a pop up on login that tells you about a new expansion, they could definitely create one that would allow you to vote on sets of changes, or abstain from voting if people chose to do so. If I am not mistaken, they did do a few surveys like this for Everquest, I don't remember them being of any importance (as this rather large change to game mechanics would be), but they do have the ability to do it.
The question I generally use in my head to make that kind of determination with regard to someone else is as follows:
Are you so passionate about something that it could at times cause you to be considered quirky, and could it possibly be harmful to other aspects of your life?
One thing that I think Whedon misses when discussing this, is that nerd or geek isn't in my mind a term that someone takes for themselves. Otherwise those jackasses who wander around dressed like they believe themselves to be Buddy Holly would actually be nerds. The terms geek and nerd are ones which your geek/nerd peers attribute to you (I am not talking about faux nerds or geeks, owning an iPod makes you an iPod owner, nothing more than that). Similar to the way that "hacker" was originally seen. You weren't actually a "hacker" until other people in the community deemed you worthy of the title. In the case of geek, it's generally been a negative name given to people who were quirky, generally for the above reason. The "nerds" were the people so smart that they made the rest of the class look stupid, the "geeks" were (at least when I was in school) the people who were quirky because they were driven to an excessive degree by a passion to understand something be it sports, computers ("hackers"), electronics, etc. At times this drive was so strong that they would ignore other parts of their life, such as their teeth or their hair.
Personally, because of my geeky traits I need to monitor myself very closely, and I recognize that they can be detrimental to my life overall. I keep a close eye on other parts of my life as a result. A four day long coding bender generally doesn't do much for the personal life, and a balance needs to be found.
Granted, I could be wrong here, but this is my thinking on the topic.
He is right that it doesn't necessarily mean that "geeks" or "nerds" have never interacted with the opposite sex. Most of the women I know (the majority of whom aren't "geeks" or "nerds") tell me that the best lovers they ever had were geeks, at least of the ones who have actually spent time in that situation with an actual geek. The reason being that the passion for understanding carries over into their sex lives as well, at least in the cases of my friends and their partners. Similar to the scene in "Revenge of the Nerds", actually.
The show you mention, if I am not mistaken, was done by the BBC. I have seen the episode you mention, as well as a few others, and it was very good overall. I believe the original airing name of the series was "Tribe".
As for the politicians, I think it's rather sad that we as a society seem so willing to shrug off any measure of personal responsibility for our actions. This applies to me as well at times. I try to catch myself, but I, like everyone else, am imperfect and sometimes I fall into this trap.
With regard to avoiding groups, I tend to do that as well. The problem is, that to be a part of a connected society, all parties within the society must also want that connection. I don't distrust people or groups of people, really, but the intimacy thing is a two way street (be it in friendship, family, or romantic) and I have found that most people I meet simply can't handle true intimacy. Unfortunately, I don't know that people are really all that interested in those strong intimate bonds anymore. Perhaps it's a general disinterest in other people (me me me attitude), or perhaps they feel as though they don't have time for someone elses problems (overstressed by life in todays modern world). I find this sad, though I understand the mindset. What I think many people fail to realize, is that we all go through similar things. While they may not be the exact same sets of circumstances, if we take the time to listen, we may actually learn how to get through our own issues by listening to how someone else dealt with theirs.
Even if looked at through a lense of pure selfishness this seems like the optimal route to take to save ourselves trouble in the future, because generally people end up going through the same sets of circumstances, for instance the death of someone in the family and the feelings that gives rise to. If we know how someone else coped with the situation, it's far easier to recognize when those things are occuring in our own lives, and since we have another instance of it's occurance to reflect upon, we can assess where they did something wrong, where they did something right, etc. It makes life far more livable. When looked at from a non-selfish standpoint, it's still the most optimal route, and it also makes life far more enjoyable for everyone involved.
I agree that there is a lack of this, though I honestly don't know that it even occured all that often in the past. I, too, think that in many cases the people who write about their personal lives are craving some kind of deep connection. I know in my case I do, and I freely admit that. In my case, however, I have those close connections and deep conversations with the people I am close to, so I don't really lack that in my life. As I look at the world around me, however, it appears more and more that I got very lucky as I have that kind of bond with all of my friends both male and female. I think, ultimately, we all yearn to have someone around who understands and accepts us, I know that I desire this a great deal. In part that's why I keep a blog, admittedly, though maybe with a slightly different focus. My focus is on me understanding me.
While, in a way, I do hope that maybe some of the stuff on my blog will give someone else a deeper understanding of me, my target audience is actually me. I write to help me understand myself, be it my strengths, my weaknesses, my dreams, my idealism, or my approach to life (in a general or situational sense). Granted, I could easily do the self analysis by writing in a journal and keeping these things to myself, but I have found that doesn't have the same qualities as writing on my blog. I find it's easier to be honest with myself about various things if I am writing as though I am writing to someone else, than it is if I am writing just for myself. It's easier when writing to myself to leave out details that put things in context, where as, if I am writing to give someone else an understanding I need to include those details. Due to these things, if I write in my blog it helps me capture the "big picture" and because I just kind of spit out what's in my head as though I am talking to someone else, helps me get a deeper and more honest understanding based on that larger picture.
A possible added benefit of this, in my mind, is that someone may stumble upon the site one day and find something which is applicable to their own lives. Maybe through my own self analysis I can help someone else grow and become something other than they were before. This isn't the GOAL, but I confess that it would please me greatly if my own issues and my openness and honesty about them were to help someone else deal with their own issues in a more open and honest manner. I don't even care if I am told it helped. Maybe there will be someone out there who can sit, read, and say to themselves "finally, there is someone who understands, I am not alone in believing this", or something similar. That too, would make me happy. As I said before, I have people around me who understand me, but many people do not. Maybe it will allow someone to feel as though they are understood, even if by someone they have never met. Again, however, that isn't the reason for the site, and these are just some possible benefits.
In a way, though, I kind of wonder if the reason these other people write about personal things in their blogs isn't the same, at least subconsciously. I wonder if maybe what these people actually NEED is an understanding of themselves, but they believe they desire understanding from other people. I mean this in a sense similar to people who are unhappy with themselves, and as a result seek happiness from their mate since they can't seem to have any while alone. Since they can't understand themselves in this deep meaningful way, they seek to have other people understand them in a deep meaningful way. Maybe the only real difference between what I am doing, and what they are doing, is that I am doing it conciously and they aren't.
