Why would that be asking for somebody to develop a protocol that does that? The end result would be lower data rates for the end user. I mean what, they would do it just for the purpose of annoying the ISP? Besides, if that was their goal, they could easily do that using UDP with error correction at the application layer, no need to develop a new protocol.
And when I speak of checksums, I mean at the CPE. For example if somebody is behind a NAT, your outside interface will trash the packet before the host computer even sees it. In NAT it actually has to decapsulate the packet and change the source/destination ports as well as the destination IP address and then compute a new checksum, if it sees a bad checksum to begin with it will just drop it.
End users won't be sending dynamic routing protocols to the ISP. If they did, I'd be a bit concerned if the ISP didn't filter them out as that's just asking for trouble. End users should only be using static routes, and consequently static routes are the only form of routing that most consumer grade equipment supports.
And yes, TCP and UDP overhead should count towards that, as should *any* layer 4 encapsulation. The ISP should only be doing layer 3, when you start going into the transport and session layers, you start violating the end users privacy.
Also something to add to what I said, even if you do only layer 3, you still won't have 100% accuracy. Some egress packets will get dropped long after leaving the ISP's routers, and it's impossible for any bandwidth meter anywhere to be able to tell what didn't make it, mainly because by design IP can't (and shouldn't) provide the facilities for doing so.
I don't know how many on slashdot know networking, but there are different ways of measuring bandwidth. Are we measuring layer 2, or layer 3? Further, layer 2 can often have multiple encapsulations before even taking layer 3 into consideration. Take for example DSL which frequently uses PPPoE, which means we have both PPP and Ethernet frames in addition to the IP data and everything encapsulated therein. And if you include DSL interleaving, then do we also include the packets that had a bad checksum and were therefore discarded? (in many cases there are a lot of these) That *is* data usage by all definitions. Do we also include ingress packets that were dropped due to bad checksums? Again, that is data usage.
In my opinion, the problem is that there aren't any standards defined for measuring bandwidth. Also in my opinion, that definition should be layer 3 traffic only and nothing else.
Well so far every mac user I know spends almost all of their time in windows. I'm not sure why you'd pay a premium (double and sometimes triple the price) to have OSX when you never really use it.
I've been using windows 8 for a while (got it for free) and I'd have to say it is far from a "hunk of crap". Yes, metro sucks, but you don't have to use it, which is what GP suggests.
Some things I like about 8 are this: reduced memory/disk footprint, easier access to commonly used functions (mouse to the far bottom left, right click; works with start8 too, though some start menu replacements disable this useful feature) more efficient copy dialog that even shows instantaneous rather than average transfer rates (pretty nice feature to have, yet shockingly windows 8 is the only OS that does it) better explorer functions like e.g. "admin console here", and built in support for mounting iso's. With windows 7 you have to add these in on your own, with windows 8 they are already there.
If you want to show your distaste with metro, enable the customer experience reporting setting and just don't use it. They actually do make design decisions based on that.
Only problem with apple.com is they sell computers that have been empirically found to be of inferior in quality to cheap OEM's like Asus and Lenovo, and yet cost a lot more than (almost twice as much) the more expensive OEM's like Dell. Asus and Lenovo also give you a better warranty for free (Asus warranty even includes free accidental damage for one year in addition to the standard two year warranty.)
Well, suppose hypothetically there is another civilization that reached the point we are at now over 100,000 years ago, and they happen to reside near a star that is a million light years away. In such a scenario, we won't hear a peep from them for another 900,000 years.
The only other possibility is that they use some form of communication that is faster than light, which would mean they are using something other than EM based communication. EM based communication is all that we have the capability of looking for.
Due to the sheer size of the known universe, it is inevitable that there is sentient life beyond earth. Even if what we have here is merely a pattern of chemicals, that pattern is bound to have repeated elsewhere, if not identically then very similarly.
While I wasn't what you'd call a "worshipper", I did vote for him twice, mainly for a few reasons:
1) With us or against us. In spite of what many think, this has nothing to do with civilians, rather only government entities. If terrorists reside within their borders, those governments are either with us or against us in ferreting them out. If you harbor them, we WILL come after you. I have no problem with this at all, and am rather in favor of it.
