But they've already charged me for that max capacity, whether I use it for tethering or some other purpose. They are not incurring costs they did not charge to recover. They may have charged badly, but that is a diifferent issue.
We do. We have moved on average every three years for some time. Saving boxes for things that otherwise don't pack easily or that are fragile is very important in those cases.
Indeed. The government ideally exists to protect the natural rights of its citizens and to provide public goods. (That is, non-rivalrous and non-excludable goods, like defense or firefighting, not just whatever politicians think would be nice to provide.) When the government grows beyond this, it becomes increasingly tyrannical and eventually totalitarian.
The problem in this case (Australia's model, I mean) seems to be one of creating monopolies rather than allowing a competitive market to form. The problem with large government is essentially the same (government as a monopoly), but backed by force of law. I don't have a problem with the government having a priority order of reuse - buy - build, but I do have a problem with throwing away what's been built because it wasn't higher on that chain. That's just dumb.
Carriers incur no cost for tethering (and soon for Fcae Time over cell), because the data used still comes out of the amount paid for. Carriers incur no cost for messages, because they are part of the phone's sync to the tower, or in the case of iMessages, come out of the data plan. But AT&T charges (very high) fees for messages and tethering, and soon will for Face Time apparently, in addition to the data that they use being paid for. Thing is, I'd use far more text messages, and periodically use tethering, and periodically use Face Time over cell when it's available, and all of these would drive up my data usage and thus make AT&T money. But instead, I just don't use the features, which is slight inconvenience to me, but on net must be a heck of a hit to AT&T shareholders, because their company is leaving money on the table by continuing to insist on pricing services like it was the mid-1980s.
I concur that programs are far, far better when they start with data. Heck, the whole point of computing is the data. That doesn't mean that all the technologies we have are equal in that regard. With NoSQL, you do have to think about the data up front to program well, but you don't have to do so to get working code. That code won't necessarily be performant or robust, but it's faster to create.
Well, LDAP has been around since the 1990s, is object oriented, hierarchical, distributed and segmented. This stuff is not new. NoSQL is interesting, and there are cases where it's both useful and lighter weight than the alternatives, but for most purposes, LDAP would serve just as well. NoSQL does make developers' lives easier, though, because they don't necessarily have to think about their data in advance, which both RDBMS and LDAP systems require. Easier is not necessarily better, but sometimes it is, and many people opt for easier regardless.
Well, except that they lose a lot of the efficiency by carrying the vehicle up already fueled. The ideal from a cost standpoint, particularly because of what it does to the structure of the spacecraft being carried, is to carry it to altitude without at least the oxidizer, then transfer the oxidizer in flight. Means you need a tanker as well as a carrier aircraft (unless the spacecraft can operate as a jet in the atmosphere, which introduces other complexities), but it makes your vehicle structure lighter and thus dramatically increases how much cargo you can loft for a given size vehicle. This in turn dramatically reduces the cost per unit mass per flight. Rocketplane had it right; they were just too early to make it work as a business.
He's already got a launch contract that, if he delivers, will pay for the system's development, based on what was announced at Farnborough, so I'd say that he's already won some cargo launch business.
I suspect Branson's focused on building an infrastructure with common parts. Having suborbital crew (for tourism or research), LEO cargo, and eventually orbital crew with a lot of common components would be a very good foundation for a profitable, ongoing company. He doesn't have to beat every competitor in every sub-market in order to do quite well.
Truly, but in that case it's no longer a free market. It is a market controlled by the government. Frequently, this is done via cartels, of which excessive patent/copyright protection and licensing requirements are but two examples among many causes.
It's been done repeatedly. It's still being done in places like N Korea. The results of "turning capitalism off" have consistently been poverty, immiseration and frequently mass deaths through starvation, murder or both.
Sounds like you're being sarcastic, but yes, a free market does exactly that. Look at the prices of storage today vice five years ago for examples. Once you consider more than a single interaction between exactly two parties, it quickly becomes obvious that markets drive prices down because of the greed of the participants.
I don't think it's MS hate. If someone put their hands on a new model Jaguar, with no engine and which they weren't allowed to sit in, and then called it a road test, their credibility (the reviewer,'s not Jaguar's) would be dead with me from then on. MS announced something that might be vaporware, in the sense of never coming to market, or might in fact be the device that unseats the iPad. But that's not the issue: deceptive reviews are the issue. Is the keyboard as cool as it looks or an unusable monstrosity? The reviewers in question have no way of telling, but are acting as if they do. That's what annoys.