As a side benefit, it also gives some of my friends a bit of insight into what's going on in my head, and in my life, when they CAN'T be around. If they aren't around at the moment, they will check the blog to see if anything is going on in my, at times somewhat twisted, life (I don't mean that in a negative way).
"Yeah baby, right there, you're getting my sinuses SOOOOOO wet!"
"Fernando stood silently and looked at her out of the corner of his eye for a moment. Then,like a mountain lion about to topple it's prey, he lunged his erect sinuses at her young nubile body."
For some reason I don't think that will sell many "romance" novels, or porn.
For the past few years I have been drinking at least a pot of coffee a day, and generally about 2 pots a day.
Based on this research, not only will I probably never get cancer or heart disease but I am probably bullet proof at this point too. I think Kieth Richards has met his match. Now, where did I leave that pair of tights?
I probably should have waited a little longer after waking up before posting. I would have tried to explain what I meant a little better, and why I see the measure of intelligence, in the commonly used sense, as flawed. The reason for which you actually touched upon in your post.
While I don't deny that there is an overall intelligence, and you are correct that given a set of 1000 people one with a higher IQ than the other, the expected outcome would be for the more intelligent individuals to come out on top. This brings me, I guess, to the point of my initial post, which I should have tried to explain.
I have often wondered why street smarts and people skills aren't considered because of the possibility of bias which seems to come with every IQ test I have ever taken. The bias being due to socialization. The ultimate result of which being that the person learns to optimize their digestion of information in a certain type of setting. Someone raised on the streets is more likely to be able to optimize their intake of information about their surroundings in those conditions. While we normally would call this wisdom, I wonder how much of effect this has on an IQ test. Someone who is used to being tested is more likely to be relaxed in such an atmosphere and as such more likely to score closer to their maximum capabilitys, as well as know how to optimize their input and output of data which also increases their score. I do of course recognize that part of the reason IQ tests include multiple different types of measures for the same thing is to try and get rid of these biases. However, when given two sets of circumstances which are at least somewhat similar, it's far more easy to adapt to the new situation efficiently. Can a set of tests be devised which are so dissimilar, yet measure the same things, that it would be impossible to apply the former tests optimizations to the later test? Even if such a thing is possible, is what's being measured raw processing speed, or raw speed of adaptation to a new way of thinking, and then the optimization of that new pattern of thought?
How much of an IQ test is learned skill, and how much is actually innate ability based on genetics or something else? How much is nature and how much is nurture? Will a woman who has been told she isn't smart throughout her life score as well as she could had she been told she was a genius all her life? How can cultural bias be removed from the tests such that the psychological makeup of the individual being tested doesn't play a part? If the culture traditionally views women as unintelligent, will they perform at their best on a test which measures something that society has told them they are going to be poor at? If not, is it an accurate representation of their intelligence?
Perhaps what an IQ test is really measuring is more akin to an ability to adapt to a new environment quickly. The majority of the questions aren't generally something that we would normally encounter on a day to day basis, and as such we need to adapt quickly to the environment of the test, and from one test to the next, learning what cues to look for to optimize the end results. Once you know what "coding" is, for example, you can learn to work with symbolic representations of objects and use those symbols to map them back to the original objects they represent at high speed. Within the confines of the test however, this learning of a new behaviour pattern (adaptation) needs to be done quickly. Perhaps some people have already learned to do this, does that make them more intelligent, or just mean they have been exposed to such a situation in the past, and as such already have a basic set of assumptions from which to improve the speed at which they take in and process the new set of circumstances.
I am not saying that general intelligence doesn't exist, I just don't know that it's what is being measured by an IQ test. Maybe what we consider to be intelligence is a combination of intelligence and wisdom. Maybe
Well, I am not really one for political correctness, so I figured I would respond. While I am not one to dismiss such claims out of hand, I do tend to end up dismissing them after having read the studys themselves, and I will tell you why.
While the research may be sound, it ends up being essentially meaningless within modern society. The reason being that life within modern society tends to require far more types of intelligence than that measured by every IQ test I have ever taken, and I have taken quite a few. Every study I have seen tends to focus on a very narrow set of traits which we have decided are intelligence, however, that narrow set of traits really doesn't tell the whole story.
For example, who is more intelligent, someone who has a great deal of practical street smarts, or someone who can learn every word in the dictionary in one sitting? Does the decision as to which party is more intelligent change dependant upon the situation that person is in? Who is more likely to survive in the midst of a gang war?
What about emotional intelligence, is someone who is capable of memorizing a dictionary more likely to thrive within a romantic relationship? Not necessarily. While being able to learn vast quantities of information very quickly is of benefit in some situations, it doesn't mean that they are good at dealing with their emotions or that they are good at being able to empathize with another being.
Basically, the problem I have with studies like this, is that they actually focus on a subset. Unfortunately, to ensure that the data is usable, this is what they should be doing. To the best of my knowledge there is no good metric for the measurement of other forms of intelligence, as they haven't been given much attention.
I suppose it could be argued that the two forms of intelligence I mentioned are more akin to instinct, the former (street smarts) being survival instinct, and the later (emotional intelligence) being a subset of survival instinct (mating instinct). However, I tend to look at intelligence as the ability to process information, in the former case it's the processing of data regarding ones surroundings, in the later the ability to process data about bodily cues, vocal inflections, etc.
While I am not prepared to discount the research simply because I hold some naive view that everyone is equal in every way (it's the differences between all of us that make life so interesting), I don't know how useful the research is, regardless of how well backed it is. Unfortunately, such research often gets used to try to prove some sort of point, in much the same way people try to warp a religious text to fit their ideology. Granted, that isn't the fault of the researcher.
Personally, I was never a fan of either Buffy or Angel, in fact I never understood the attraction to either show. I did enjoy Dark Angel(First Season) though, and one of the unaired episodes of Firefly has a scene that seems familiar, for some reason. I think anyone who watches this series and the first season of Dark Angel will know the episodes I am talking about.
That having been said, Firefly is actually a VERY good show. I don't have cable since I watch very little TV, generally. As a result I never saw a single episode of the series while it was on. I think in a way I was blessed, because had I seen the episodes out of order I never would have really been able to appreciate the show.