2) GTMO is fine provided all activities within obey current treaties, which as far as I'm aware, it does. My main beef, and reason I stated it earlier, is how GTMO was one of the things so many were clamoring and vocal against, especially the current president, yet now they're silent on it. I just don't get it.
3) The tax cuts were not a good idea, but a great idea. I think pretty much only Keynesians took issue with it, but Keynesian theory has been shown time and time again to be fundamentally flawed (E.g. under Keynesian theory, there's no such thing as stagflation; it's impossible. Yet we've seen it happen anyways. Also under Keynesian theory the smoot-haley tariff act was a brilliant idea, only it turned out to be a complete disaster that caused the great depression. These among many other issues are why Keynesians have no business making political decisions.) Those tax cuts ended the dot-com recession (further fueled by 9/11) much quicker than it otherwise would have. Even the Democrats managed to overwhelmingly agree to extend them each time they were up for renewal.
Everything else I really didn't care for Bush on, which were mainly the social issues. E.g. gay marriage, abortion, and the like. I don't put much weight on such issues however. The patriot act I accepted at the time because we needed to learn how to deal with the new face of warfare (events like 9/11) but now that we've learned, we don't need it anymore, and it should have STAYED temporary. We've done similar things in the past in times of war, and they were fine, but we also let them expire like they should have.
This actually gives me an idea for civil disobediance.
The content industries are always posting their own content to social media...so...what would stop the masses from just issuing blanket DMCA requests on pretty much every content out there?
Don't even restrict it to them though, just randomly hit whatever content you can find. Facebook, youtube, wordpress...you name it. The signal to noise will be so bad that eventually a verification system will HAVE to be implemented. Or even better, the social media industries lobby congress to implement criminal pentalties for issuing false claims.
You're really part of the problem with American politics (assuming you're American). You jump on the right vs left bandwagon just as fast as anybody else, only in different terms. "Oh, Fox News, they must be the bad guy, boo to them" ignoring that politics aren't black and white. I somehow doubt that everybody who watches Fox News has the same view on everything (from what I gather, none of the Fox News personalities even share the same views, with many of them being democrats especially) never mind that they can be lumped into one category.
It's especially ironic that CBS and NBC both have been empirically shown to be more biased. NBC in particular having deliberately altered news stories to fit their message twice in recent history ("he's up to no good, he looks black") and in spite of that, Fox News is the enemy of the people.
The term "progressive", at least in the context of politics, is a serious misnomer. Everybody who likes to view themselves as forward thinking throws this label on themselves. But what is forward thinking?
The prohibitionists labeled themselves as progressives. Hitler once referred to his own party as progressive. Yet people today who call themselves progressive today shun these things.
So what is progressive? In my view, it is a label somebody sticks upon themselves when they are self righteous and believe that they've miraculously figured out the cure to all of the worlds problems to the exclusion of all others. Aka a snob.
This is my plea to everybody: stop using the term progressive in the context of politics, it's just assanine.
They say using a mobile phone while driving causes accidents, and nobody disagreed so they banned it in many places. Yet when they did so, even though people used their mobiles less while driving, accidents didn't go down.
Just because you *think* it is a stupid choice, doesn't necessarily make it so. Without actually putting the method of interaction into field use, you don't know how exactly it will effect users, or how they'll adopt it. For the longest time people believed that the UI seen in minority report would be an awesome thing to have, only now that touch devices are widespread, we're seeing just how bad touchscreens are ergonomically and how little demand there is for large touchscreen displays.
This could end up going either way, it depends on whether or not the HUD ends up being a distraction or help you stay focused better. So far though, HUD's have been very helpful, enough to the point that almost all military navigation systems include them.
I'd say more like extorted by the French government. They threatened to tax Google even harder for this unless they settled with the newspapers. Honestly I'd just say screw the papers. France's answer to anything they don't like is to tax it, and it is already costing them in a very bad way. Google should stand with everybody else who has been threatened with taxation in France. De-list the papers and eat the tax, until the papers finally petition the government to stop when their revenue dries up.
Even somebody who is an ardent supporter of high taxes should recognize what is wrong with this, basically the government extorting them to pay tribute to the newspapers. This is akin to Canada's tax on e.g. CD-R's because they can be used to copy music, even if the consumer has no intent on doing so, and yet in spite of paying for said music forcibly through taxation, they still aren't allowed to copy it anyways.
