You have a good point, but, the biggest idea was the uniformity of weaponry. For America, there was little point in moving to turbines just yet as the fleet speed would still have been low, and only two ships of this class would be built.
Warships1.com rates South Carolina and on as Dreadnought battleships, and as does Hazegray.org, specifically not lumping them in with the pre-dreadnoughts. Hazegray had this to say: ( about the South Carolina class )
"The first US dreadnoughts, and by design the first all-big-gun ships in the world. However, they were directly developed from the predreadnought designs, and were quite conservative in many areas; as a result, they were not as effective or satisfactory as other nations' first-generation dreadnoughts. During WWI they served with the predreadnoughts in secondary roles."
Warships1's rating may well be based on the commission date being after Dreadnought's, so I dont know what kind of weighting to give that.
So, classification wise I have yet to see anything that rates them as pre-dreadnought, but your point is a very good one.
Quite true, but realize that American was building the South Carolina class ( laid down in 12/06, planning had to have begun before Dreadnought's launch ).
And what is with the downmods? Dreadnought was brought up in the topic, but we cant talk about it?
For clarity, I have no objection to ISP's offering different classes of service ( choice ), and pricing them accordingly. I.E. if I want to get the slow DSL or Cable option, then I should not expect the fast service. I would expect that the slow service would be priced at something, and faster options would be priced higher.
I would have an objection ( and I would think that a law could be written to disallow ) the ISP's and any other interconnections/entities between the end user and a non-isp ( or isp, for that matter ) service provider doing anything to choke traffic. They should route and nothing else. First come, first served. No looking at the "from" or "to", except to route. No looking at the packet data. Like with most laws, it would still be possible for them to do it, but they would be liable for it if/when caught.
If your hypothetical VoD company cant afford a bigger pipe, and they chose to buy a small one, that is one thing.
If the carrier decides that your VoD service is profitable, and they use QoS to part you from your money, after taking money for the use of the pipe already, that is quite another.
If Ricardian rent has no application outside land, why bring it up? Or do you think it applies here? I'll assume you believe it applies, while recognizing I may be off beam.
"In economics, Ricardian rent is a type of economic rent created by variation in resource quality."
Variation in resource quality.....
So, using the QoS to cause a variation in resource quality that you did not find naturally occuring in order to extract additional money.
Close enough to extortion to me.
How about I cause a "variation in resource quality" by standing on the road with a gun, pay and pass, or dont pay and get shot. It's just commercial profit making.
There are two things. One is that companies can offer tiers of service to their customers. I dont think anyone has any real problems with that. As long as there is no implication that anything is being gamed about what you as customer are allowed to "see", and the speeds at which you get the data.
The other is that verizon starts offering VOIP, and starts doing traffic shaping on anything that looks like VOIP data that is not their data. Or they decide that Google ( using google as an example ) is too profitable, and they want a chunk of that, so they start making connections between you and google slow, in order to have leverage to ask google and or you for additional money for the old level of service. There are many, including me, who see this as bad. And the argument the telecom companies use of google "using their pipes for free" does not sit well, both the customer and google have paid for their internet access. It might be marginally true in that there are probably some customers and end points using their pipes that have not directly paid them ( say customer is using COX for ISP, and google is using telecom giant "X" and it is telecom giant "Y" complaining. Cox and "X" got paid. But "X" and "Y" have a peering relationship that either gives "Y" some revenue, or gives "Y" a better network effect, hence indirectly profiting "Y". )
And now, my lame analogy.
Imagine there are two companies, X and Y.
X and Y offer goods where there is overlap between their product lines.
Y owns the roads that both X and Y must use to ship their products. There is nothing unlawfull about Y using this ownership to make X's deliveries late. As late as they like.
But if he ( Allen ) were to die, shouldnt his stake in the company go to his heirs? The dude was working himself to death, perhaps, working to further the companies fortunes, and to pay him back ( assuming the story has some truth to it ) they ( Gates/Balmer ) think about ways to keep it from his heirs.