Actually, even if the show was horrible, in my opinion it would be worth it just to see Inara in a tight dress.
Fortunately, the show IS worth the viewing time. The character devel. is very well done, and I can't help but find myself actually being happy for the crew when things go well, and getting angry when things go poorly. As a result, I am actually somewhat angry about the last few episodes of the DVD. They are very well done, the stories are good, they weave into the fabric well, but there are some things I wish had come to some kind of resolution. For the same reasons I both enjoyed and at the same time hated the first season of Dark Angel.
One of the things that makes the DVDs wonderful, and a curse, is that by the time you get to the last few episodes, you don't want the series to end, yet you know it does. You want some of the conflicts and mysteries solved, but they never are. The only problem I found was the various unresolved issues. If you can deal with that, then it's definitely worth either renting or purchasing the DVDs.
One of the reasons the show works is because the cast of the show was actually really into making it. They cared about the artistic side of what they were doing, and seem to have really put everything they could into making the show. Not just the cast, but everyone involved. There is an interesting portion of the "Making Of" extra on the DVD that really explains their mindset well. It's the classic "Labor of Love" story, with even the person doing the musical score involved.
The most recent show I would compare it to is the new BSG series. The shows are completley different, but the same sense of dramatic tension is there, and equally well done, in my opinion. The character development is about equally well done on both shows. Some of the CG between the two shows is quite similar as well. Basically, if you have watched and like the new Battlestar, and watched and liked the first season of Dark Angel, then I personally think that you would really like Firefly.
With regard to torrenting the show. I admittedly torrented the DVD rips of the first 3 episodes. I watched them, and the next day purchased a copy of the DVD set. Having watched all of the episodes, it was definitely worth my money and my time. I believe that had they allowed the series to run as it was intended and in a good time slot it would currently still be airing. Admittedly, having watched the show, I am somewhat biased.
...just a couple more years until someone builds a laser that can see into the future, right? I'd prefer to know now, since it will give me more time to prepare for the rash of bad acting that breaks out about then.
Speaking as someone who has done quite a bit of LSD including a few trips which, assuming the coating on the blotter was distributed evenly across the tabs (rarely the case), were somewhere between 1500-2000 mics I would say that it most definitely CAN be a life altering experience. Part of the problem being that many people use it for escapism, which often doesn't lead to the life altering experience in the same manner you are describing. At least they do at first, it's hard not to fall into using it as a life changing experience if it's used more than a few times, in my experience anyway. As I have aged and reflected upon my times on LSD when I was younger, I have come to realize that though they were rough at the time, my bad trips were ultimately my best trips as I tended to learn far more about myself during a "bad" trip than I did during my normal party oriented/social setting trips.
One thing to note, is that from a psychological standpoint large doses of LSD could be bad, from a physical standpoint, it's one of the more harmless substances you can injest in terms of effective dose vs. LD50 (~12,000 mics IIRC). The LD50 of LSD is so high that I am not sure how possible it would be to even injest that much on tabs (currently the most common dosage method, at least where I live. Liquid can be very hard to come by) not due to the volume that would need to be consumed, but because when a 1000+ mic trip kicks in it's hard to do ANYTHING, much less keep consuming more. Around 1000mics is where reality starts to fade out and people claim they saw God, basically.
Having also used DMT as well and looking back on the experience, LSD doesn't really feel as though it's in the same ballpark. LSD is generally a nice calm ride up to a plateu for a while, and then a nice ride back down. DMT and Ketamine are both a rocket straight up and out of the atmosphere. LSD provides time to adjust, DMT and Ketamine both feel as though they set in instantaniously.
At the time I started trying some hallucinogenic compounds I was already meditating on a daily basis, and wanted to see if I could get to the same places in my mind using other sorts of tools. I never really found that I could, the quality of the experiences was different, but not in a bad way. The real problem with hallucinogenic drugs tend to occur when A) Someone already has some issues, and B) when someone can't let go and just flow with the experience rather than trying to fight against the experience.
You are correct though, basically if set and setting are proper, an LSD trip does tend to fill you with a sense of wonderment at everything around you. It doesnt make people non-violent, but because everything gets so strange and seems so new, that all you can do is watch, listen, and maybe learn from it. For example, LSD causes the pupils to dilate and everything generally takes on a strange glow, colors get brighter, and everything seems more vibrant than normal. The effect, generally, is that everything feels more "real", though it also tends to feel unnatural and somewhat mechanical as a result of the amphetamine edge that LSD has. LSD also generally has an edge to it, as I mentioned, and often people make the mistaken assumption that this is due to strichnine on the blotter, which isn't the case. If you look at the molecular structure of LSD, it basically attaches to one of the same neuroreceptors as methamphetamine. It's a natural effect of the drug itself (which comes in handy at "Raves" because it feels like an infinite supply of energy).
For information Erowid Vault has some. I can't say that it's unbiased, but there are some good nuggets of information there. Enjoy.
I would need to look up the sources, but I once read that one thing which seems common to people with Dyslexia (which I also have a minor case of, while not having full blown Dyslexia), is a very high incidence of enhance ability where spatial/mechanical relationships are concerned. The sword cuts both ways, I guess. While I am not an engineer I do work for an engineering company, and do take on some engineering tasks though that isn't my primary function here. I find that it comes naturally to me, granted, I was raised in a family knee deep in engineers so that may have more to do with it.
Meh. There is nothing wrong with being a blouse, it keeps you close to their Jumblies.
That having been said, I agree. Confidence is attractive on both sides of the fence. Actually, I don't even know that not taking advantage of someone when they are emotional or vulnerable is going to mean you "get laid" less. For instance, in my case, the fact that my female friends know they can trust me enough to be vulnerable and emotional around me ends up meaning more dates for me. I don't NEED to ask anyone out these days, because my friends set me up with everyone they happen to know, or will offer to help push things along if I take an interest in someone they don't know (not as a mind game, they are very upfront about their intentions). They do this because they know that no matter what happens I will be good to whomever I happen to be dating at the time, even if things aren't going well in the relationship. I don't let anyone walk all over me, but there are some people I am just not terribly compatible with. If there turns out to be an incompatability, oh well, onto the next person to see if there is a match. I still tend to find my own dates, because I am very very picky and look for very specific traits, but there are always offers on the table if I don't meet anyone on my own whom I take an interest in.