Even if they were, it would be ridiculously hard to. The recipients can just deny ordering that package if they put a fake name on it, and there's nothing to prove they did. Hell, they can't even bust the smarter escorts out there because they accept "donations", which in practice should be a lot easier than busting somebody for a random package.
While I have never used any illegal substance, I strongly object to lumping the silk road with the worst of society. (That is, if you're doing so; if not, I apologize.) If somebody wants to get high, that's their own business. The government doesn't own them, and therefore doesn't have the right to control their consumption.
I'm tired of this government that sees fit to ban buckyballs, trans fats, msg, sugary soda's, drugs, and soon to be firearms. All in the name of safety. I remember during the Bush years, dissent was called patriotic, people were making a huge stink about even one single civilian death overseas, code pink was always in the news, and people were shouting endlessly for the closing of GTMO. The frequently mis-attributed to Ben Franklin mis-quote about liberty and safety was used daily.
Yet just recently, the New York Times is demanding that the administration lay down the law. People on slashdot even tell me that I don't need soda. Hollywood unions now have more power than ever to restrict internet communication. Obama just dismantled the office he set up to close GTMO.
Seriously, what the hell? When they came for the buckyballs, we said nothing.
Exactly, though they don't use that word (well, some of them do, calling the NRA terrorists, I shit you not.) The government uses the term "national security issue", which it seems lately they throw that term on just about everything they don't like.
That's the problem. Some people say "NATIONALIZE IT!" Only problem is that historically when this happens the service tends to fall into disrepair while the prices go up.
Price controls are an even worse idea. I didn't live in the 70's, but my parents told me how horrible it was to get gas because there were always long lines at the pump, and you probably spent the amount saved on gas just moving your car through the line. When it went back to the free market, these problems went away.
I'm a very libertarian guy, but I think the government can play a role in broadband development. I would think something in the interest of preventing monopolies from having the same effect of nationalization. That is, if the company can provide better service in one area (in this case, Kansas City) they should do the same in other areas within a reasonable amount of time (say, a year,) unless it creates undue hardship.
For example, it will probably cost more to run broadband in New York than Kansas City, so a price difference is understandable. A speed difference is also understandable if city regulations make it impractical to have the physical capacity towards higher bandwidth. But only of course if the broadband carrier can prove such a hardship, and see if putting pressure on the local government can make things easier in order to overcome that objection. Also, rural areas are another thing entirely. You get low subscriber counts so it isn't as easy to oversubscribe (a very necessary evil, by the way, speaking as a network engineer myself) and the costs go way up.
That last bit might have a ring of truth to it. From what I've heard about lolita city (at least, if anonymous is correct) they share photos from each according to his ability to have access to children, to each according to his need without children, and sometimes the kids live in terror.
So indeed you can fit those three words into the same sentence.
I'm curious what it will base this on. You can have a given subject that two people will disagree on with regard to what is fact and what isn't, and both could be right depending on your source.
Take for example the Trayvon/Zimmerman mess. If a politician says Zimmerman was racially motivated, will this fact checker say true or false? Likewise if a politician says Trayvon had criminal intent.
I would also say auto cad, 3dsmax, photoshop, sound forge, office suite, and of course *real* games, not just the distraction games.
While I'm sure you can do these things on a touch screen to a degree, it is a miserable experience compared to a keyboard and mouse. Typing this on my iPad 2 by the way.
Limits on working hours are another means of reducing the labor supply that has achieved broad adoption and popularity.
At initial glance you'd think something like that increases wages and reduces unemployment, but in practice it does neither, and in fact results in the opposite in all cases of implementation. It's pretty easy to see why when you consider a few things:
As I explained in another post, the economy, and even resources in general, aren't a zero-sum-game. There is no "pie". By artificially decreasing the supply in labor, you're also decreasing the supply of goods produced. For necessity goods, this generally results in higher prices and therefore lower demand. In the end, the supplier will probably see the same revenue as they did before, only now there are fewer goods produced. But that's just for that one closed system; it also impacts the economy in other ways.