If they allow us to see their content, they have to send us the bits in some form. If they send us the bits in any form, we can capture them and convert them to another form. Shut down all conversion sites today and more will be up in a week. Or we will start using browser plugins, or local apps. It is not technically possible to share something digitally without it being able to be captured digitally. It's like using a flashlight and then complaining that the person you're shining it on is using the light to read by, when you only meant to use the light to see them.
For now, I'm with those who say to get data offsite, then prioritize the rest. But for my clients in high risk zones, I generally recommend that they build their DCs using half height racks that can be lifted out with the equipment still in them, forklift sized DC doors, don't forget to actually have a forklift, put related equipment (power, air) into each rack, and label all the patch panels in each rack (the ones that connect to equipment outside the rack) consistently and thoroughly. That's enough to get you a semi-mobile DC in a war zone. It is expensive though. For most people, it's better to have hot-hot DCs geographically separated, and let the insurance company buy you new gear while you run on your remaining site(s).
This is an excellent point. I would add that x86 chips are really hard to use, especially hard to boot into a usable mode. This is all done for backwards compatibility. But for a phone maker, why would they want to deal with that complexity (and thus cost) if they didn't have to?
The fact that you think that sending him to school will raise his reading level indicates that you probably don't know much about how schools teach reading, or why the literacy rate in the US is so poor.
We home school our kids. One thing my wife does is help kids on IEPs in public schools with reading. All of that said, point 2 is almost offensively aggressive, because there are myriad reasons why a child could have poor reading skills and yet be homeschooled well. As an example, though I was in public schools, I'm very mildly dyslexic. Well, technically, I suppose disgraphic, as my problem is on the writing side. In any event, this caused me some problems early on in school, until I learned (with some help from my Mom) to deal with it. A dyslexic child could easily be age 10 and have difficulty reading, whether or not home schooled. You basically have made a lot of negative assumptions about the parents for some reason, and that all says far more about you than them.
Slashdot Mirror
But they've already charged me for that max capacity, whether I use it for tethering or some other purpose. They are not incurring costs they did not charge to recover. They may have charged badly, but that is a diifferent issue.
We do. We have moved on average every three years for some time. Saving boxes for things that otherwise don't pack easily or that are fragile is very important in those cases.
How about "they incur no costs above what they've already charged to recover."
Indeed. The government ideally exists to protect the natural rights of its citizens and to provide public goods. (That is, non-rivalrous and non-excludable goods, like defense or firefighting, not just whatever politicians think would be nice to provide.) When the government grows beyond this, it becomes increasingly tyrannical and eventually totalitarian.
The problem in this case (Australia's model, I mean) seems to be one of creating monopolies rather than allowing a competitive market to form. The problem with large government is essentially the same (government as a monopoly), but backed by force of law. I don't have a problem with the government having a priority order of reuse - buy - build, but I do have a problem with throwing away what's been built because it wasn't higher on that chain. That's just dumb.
Carriers incur no cost for tethering (and soon for Fcae Time over cell), because the data used still comes out of the amount paid for. Carriers incur no cost for messages, because they are part of the phone's sync to the tower, or in the case of iMessages, come out of the data plan. But AT&T charges (very high) fees for messages and tethering, and soon will for Face Time apparently, in addition to the data that they use being paid for. Thing is, I'd use far more text messages, and periodically use tethering, and periodically use Face Time over cell when it's available, and all of these would drive up my data usage and thus make AT&T money. But instead, I just don't use the features, which is slight inconvenience to me, but on net must be a heck of a hit to AT&T shareholders, because their company is leaving money on the table by continuing to insist on pricing services like it was the mid-1980s.
I concur that programs are far, far better when they start with data. Heck, the whole point of computing is the data. That doesn't mean that all the technologies we have are equal in that regard. With NoSQL, you do have to think about the data up front to program well, but you don't have to do so to get working code. That code won't necessarily be performant or robust, but it's faster to create.
Well, LDAP has been around since the 1990s, is object oriented, hierarchical, distributed and segmented. This stuff is not new. NoSQL is interesting, and there are cases where it's both useful and lighter weight than the alternatives, but for most purposes, LDAP would serve just as well. NoSQL does make developers' lives easier, though, because they don't necessarily have to think about their data in advance, which both RDBMS and LDAP systems require. Easier is not necessarily better, but sometimes it is, and many people opt for easier regardless.