Personally, and not for the above mentioned reason, I see having female friends as an advantage. Especially if they are close enough to confide in you. Generally, women and men are socialized differently during their lives, and as a result act differently than I would in various situations. Having female friends, especially a large number of them, gives you the option of understanding their perspective. Even if looked at purely from the standpoint of trying to optimize "getting laid", this is an advantage.
Having female friends you are close to (yeah, intimacy without the sexual connotations people often latch onto it) also provides for another advantage. Female friends you are close to might just compliment you. This CAN help with the issue of confidence which many nice guys have. Depending on how far gone they are down that nasty self loathing spiral of "I am not good enough" and/or "no one will ever go out with me". Listen to them, maybe take their advice to heart as well as their compliments. If you weren't worthy of being around them, they wouldn't have you around. They obviously see something of value in you. Now, there ARE women out there who will take advantage of guys they decide are "weak", but there aren't all that many of them, in my experience.
Now, as an actual "Nice Guy" I find it far more fulfilling than simply the above mentioned points, however, I am not so naive as to not recognize that these are advantages. Even if those aren't my actual reasons for being in the relationships, they are still there as benefits.
Caution, some general ranting to follow, and this isn't directed at the parent poster.
I simply don't understand why guys tend to shoot down the idea of being friends with someone you might also happen to want to boink. It's possible to have the romantic/intimate portion of the relationship there without the boinking. If you are only in the "romantic" portion of the relationship for the sex, then you are really not much better than the "bastards" or "assholes" that you drone on about, the difference being that you suck at being one and are more than likely living in denial. This is especially true if you allow the other person to believe that you want more than that.
Sex and love are seperate things. Sex can be a part of a loving relationship, but it isn't the relationship itself. There is nothing wrong with sex for the sake of sex, so long as there is a mutual understanding that that's all it is, at least in my opinion.
The reason so many people feel burned by this "cast as a friend" thing, in my experience, is that they really wanted sex and nothing more, nothing less. As I said I s
Well, I haven't needed their support to get my Linux box up and running, but I have talked to a few people there, and have discussed things like Shell Scripting with each one of them. When you sign up for an account, they also provide instructions for Linux users. Something I don't remember getting from Verizon when I had service with them.
Their support folks actually know what they are doing, and are actually knowledgable about Linux/BSD/etc in my experience.
As a Speakeasy customer for the past 18 months. They are easily the best company I have dealt with, and not just for broadband service.
As you have said, they aren't the cheapest out there, but I don't mind paying a higher price for the service speeds I get and the consistently good support I get from them. I have only needed to call them twice, both were for the same incident of my line was down, which as it turns out wasn't completely their fault.
The providers apparently are given an out of date database by the telcos which tells them which CO a line should be going into. This is how they get estimates to tell you if you are within a certain range for a certain level of service. Unfortunately the DB is often wrong. In my case, for example, my line is run into a CO over 2 miles from my residence. Up until this point I had been running a 6Mbps down/756Kbps up line, and it started to drop off every now and then (hence my call). There is a lot of construction at the moment where I live and the line drop was caused in part by the distance of the run, and in part by the construction crews messing with the lines near my residence.
They placed the line into a diagnostic mode for a day to watch things, but while I was on the phone informed me of the distance problem, but said that if things seemed to stay stable, to call them back and have the diagnostic mode shut off. I called the next day and was immediately forwarded through to the person who initially put things in diagnostic mode, and had it taken out of diagnostic mode. It's been fine ever since, and at over 2 miles from the CO I still have my 6Mbps service.
Granted, the line staying stable at that distance is a function of the actual copper, but the support I recieved on these calls was the best support I have gotten from any company anywhere. While waiting on the phone while the support person was testing my line and such, we discussed programming, networking, and other computer related topics. That didn't even happen with people I have worked with at various ISPs who, at one time or another, have employed me.
Their staff is top notch, their support is great, their TOS are the best I have seen, and I will be pissed if they get squashed because the FCC decides to deregulate.
That's easy. Name the new one New Pluto, and call the old one Pluto Classic. That way, if the new one turns out not to be a planet at all, you can forget about it, and people will still enjoy Pluto, in it's classic form.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason for the increased price isn't bandwidth (though I suppose it is in a sense). The reason for the increased price is that for the WAV files they burn them onto a CD and mail them to you. I remember hearing something about them offering WAV downloads, but I don't know if that has gone into effect yet.
Part of the reason for the higher prices when compared to iTunes or most of the other places, is that you are getting speciality items. When the price of tracks on Beatport is compared to the cost of going into a speciality DJ shop to get the vinyl or the CD of a recently released track, it's comperable in price.
Though I have never been into the DC Goth scene, I do know I have run into many really good DJs in the DC area who spin Breakbeat and Drum and Bass at various places as well as working normal jobs. These folks are regular DJs at various clubs in the area as well. If I am not mistaken, most of the folks working at 12" Dance Records off of Dupont Circle actually have regular DJ spots at local clubs (I haven't been in there in a few years, so I could be wrong).
Nah, I know a great many DJs who use MP3s, though I do still like vinyl. I primarily pick up tunes from Beatport when I want a digital copy. Though it costs a premium, they also offer WAV downloads now, apparently (320Kbps w/o DRM works fine for me). Slightly more expensive than iTunes because it's a speciality item of sorts, and not all of the labels are onboard yet, but they still have a fairly nice collection. If you haven't you might want to check them out.
The only thing I can say negatively about Beatport is the use of Flash.
On the plus side for Beatport, you can buy tracks on CD, as MP3s, or as MP4s, or supposedly as of a recent update can purchase and download the same WAV files which would be placed on the CDs (I haven't tried this). In addition they also provide all tracks in any format with no DRM. Throw on a rather strong listing of record labels, as well as low prices for what you are getting, and it's a great deal in my opinion.
Yet, the problem is, you aren't being objective. Unless you are omniscient, you can't objectively assign values to various states of being, and I doubt that you are, or that anyone else I have encountered is. In other words, what you are stating has no basis in objective fact. Since you can't know the value of someone's life (including your own), including the consequences of their existance (ALL of the consequences), you can't say in any objective way how "good" or "bad" their existance is.