Due to lower availability of necessity goods, say capital goods like construction equipment, the construction companies will now find that it is harder to get contracts due to higher prices that fewer people can afford. This means that they have to lay off employees. Now that we have increased unemployment, we also have reduced consumer spending, which eventually ripples back around to the original company that made the construction equipment.
Now you might say that since these people work less, surely other people will take over where they stopped working. It doesn't work out that way in practice. I'm sure you've run across your fair share of people who either simply don't want to work, or just downright do their job half-assed. What you're doing is pushing these people into jobs that they otherwise wouldn't take, and likewise your production doesn't increase in the same way it would if the other workers could simply work as many hours as they wanted to.
This is why, for example, after France instituted the 35 hours a week limit, their GDP saw a decline and their unemployment rate increased. It absolutely did not result in what they had planned on.
There's no "pie" to slice from, unless that pie dynamically shrinks and grows (it's not a zero-sum-game.) If you're a regular slashdot reader, I'm sure your familiar with the concept that a pirated song isn't a lost sale. If somebody didn't want to spend the money to buy it anyways, they still wouldn't have bought it. When you lower the price, you increase demand. In the case of a song, free is a pretty low price. As an anecdote, I recall one time a soda machine was misconfigured to sell sodas for 5 cents, and when people in my class found out, they all went to buy a soda where they wouldn't have otherwise. Anyways, if you accept that principle, then lets carry it over to physical luxury goods (which are what these factories produce, such as iphones.)
These same rules apply to labor, and likewise, decreasing the supply of labor doesn't (typically) result in higher wages when it comes to luxury goods, rather it most often results in lower supply, therefore higher prices, and therefore less demand (remember, people who already didn't want to pay the cheaper price still wouldn't have bought it anyways, and now even fewer people will buy it.) Overall, your revenue declines, and you still have the same number of employees, so you can't raise their wages even if you wanted to (and remember, you have lower demand, so your demand for more workers is also reduced.)
Often times even in short supply, the price won't go up. A real-world example of that is when e.g. the iphone, or the nexus 4 as a more recent example, although there isn't enough supply, they don't raise the prices because the demand will fall (that and it spells bad PR for the company.) And remember, these are Chinese made, so taking the kids out of the workforce again doesn't help wages any.
Now increasing the supply of labor does lower the prices for necessities that people are willing to buy with almost no concern of the price, like petroleum, but China doesn't deal in many of those goods. And if they did raise the price that much, they wouldn't hold their position very long. The reason why is because China holds their position entirely due to how cheap they can make stuff, and if they couldn't make stuff as cheaply, then other countries would compete (and readily so due to the west's general distrust of Chinese goods.) So in any case, you still don't increase the wages.
To add to that, in rural China there isn't much in the way of education.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would that be asking for somebody to develop a protocol that does that? The end result would be lower data rates for the end user. I mean what, they would do it just for the purpose of annoying the ISP? Besides, if that was their goal, they could easily do that using UDP with error correction at the application layer, no need to develop a new protocol.
And when I speak of checksums, I mean at the CPE. For example if somebody is behind a NAT, your outside interface will trash the packet before the host computer even sees it. In NAT it actually has to decapsulate the packet and change the source/destination ports as well as the destination IP address and then compute a new checksum, if it sees a bad checksum to begin with it will just drop it.
End users won't be sending dynamic routing protocols to the ISP. If they did, I'd be a bit concerned if the ISP didn't filter them out as that's just asking for trouble. End users should only be using static routes, and consequently static routes are the only form of routing that most consumer grade equipment supports.
And yes, TCP and UDP overhead should count towards that, as should *any* layer 4 encapsulation. The ISP should only be doing layer 3, when you start going into the transport and session layers, you start violating the end users privacy.
Also something to add to what I said, even if you do only layer 3, you still won't have 100% accuracy. Some egress packets will get dropped long after leaving the ISP's routers, and it's impossible for any bandwidth meter anywhere to be able to tell what didn't make it, mainly because by design IP can't (and shouldn't) provide the facilities for doing so.