It was an MFC app, so the source was available, one of the members on the class I was having trouble with called a Win32 function, then ignored that function's return code and returned TRUE.
It's Israel's fault too that people detonate themselves inside dance clubs and at restaurants, right?
I dont want to take anything away from the situation that Israel faces ( they do have quite a few enemies ), but with respect to the Palistinian situation, I think that *part* of it is indeed Israel's fault.
How they have dealt with Hamas being elected is the latest one. I agree that they would probably take it on the chin a bit, but ( IMHO ), they should not be holding up the tax revenues and trying so hard to diplomatically isolate them. Let them have some rope. If they ( Palistinian leadership )hang themselves, then they can jump on it with world opinion either silenced or unable to talk a good game. If they dont, they things have a chance to improve. Would you expect Mexico ( and it's citizens ) to have a good relation with the US if we repeatedly crossed their border militarily, and killed it's citizens without any due process at all ( I.E. we believe "X" did "Y", so we kill "X", summarily ). ( Pancho Villa was a long time ago...:-) both he and Pershing are dead. )
Dont take the wrong thing from this. I am not a 100% fan of Palistine, nor a 100% freak of Israel. Just thinking there is a more nuanced and progressive way to look at this confict that what I see in your post.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a good point, but, the biggest idea was the uniformity
of weaponry. For America, there was little point in moving to
turbines just yet as the fleet speed would still have been low,
and only two ships of this class would be built.
Warships1.com rates South Carolina and on as Dreadnought battleships,
and as does Hazegray.org, specifically not lumping them in with
the pre-dreadnoughts. Hazegray had this to say: ( about the South Carolina class )
"The first US dreadnoughts, and by design the first all-big-gun ships in the world. However, they were directly developed from the predreadnought designs, and were quite conservative in many areas; as a result, they were not as effective or satisfactory as other nations' first-generation dreadnoughts. During WWI they served with the predreadnoughts in secondary roles."
Warships1's rating may well be based on the commission date being after
Dreadnought's, so I dont know what kind of weighting to give that.
So, classification wise I have yet to see anything that
rates them as pre-dreadnought, but your point is a very good one.
Quite true, but realize that American was building the South Carolina class ( laid down in 12/06,
planning had to have begun before Dreadnought's launch ).
And what is with the downmods? Dreadnought was brought up in the topic,
but we cant talk about it?
For clarity, I have no objection to ISP's offering
different classes of service ( choice ), and
pricing them accordingly. I.E. if I want to get
the slow DSL or Cable option, then I should not
expect the fast service. I would expect that the
slow service would be priced at something, and faster
options would be priced higher.
I would have an objection ( and I would think that a law
could be written to disallow ) the ISP's and any
other interconnections/entities between the end user and
a non-isp ( or isp, for that matter ) service provider
doing anything to choke traffic. They should route
and nothing else. First come, first served. No
looking at the "from" or "to", except to route. No
looking at the packet data. Like with most laws, it
would still be possible for them to do it, but they
would be liable for it if/when caught.
The difference is in who choses ( and why ).
If your hypothetical VoD company cant afford a bigger pipe,
and they chose to buy a small one, that is one thing.
If the carrier decides that your VoD service is profitable,
and they use QoS to part you from your money, after taking
money for the use of the pipe already, that is quite another.
I have no problem with commercial profit making.
If Ricardian rent has no application outside land, why bring it up?
Or do you think it applies here?
I'll assume you believe it applies, while recognizing I may be off beam.
"In economics, Ricardian rent is a type of economic rent created by variation in resource quality."
Variation in resource quality.....
So, using the QoS to cause a variation in resource quality that
you did not find naturally occuring in order to extract additional
money.
Close enough to extortion to me.
How about I cause a "variation in resource quality" by
standing on the road with a gun, pay and pass, or dont
pay and get shot. It's just commercial profit making.
Why is that?
My understanding is that part of the net neutrality
argument is that QoS should not be used to extort,
not that all QoS is bad.
I think there are some that conflate the two issues
to muddy the waters.