In the grand scheme of things (with or without some concept of God/Creation/etc), perhaps none of these states actually matter. Perhaps they matter a great deal and have weights assigned to them as being "good" or "bad". However, useful as it may be, assigning weights and values to these things in the case of humanity is still subjective interpretation based on our small sphere of experience. Is it useful within a society, more than likely, but that doesn't make it objective. It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that somewhere out there some alien species would assign the same values to these things, and even then it's their subjective interpretation based on their own sphere of experience. It doesn't mean that on a universal scale these things have any kind of value, and it doesn't mean that if there is some kind of universal value we are assigning the correct one to an attribute.
Note, the above has nothing to do with optimism and hope, it has to do with facing the idea that we, as humans, aren't objective. Rather simple, really. Perhaps no one is created equal to anyone else. Perhaps we are all created equal. We can't know, because we are bound by the confines of our subjectivity, or at least, that's my admittedly subjective interpretation of it.
Just a little something to think about.
I want to second this. I have 10 Lite-On drives in my apartment, and not a single one has ever given me problems. For the price they make the best product I have seen where CD and DVD writers/readers are concerned. If I am not mistaken quite a few drives out there are rebranded Lite-Ons (I could be wrong about this, admittedly).
Problem being, how could we ever actually trust David? We would never know if that was actually his house or his beautiful wife.
Judging by my admittedly small sample group (strip clubs), about 20-30% of women are F cups or larger. All wear at least a D cup (but not for long).
Note: The above is a joke, only about 10% wear an F cup.
While not specifically what you are talking about, A Tale In the Desert was somewhat similar. While you didn't get to vote on say, alterations to the graphics used for the interface, you did get to make changes to the gaming world based on proposing laws and then allowing the other game players to vote on them. It worked for ATITD, and I don't see why the same thing couldn't be applied for a change such as this. If they can add a pop up on login that tells you about a new expansion, they could definitely create one that would allow you to vote on sets of changes, or abstain from voting if people chose to do so. If I am not mistaken, they did do a few surveys like this for Everquest, I don't remember them being of any importance (as this rather large change to game mechanics would be), but they do have the ability to do it.
Hey, at least it wasn't a joke about sweeper teams.
The question I generally use in my head to make that kind of determination with regard to someone else is as follows:
Are you so passionate about something that it could at times cause you to be considered quirky, and could it possibly be harmful to other aspects of your life?
One thing that I think Whedon misses when discussing this, is that nerd or geek isn't in my mind a term that someone takes for themselves. Otherwise those jackasses who wander around dressed like they believe themselves to be Buddy Holly would actually be nerds. The terms geek and nerd are ones which your geek/nerd peers attribute to you (I am not talking about faux nerds or geeks, owning an iPod makes you an iPod owner, nothing more than that). Similar to the way that "hacker" was originally seen. You weren't actually a "hacker" until other people in the community deemed you worthy of the title. In the case of geek, it's generally been a negative name given to people who were quirky, generally for the above reason. The "nerds" were the people so smart that they made the rest of the class look stupid, the "geeks" were (at least when I was in school) the people who were quirky because they were driven to an excessive degree by a passion to understand something be it sports, computers ("hackers"), electronics, etc. At times this drive was so strong that they would ignore other parts of their life, such as their teeth or their hair.
Personally, because of my geeky traits I need to monitor myself very closely, and I recognize that they can be detrimental to my life overall. I keep a close eye on other parts of my life as a result. A four day long coding bender generally doesn't do much for the personal life, and a balance needs to be found.
Granted, I could be wrong here, but this is my thinking on the topic.
He is right that it doesn't necessarily mean that "geeks" or "nerds" have never interacted with the opposite sex. Most of the women I know (the majority of whom aren't "geeks" or "nerds") tell me that the best lovers they ever had were geeks, at least of the ones who have actually spent time in that situation with an actual geek. The reason being that the passion for understanding carries over into their sex lives as well, at least in the cases of my friends and their partners. Similar to the scene in "Revenge of the Nerds", actually.
The show you mention, if I am not mistaken, was done by the BBC. I have seen the episode you mention, as well as a few others, and it was very good overall. I believe the original airing name of the series was "Tribe".
As for the politicians, I think it's rather sad that we as a society seem so willing to shrug off any measure of personal responsibility for our actions. This applies to me as well at times. I try to catch myself, but I, like everyone else, am imperfect and sometimes I fall into this trap.
With regard to avoiding groups, I tend to do that as well. The problem is, that to be a part of a connected society, all parties within the society must also want that connection. I don't distrust people or groups of people, really, but the intimacy thing is a two way street (be it in friendship, family, or romantic) and I have found that most people I meet simply can't handle true intimacy. Unfortunately, I don't know that people are really all that interested in those strong intimate bonds anymore. Perhaps it's a general disinterest in other people (me me me attitude), or perhaps they feel as though they don't have time for someone elses problems (overstressed by life in todays modern world). I find this sad, though I understand the mindset. What I think many people fail to realize, is that we all go through similar things. While they may not be the exact same sets of circumstances, if we take the time to listen, we may actually learn how to get through our own issues by listening to how someone else dealt with theirs.
Even if looked at through a lense of pure selfishness this seems like the optimal route to take to save ourselves trouble in the future, because generally people end up going through the same sets of circumstances, for instance the death of someone in the family and the feelings that gives rise to. If we know how someone else coped with the situation, it's far easier to recognize when those things are occuring in our own lives, and since we have another instance of it's occurance to reflect upon, we can assess where they did something wrong, where they did something right, etc. It makes life far more livable. When looked at from a non-selfish standpoint, it's still the most optimal route, and it also makes life far more enjoyable for everyone involved.
I agree that there is a lack of this, though I honestly don't know that it even occured all that often in the past. I, too, think that in many cases the people who write about their personal lives are craving some kind of deep connection. I know in my case I do, and I freely admit that. In my case, however, I have those close connections and deep conversations with the people I am close to, so I don't really lack that in my life. As I look at the world around me, however, it appears more and more that I got very lucky as I have that kind of bond with all of my friends both male and female. I think, ultimately, we all yearn to have someone around who understands and accepts us, I know that I desire this a great deal. In part that's why I keep a blog, admittedly, though maybe with a slightly different focus. My focus is on me understanding me.