I don't know how many on slashdot know networking, but there are different ways of measuring bandwidth. Are we measuring layer 2, or layer 3? Further, layer 2 can often have multiple encapsulations before even taking layer 3 into consideration. Take for example DSL which frequently uses PPPoE, which means we have both PPP and Ethernet frames in addition to the IP data and everything encapsulated therein. And if you include DSL interleaving, then do we also include the packets that had a bad checksum and were therefore discarded? (in many cases there are a lot of these) That *is* data usage by all definitions. Do we also include ingress packets that were dropped due to bad checksums? Again, that is data usage.
In my opinion, the problem is that there aren't any standards defined for measuring bandwidth. Also in my opinion, that definition should be layer 3 traffic only and nothing else.
I qualified my "sentient life" comment with "beyond earth".
Well so far every mac user I know spends almost all of their time in windows. I'm not sure why you'd pay a premium (double and sometimes triple the price) to have OSX when you never really use it.
I've been using windows 8 for a while (got it for free) and I'd have to say it is far from a "hunk of crap". Yes, metro sucks, but you don't have to use it, which is what GP suggests.
Some things I like about 8 are this: reduced memory/disk footprint, easier access to commonly used functions (mouse to the far bottom left, right click; works with start8 too, though some start menu replacements disable this useful feature) more efficient copy dialog that even shows instantaneous rather than average transfer rates (pretty nice feature to have, yet shockingly windows 8 is the only OS that does it) better explorer functions like e.g. "admin console here", and built in support for mounting iso's. With windows 7 you have to add these in on your own, with windows 8 they are already there.
If you want to show your distaste with metro, enable the customer experience reporting setting and just don't use it. They actually do make design decisions based on that.
Only problem with apple.com is they sell computers that have been empirically found to be of inferior in quality to cheap OEM's like Asus and Lenovo, and yet cost a lot more than (almost twice as much) the more expensive OEM's like Dell. Asus and Lenovo also give you a better warranty for free (Asus warranty even includes free accidental damage for one year in addition to the standard two year warranty.)
Well, suppose hypothetically there is another civilization that reached the point we are at now over 100,000 years ago, and they happen to reside near a star that is a million light years away. In such a scenario, we won't hear a peep from them for another 900,000 years.
The only other possibility is that they use some form of communication that is faster than light, which would mean they are using something other than EM based communication. EM based communication is all that we have the capability of looking for.
Due to the sheer size of the known universe, it is inevitable that there is sentient life beyond earth. Even if what we have here is merely a pattern of chemicals, that pattern is bound to have repeated elsewhere, if not identically then very similarly.
While I wasn't what you'd call a "worshipper", I did vote for him twice, mainly for a few reasons:
1) With us or against us. In spite of what many think, this has nothing to do with civilians, rather only government entities. If terrorists reside within their borders, those governments are either with us or against us in ferreting them out. If you harbor them, we WILL come after you. I have no problem with this at all, and am rather in favor of it.
2) GTMO is fine provided all activities within obey current treaties, which as far as I'm aware, it does. My main beef, and reason I stated it earlier, is how GTMO was one of the things so many were clamoring and vocal against, especially the current president, yet now they're silent on it. I just don't get it.
3) The tax cuts were not a good idea, but a great idea. I think pretty much only Keynesians took issue with it, but Keynesian theory has been shown time and time again to be fundamentally flawed (E.g. under Keynesian theory, there's no such thing as stagflation; it's impossible. Yet we've seen it happen anyways. Also under Keynesian theory the smoot-haley tariff act was a brilliant idea, only it turned out to be a complete disaster that caused the great depression. These among many other issues are why Keynesians have no business making political decisions.) Those tax cuts ended the dot-com recession (further fueled by 9/11) much quicker than it otherwise would have. Even the Democrats managed to overwhelmingly agree to extend them each time they were up for renewal.
Everything else I really didn't care for Bush on, which were mainly the social issues. E.g. gay marriage, abortion, and the like. I don't put much weight on such issues however. The patriot act I accepted at the time because we needed to learn how to deal with the new face of warfare (events like 9/11) but now that we've learned, we don't need it anymore, and it should have STAYED temporary. We've done similar things in the past in times of war, and they were fine, but we also let them expire like they should have.
This actually gives me an idea for civil disobediance.
The content industries are always posting their own content to social media...so...what would stop the masses from just issuing blanket DMCA requests on pretty much every content out there?