It is sooo sad;
I thought pretty much the same thing;
In fact, you have it now.
Enjoy! Dont spend it all in one place.
At least he is a hepcat.
Did it toss him under the bus?
For Duty and Humanity!
What about causality?
Because N jobs were created does not mean that they
were created because of exporting the K jobs. It
may well be, but then it may well not be.
I dont think you understand the idea.
There are two things. One is that companies
can offer tiers of service to their customers.
I dont think anyone has any real problems with
that. As long as there is no implication that
anything is being gamed about what you as customer
are allowed to "see", and the speeds at which
you get the data.
The other is that verizon starts offering
VOIP, and starts doing traffic shaping on
anything that looks like VOIP data that is not
their data. Or they decide that Google ( using
google as an example ) is too
profitable, and they want a chunk of that, so
they start making connections between you and
google slow, in order to have leverage to ask
google and or you for additional money for
the old level of service. There are many,
including me, who see this as bad. And the
argument the telecom companies use of google
"using their pipes for free" does not sit well,
both the customer and google have paid for
their internet access. It might be marginally
true in that there are probably some customers
and end points using their pipes that have not
directly paid them ( say customer is using
COX for ISP, and google is using telecom giant
"X" and it is telecom giant "Y" complaining.
Cox and "X" got paid. But "X" and "Y" have a
peering relationship that either gives "Y" some
revenue, or gives "Y" a better network effect,
hence indirectly profiting "Y". )
And now, my lame analogy.
Imagine there are two companies, X and Y.
X and Y offer goods where there is overlap between
their product lines.
Y owns the roads that both X and Y must use to ship
their products. There is nothing unlawfull about
Y using this ownership to make X's deliveries late.
As late as they like.
How long will X last?
But if he ( Allen ) were to die, shouldnt his stake in the company
go to his heirs? The dude was working himself to death,
perhaps, working to further the companies fortunes, and
to pay him back ( assuming the story has some truth to it )
they ( Gates/Balmer ) think about ways to keep it from his heirs.
How would you feel in that position?
Maybe if they got outside and played instead of playing nintendo.
I prefer to open my radio telescopes read/writable.
I ran into something kinda similar a while ago.
It was an MFC app, so the source was available,
one of the members on the class I was having
trouble with called a Win32 function, then
ignored that function's return code and returned
TRUE.
Imagine the core charge....
In this case, "modular" is applicable to the code, not
the kernel per se, if you follow. I.E. internal subdivision,
not external interface.
I dont want to take anything away from the situation that
Israel faces ( they do have quite a few enemies ), but
with respect to the Palistinian situation, I think that
*part* of it is indeed Israel's fault.
How they have dealt with Hamas being elected is the latest one.
I agree that they would probably take it on the chin a bit,
but ( IMHO ), they should not be holding up the tax revenues
and trying so hard to diplomatically isolate them. Let them
have some rope. If they ( Palistinian leadership )hang themselves,
then they can jump on it with world opinion either silenced or
unable to talk a good game. If they dont, they things have a
chance to improve. Would you expect Mexico ( and it's citizens )
to have a good relation with the US if we repeatedly crossed
their border militarily, and killed it's citizens without any
due process at all ( I.E. we believe "X" did "Y", so we kill
"X", summarily ). ( Pancho Villa was a long time ago...
both he and Pershing are dead. )
Dont take the wrong thing from this. I am not a 100% fan of
Palistine, nor a 100% freak of Israel. Just thinking there
is a more nuanced and progressive way to look at this confict
that what I see in your post.
Which one?
CV-6
CVN-65
Note that these are the 7th and 8th USS Enterprise respectively.
That statue of a guy with his head on hand.
"Thinking" or some such.
The beach ball is a bad idea.
Lets replace it with the app's windows having fracture lines
thru it, and a sound effect preceding this that sounds like
an automobile accident.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Thus is the gene pool cleansed.
:-)
Thank you for doing your part.
stove == smokeDetectorTester ? pleaseNo( ) : ok( );