While, in a way, I do hope that maybe some of the stuff on my blog will give someone else a deeper understanding of me, my target audience is actually me. I write to help me understand myself, be it my strengths, my weaknesses, my dreams, my idealism, or my approach to life (in a general or situational sense). Granted, I could easily do the self analysis by writing in a journal and keeping these things to myself, but I have found that doesn't have the same qualities as writing on my blog. I find it's easier to be honest with myself about various things if I am writing as though I am writing to someone else, than it is if I am writing just for myself. It's easier when writing to myself to leave out details that put things in context, where as, if I am writing to give someone else an understanding I need to include those details. Due to these things, if I write in my blog it helps me capture the "big picture" and because I just kind of spit out what's in my head as though I am talking to someone else, helps me get a deeper and more honest understanding based on that larger picture.
A possible added benefit of this, in my mind, is that someone may stumble upon the site one day and find something which is applicable to their own lives. Maybe through my own self analysis I can help someone else grow and become something other than they were before. This isn't the GOAL, but I confess that it would please me greatly if my own issues and my openness and honesty about them were to help someone else deal with their own issues in a more open and honest manner. I don't even care if I am told it helped. Maybe there will be someone out there who can sit, read, and say to themselves "finally, there is someone who understands, I am not alone in believing this", or something similar. That too, would make me happy. As I said before, I have people around me who understand me, but many people do not. Maybe it will allow someone to feel as though they are understood, even if by someone they have never met. Again, however, that isn't the reason for the site, and these are just some possible benefits.
In a way, though, I kind of wonder if the reason these other people write about personal things in their blogs isn't the same, at least subconsciously. I wonder if maybe what these people actually NEED is an understanding of themselves, but they believe they desire understanding from other people. I mean this in a sense similar to people who are unhappy with themselves, and as a result seek happiness from their mate since they can't seem to have any while alone. Since they can't understand themselves in this deep meaningful way, they seek to have other people understand them in a deep meaningful way. Maybe the only real difference between what I am doing, and what they are doing, is that I am doing it conciously and they aren't.
As a side benefit, it also gives some of my friends a bit of insight into what's going on in my head, and in my life, when they CAN'T be around. If they aren't around at the moment, they will check the blog to see if anything is going on in my, at times somewhat twisted, life (I don't mean that in a negative way).
"Yeah baby, right there, you're getting my sinuses SOOOOOO wet!"
"Fernando stood silently and looked at her out of the corner of his eye for a moment. Then,like a mountain lion about to topple it's prey, he lunged his erect sinuses at her young nubile body."
For some reason I don't think that will sell many "romance" novels, or porn.
For the past few years I have been drinking at least a pot of coffee a day, and generally about 2 pots a day.
Based on this research, not only will I probably never get cancer or heart disease but I am probably bullet proof at this point too. I think Kieth Richards has met his match. Now, where did I leave that pair of tights?
I probably should have waited a little longer after waking up before posting. I would have tried to explain what I meant a little better, and why I see the measure of intelligence, in the commonly used sense, as flawed. The reason for which you actually touched upon in your post.
While I don't deny that there is an overall intelligence, and you are correct that given a set of 1000 people one with a higher IQ than the other, the expected outcome would be for the more intelligent individuals to come out on top. This brings me, I guess, to the point of my initial post, which I should have tried to explain.
I have often wondered why street smarts and people skills aren't considered because of the possibility of bias which seems to come with every IQ test I have ever taken. The bias being due to socialization. The ultimate result of which being that the person learns to optimize their digestion of information in a certain type of setting. Someone raised on the streets is more likely to be able to optimize their intake of information about their surroundings in those conditions. While we normally would call this wisdom, I wonder how much of effect this has on an IQ test. Someone who is used to being tested is more likely to be relaxed in such an atmosphere and as such more likely to score closer to their maximum capabilitys, as well as know how to optimize their input and output of data which also increases their score. I do of course recognize that part of the reason IQ tests include multiple different types of measures for the same thing is to try and get rid of these biases. However, when given two sets of circumstances which are at least somewhat similar, it's far more easy to adapt to the new situation efficiently. Can a set of tests be devised which are so dissimilar, yet measure the same things, that it would be impossible to apply the former tests optimizations to the later test? Even if such a thing is possible, is what's being measured raw processing speed, or raw speed of adaptation to a new way of thinking, and then the optimization of that new pattern of thought?
How much of an IQ test is learned skill, and how much is actually innate ability based on genetics or something else? How much is nature and how much is nurture? Will a woman who has been told she isn't smart throughout her life score as well as she could had she been told she was a genius all her life? How can cultural bias be removed from the tests such that the psychological makeup of the individual being tested doesn't play a part? If the culture traditionally views women as unintelligent, will they perform at their best on a test which measures something that society has told them they are going to be poor at? If not, is it an accurate representation of their intelligence?
Perhaps what an IQ test is really measuring is more akin to an ability to adapt to a new environment quickly. The majority of the questions aren't generally something that we would normally encounter on a day to day basis, and as such we need to adapt quickly to the environment of the test, and from one test to the next, learning what cues to look for to optimize the end results. Once you know what "coding" is, for example, you can learn to work with symbolic representations of objects and use those symbols to map them back to the original objects they represent at high speed. Within the confines of the test however, this learning of a new behaviour pattern (adaptation) needs to be done quickly. Perhaps some people have already learned to do this, does that make them more intelligent, or just mean they have been exposed to such a situation in the past, and as such already have a basic set of assumptions from which to improve the speed at which they take in and process the new set of circumstances.
I am not saying that general intelligence doesn't exist, I just don't know that it's what is being measured by an IQ test. Maybe what we consider to be intelligence is a combination of intelligence and wisdom. Maybe
Well, I am not really one for political correctness, so I figured I would respond. While I am not one to dismiss such claims out of hand, I do tend to end up dismissing them after having read the studys themselves, and I will tell you why.
While the research may be sound, it ends up being essentially meaningless within modern society. The reason being that life within modern society tends to require far more types of intelligence than that measured by every IQ test I have ever taken, and I have taken quite a few. Every study I have seen tends to focus on a very narrow set of traits which we have decided are intelligence, however, that narrow set of traits really doesn't tell the whole story.