Well, except that they lose a lot of the efficiency by carrying the vehicle up already fueled. The ideal from a cost standpoint, particularly because of what it does to the structure of the spacecraft being carried, is to carry it to altitude without at least the oxidizer, then transfer the oxidizer in flight. Means you need a tanker as well as a carrier aircraft (unless the spacecraft can operate as a jet in the atmosphere, which introduces other complexities), but it makes your vehicle structure lighter and thus dramatically increases how much cargo you can loft for a given size vehicle. This in turn dramatically reduces the cost per unit mass per flight. Rocketplane had it right; they were just too early to make it work as a business.
He's already got a launch contract that, if he delivers, will pay for the system's development, based on what was announced at Farnborough, so I'd say that he's already won some cargo launch business.
I suspect Branson's focused on building an infrastructure with common parts. Having suborbital crew (for tourism or research), LEO cargo, and eventually orbital crew with a lot of common components would be a very good foundation for a profitable, ongoing company. He doesn't have to beat every competitor in every sub-market in order to do quite well.
It's called a trial for a reason.
You missed the joke.
Truly, but in that case it's no longer a free market. It is a market controlled by the government. Frequently, this is done via cartels, of which excessive patent/copyright protection and licensing requirements are but two examples among many causes.
It's been done repeatedly. It's still being done in places like N Korea. The results of "turning capitalism off" have consistently been poverty, immiseration and frequently mass deaths through starvation, murder or both.
Sounds like you're being sarcastic, but yes, a free market does exactly that. Look at the prices of storage today vice five years ago for examples. Once you consider more than a single interaction between exactly two parties, it quickly becomes obvious that markets drive prices down because of the greed of the participants.
I don't think it's MS hate. If someone put their hands on a new model Jaguar, with no engine and which they weren't allowed to sit in, and then called it a road test, their credibility (the reviewer,'s not Jaguar's) would be dead with me from then on. MS announced something that might be vaporware, in the sense of never coming to market, or might in fact be the device that unseats the iPad. But that's not the issue: deceptive reviews are the issue. Is the keyboard as cool as it looks or an unusable monstrosity? The reviewers in question have no way of telling, but are acting as if they do. That's what annoys.
If they allow us to see their content, they have to send us the bits in some form. If they send us the bits in any form, we can capture them and convert them to another form. Shut down all conversion sites today and more will be up in a week. Or we will start using browser plugins, or local apps. It is not technically possible to share something digitally without it being able to be captured digitally. It's like using a flashlight and then complaining that the person you're shining it on is using the light to read by, when you only meant to use the light to see them.
For now, I'm with those who say to get data offsite, then prioritize the rest. But for my clients in high risk zones, I generally recommend that they build their DCs using half height racks that can be lifted out with the equipment still in them, forklift sized DC doors, don't forget to actually have a forklift, put related equipment (power, air) into each rack, and label all the patch panels in each rack (the ones that connect to equipment outside the rack) consistently and thoroughly. That's enough to get you a semi-mobile DC in a war zone. It is expensive though. For most people, it's better to have hot-hot DCs geographically separated, and let the insurance company buy you new gear while you run on your remaining site(s).
This is an excellent point. I would add that x86 chips are really hard to use, especially hard to boot into a usable mode. This is all done for backwards compatibility. But for a phone maker, why would they want to deal with that complexity (and thus cost) if they didn't have to?
Gates like Rockefeller, and Jobs like Ford. And I suspect each would be content with that.
The OS includes the APIs that the app writers use.
The fact that you think that sending him to school will raise his reading level indicates that you probably don't know much about how schools teach reading, or why the literacy rate in the US is so poor.
If he's being taught hard science (as opposed to generalized ideas about it) at 10, he's ahead of the public school curve in the US.
We home school our kids. One thing my wife does is help kids on IEPs in public schools with reading. All of that said, point 2 is almost offensively aggressive, because there are myriad reasons why a child could have poor reading skills and yet be homeschooled well. As an example, though I was in public schools, I'm very mildly dyslexic. Well, technically, I suppose disgraphic, as my problem is on the writing side. In any event, this caused me some problems early on in school, until I learned (with some help from my Mom) to deal with it. A dyslexic child could easily be age 10 and have difficulty reading, whether or not home schooled. You basically have made a lot of negative assumptions about the parents for some reason, and that all says far more about you than them.