For example, who is more intelligent, someone who has a great deal of practical street smarts, or someone who can learn every word in the dictionary in one sitting? Does the decision as to which party is more intelligent change dependant upon the situation that person is in? Who is more likely to survive in the midst of a gang war?
What about emotional intelligence, is someone who is capable of memorizing a dictionary more likely to thrive within a romantic relationship? Not necessarily. While being able to learn vast quantities of information very quickly is of benefit in some situations, it doesn't mean that they are good at dealing with their emotions or that they are good at being able to empathize with another being.
Basically, the problem I have with studies like this, is that they actually focus on a subset. Unfortunately, to ensure that the data is usable, this is what they should be doing. To the best of my knowledge there is no good metric for the measurement of other forms of intelligence, as they haven't been given much attention.
I suppose it could be argued that the two forms of intelligence I mentioned are more akin to instinct, the former (street smarts) being survival instinct, and the later (emotional intelligence) being a subset of survival instinct (mating instinct). However, I tend to look at intelligence as the ability to process information, in the former case it's the processing of data regarding ones surroundings, in the later the ability to process data about bodily cues, vocal inflections, etc.
While I am not prepared to discount the research simply because I hold some naive view that everyone is equal in every way (it's the differences between all of us that make life so interesting), I don't know how useful the research is, regardless of how well backed it is. Unfortunately, such research often gets used to try to prove some sort of point, in much the same way people try to warp a religious text to fit their ideology. Granted, that isn't the fault of the researcher.
Still better than space herpes.
Personally, I was never a fan of either Buffy or Angel, in fact I never understood the attraction to either show. I did enjoy Dark Angel(First Season) though, and one of the unaired episodes of Firefly has a scene that seems familiar, for some reason. I think anyone who watches this series and the first season of Dark Angel will know the episodes I am talking about.
That having been said, Firefly is actually a VERY good show. I don't have cable since I watch very little TV, generally. As a result I never saw a single episode of the series while it was on. I think in a way I was blessed, because had I seen the episodes out of order I never would have really been able to appreciate the show.
Actually, even if the show was horrible, in my opinion it would be worth it just to see Inara in a tight dress.
Fortunately, the show IS worth the viewing time. The character devel. is very well done, and I can't help but find myself actually being happy for the crew when things go well, and getting angry when things go poorly. As a result, I am actually somewhat angry about the last few episodes of the DVD. They are very well done, the stories are good, they weave into the fabric well, but there are some things I wish had come to some kind of resolution. For the same reasons I both enjoyed and at the same time hated the first season of Dark Angel.
One of the things that makes the DVDs wonderful, and a curse, is that by the time you get to the last few episodes, you don't want the series to end, yet you know it does. You want some of the conflicts and mysteries solved, but they never are. The only problem I found was the various unresolved issues. If you can deal with that, then it's definitely worth either renting or purchasing the DVDs.
One of the reasons the show works is because the cast of the show was actually really into making it. They cared about the artistic side of what they were doing, and seem to have really put everything they could into making the show. Not just the cast, but everyone involved. There is an interesting portion of the "Making Of" extra on the DVD that really explains their mindset well. It's the classic "Labor of Love" story, with even the person doing the musical score involved.
The most recent show I would compare it to is the new BSG series. The shows are completley different, but the same sense of dramatic tension is there, and equally well done, in my opinion. The character development is about equally well done on both shows. Some of the CG between the two shows is quite similar as well. Basically, if you have watched and like the new Battlestar, and watched and liked the first season of Dark Angel, then I personally think that you would really like Firefly.
With regard to torrenting the show. I admittedly torrented the DVD rips of the first 3 episodes. I watched them, and the next day purchased a copy of the DVD set. Having watched all of the episodes, it was definitely worth my money and my time. I believe that had they allowed the series to run as it was intended and in a good time slot it would currently still be airing. Admittedly, having watched the show, I am somewhat biased.
...just a couple more years until someone builds a laser that can see into the future, right? I'd prefer to know now, since it will give me more time to prepare for the rash of bad acting that breaks out about then.
Speaking as someone who has done quite a bit of LSD including a few trips which, assuming the coating on the blotter was distributed evenly across the tabs (rarely the case), were somewhere between 1500-2000 mics I would say that it most definitely CAN be a life altering experience. Part of the problem being that many people use it for escapism, which often doesn't lead to the life altering experience in the same manner you are describing. At least they do at first, it's hard not to fall into using it as a life changing experience if it's used more than a few times, in my experience anyway. As I have aged and reflected upon my times on LSD when I was younger, I have come to realize that though they were rough at the time, my bad trips were ultimately my best trips as I tended to learn far more about myself during a "bad" trip than I did during my normal party oriented/social setting trips.
One thing to note, is that from a psychological standpoint large doses of LSD could be bad, from a physical standpoint, it's one of the more harmless substances you can injest in terms of effective dose vs. LD50 (~12,000 mics IIRC). The LD50 of LSD is so high that I am not sure how possible it would be to even injest that much on tabs (currently the most common dosage method, at least where I live. Liquid can be very hard to come by) not due to the volume that would need to be consumed, but because when a 1000+ mic trip kicks in it's hard to do ANYTHING, much less keep consuming more. Around 1000mics is where reality starts to fade out and people claim they saw God, basically.
Having also used DMT as well and looking back on the experience, LSD doesn't really feel as though it's in the same ballpark. LSD is generally a nice calm ride up to a plateu for a while, and then a nice ride back down. DMT and Ketamine are both a rocket straight up and out of the atmosphere. LSD provides time to adjust, DMT and Ketamine both feel as though they set in instantaniously.
At the time I started trying some hallucinogenic compounds I was already meditating on a daily basis, and wanted to see if I could get to the same places in my mind using other sorts of tools. I never really found that I could, the quality of the experiences was different, but not in a bad way. The real problem with hallucinogenic drugs tend to occur when A) Someone already has some issues, and B) when someone can't let go and just flow with the experience rather than trying to fight against the experience.
You are correct though, basically if set and setting are proper, an LSD trip does tend to fill you with a sense of wonderment at everything around you. It doesnt make people non-violent, but because everything gets so strange and seems so new, that all you can do is watch, listen, and maybe learn from it. For example, LSD causes the pupils to dilate and everything generally takes on a strange glow, colors get brighter, and everything seems more vibrant than normal. The effect, generally, is that everything feels more "real", though it also tends to feel unnatural and somewhat mechanical as a result of the amphetamine edge that LSD has. LSD also generally has an edge to it, as I mentioned, and often people make the mistaken assumption that this is due to strichnine on the blotter, which isn't the case. If you look at the molecular structure of LSD, it basically attaches to one of the same neuroreceptors as methamphetamine. It's a natural effect of the drug itself (which comes in handy at "Raves" because it feels like an infinite supply of energy).
For information Erowid Vault has some. I can't say that it's unbiased, but there are some good nuggets of information there. Enjoy.
I would need to look up the sources, but I once read that one thing which seems common to people with Dyslexia (which I also have a minor case of, while not having full blown Dyslexia), is a very high incidence of enhance ability where spatial/mechanical relationships are concerned. The sword cuts both ways, I guess. While I am not an engineer I do work for an engineering company, and do take on some engineering tasks though that isn't my primary function here. I find that it comes naturally to me, granted, I was raised in a family knee deep in engineers so that may have more to do with it.
Meh. There is nothing wrong with being a blouse, it keeps you close to their Jumblies.
That having been said, I agree. Confidence is attractive on both sides of the fence. Actually, I don't even know that not taking advantage of someone when they are emotional or vulnerable is going to mean you "get laid" less. For instance, in my case, the fact that my female friends know they can trust me enough to be vulnerable and emotional around me ends up meaning more dates for me. I don't NEED to ask anyone out these days, because my friends set me up with everyone they happen to know, or will offer to help push things along if I take an interest in someone they don't know (not as a mind game, they are very upfront about their intentions). They do this because they know that no matter what happens I will be good to whomever I happen to be dating at the time, even if things aren't going well in the relationship. I don't let anyone walk all over me, but there are some people I am just not terribly compatible with. If there turns out to be an incompatability, oh well, onto the next person to see if there is a match. I still tend to find my own dates, because I am very very picky and look for very specific traits, but there are always offers on the table if I don't meet anyone on my own whom I take an interest in.
Personally, and not for the above mentioned reason, I see having female friends as an advantage. Especially if they are close enough to confide in you. Generally, women and men are socialized differently during their lives, and as a result act differently than I would in various situations. Having female friends, especially a large number of them, gives you the option of understanding their perspective. Even if looked at purely from the standpoint of trying to optimize "getting laid", this is an advantage.
Having female friends you are close to (yeah, intimacy without the sexual connotations people often latch onto it) also provides for another advantage. Female friends you are close to might just compliment you. This CAN help with the issue of confidence which many nice guys have. Depending on how far gone they are down that nasty self loathing spiral of "I am not good enough" and/or "no one will ever go out with me". Listen to them, maybe take their advice to heart as well as their compliments. If you weren't worthy of being around them, they wouldn't have you around. They obviously see something of value in you. Now, there ARE women out there who will take advantage of guys they decide are "weak", but there aren't all that many of them, in my experience.
Now, as an actual "Nice Guy" I find it far more fulfilling than simply the above mentioned points, however, I am not so naive as to not recognize that these are advantages. Even if those aren't my actual reasons for being in the relationships, they are still there as benefits.
Caution, some general ranting to follow, and this isn't directed at the parent poster.
I simply don't understand why guys tend to shoot down the idea of being friends with someone you might also happen to want to boink. It's possible to have the romantic/intimate portion of the relationship there without the boinking. If you are only in the "romantic" portion of the relationship for the sex, then you are really not much better than the "bastards" or "assholes" that you drone on about, the difference being that you suck at being one and are more than likely living in denial. This is especially true if you allow the other person to believe that you want more than that.
Sex and love are seperate things. Sex can be a part of a loving relationship, but it isn't the relationship itself. There is nothing wrong with sex for the sake of sex, so long as there is a mutual understanding that that's all it is, at least in my opinion.
The reason so many people feel burned by this "cast as a friend" thing, in my experience, is that they really wanted sex and nothing more, nothing less. As I said I s
Well, I haven't needed their support to get my Linux box up and running, but I have talked to a few people there, and have discussed things like Shell Scripting with each one of them. When you sign up for an account, they also provide instructions for Linux users. Something I don't remember getting from Verizon when I had service with them.
Their support folks actually know what they are doing, and are actually knowledgable about Linux/BSD/etc in my experience.
As a Speakeasy customer for the past 18 months. They are easily the best company I have dealt with, and not just for broadband service.
As you have said, they aren't the cheapest out there, but I don't mind paying a higher price for the service speeds I get and the consistently good support I get from them. I have only needed to call them twice, both were for the same incident of my line was down, which as it turns out wasn't completely their fault.
The providers apparently are given an out of date database by the telcos which tells them which CO a line should be going into. This is how they get estimates to tell you if you are within a certain range for a certain level of service. Unfortunately the DB is often wrong. In my case, for example, my line is run into a CO over 2 miles from my residence. Up until this point I had been running a 6Mbps down/756Kbps up line, and it started to drop off every now and then (hence my call). There is a lot of construction at the moment where I live and the line drop was caused in part by the distance of the run, and in part by the construction crews messing with the lines near my residence.
They placed the line into a diagnostic mode for a day to watch things, but while I was on the phone informed me of the distance problem, but said that if things seemed to stay stable, to call them back and have the diagnostic mode shut off. I called the next day and was immediately forwarded through to the person who initially put things in diagnostic mode, and had it taken out of diagnostic mode. It's been fine ever since, and at over 2 miles from the CO I still have my 6Mbps service.
Granted, the line staying stable at that distance is a function of the actual copper, but the support I recieved on these calls was the best support I have gotten from any company anywhere. While waiting on the phone while the support person was testing my line and such, we discussed programming, networking, and other computer related topics. That didn't even happen with people I have worked with at various ISPs who, at one time or another, have employed me.
Their staff is top notch, their support is great, their TOS are the best I have seen, and I will be pissed if they get squashed because the FCC decides to deregulate.
That's easy. Name the new one New Pluto, and call the old one Pluto Classic. That way, if the new one turns out not to be a planet at all, you can forget about it, and people will still enjoy Pluto, in it's classic form.