Don't even restrict it to them though, just randomly hit whatever content you can find. Facebook, youtube, wordpress...you name it. The signal to noise will be so bad that eventually a verification system will HAVE to be implemented. Or even better, the social media industries lobby congress to implement criminal pentalties for issuing false claims.
You're really part of the problem with American politics (assuming you're American). You jump on the right vs left bandwagon just as fast as anybody else, only in different terms. "Oh, Fox News, they must be the bad guy, boo to them" ignoring that politics aren't black and white. I somehow doubt that everybody who watches Fox News has the same view on everything (from what I gather, none of the Fox News personalities even share the same views, with many of them being democrats especially) never mind that they can be lumped into one category.
It's especially ironic that CBS and NBC both have been empirically shown to be more biased. NBC in particular having deliberately altered news stories to fit their message twice in recent history ("he's up to no good, he looks black") and in spite of that, Fox News is the enemy of the people.
Feel free to bow to your king now.
The term "progressive", at least in the context of politics, is a serious misnomer. Everybody who likes to view themselves as forward thinking throws this label on themselves. But what is forward thinking?
The prohibitionists labeled themselves as progressives. Hitler once referred to his own party as progressive. Yet people today who call themselves progressive today shun these things.
So what is progressive? In my view, it is a label somebody sticks upon themselves when they are self righteous and believe that they've miraculously figured out the cure to all of the worlds problems to the exclusion of all others. Aka a snob.
This is my plea to everybody: stop using the term progressive in the context of politics, it's just assanine.
They say using a mobile phone while driving causes accidents, and nobody disagreed so they banned it in many places. Yet when they did so, even though people used their mobiles less while driving, accidents didn't go down.
Just because you *think* it is a stupid choice, doesn't necessarily make it so. Without actually putting the method of interaction into field use, you don't know how exactly it will effect users, or how they'll adopt it. For the longest time people believed that the UI seen in minority report would be an awesome thing to have, only now that touch devices are widespread, we're seeing just how bad touchscreens are ergonomically and how little demand there is for large touchscreen displays.
This could end up going either way, it depends on whether or not the HUD ends up being a distraction or help you stay focused better. So far though, HUD's have been very helpful, enough to the point that almost all military navigation systems include them.
I'd say more like extorted by the French government. They threatened to tax Google even harder for this unless they settled with the newspapers. Honestly I'd just say screw the papers. France's answer to anything they don't like is to tax it, and it is already costing them in a very bad way. Google should stand with everybody else who has been threatened with taxation in France. De-list the papers and eat the tax, until the papers finally petition the government to stop when their revenue dries up.
Even somebody who is an ardent supporter of high taxes should recognize what is wrong with this, basically the government extorting them to pay tribute to the newspapers. This is akin to Canada's tax on e.g. CD-R's because they can be used to copy music, even if the consumer has no intent on doing so, and yet in spite of paying for said music forcibly through taxation, they still aren't allowed to copy it anyways.
Even if they were, it would be ridiculously hard to. The recipients can just deny ordering that package if they put a fake name on it, and there's nothing to prove they did. Hell, they can't even bust the smarter escorts out there because they accept "donations", which in practice should be a lot easier than busting somebody for a random package.
While I have never used any illegal substance, I strongly object to lumping the silk road with the worst of society. (That is, if you're doing so; if not, I apologize.) If somebody wants to get high, that's their own business. The government doesn't own them, and therefore doesn't have the right to control their consumption.
I'm tired of this government that sees fit to ban buckyballs, trans fats, msg, sugary soda's, drugs, and soon to be firearms. All in the name of safety. I remember during the Bush years, dissent was called patriotic, people were making a huge stink about even one single civilian death overseas, code pink was always in the news, and people were shouting endlessly for the closing of GTMO. The frequently mis-attributed to Ben Franklin mis-quote about liberty and safety was used daily.
Yet just recently, the New York Times is demanding that the administration lay down the law. People on slashdot even tell me that I don't need soda. Hollywood unions now have more power than ever to restrict internet communication. Obama just dismantled the office he set up to close GTMO.
Seriously, what the hell? When they came for the buckyballs, we said nothing.
Knee-jerk reactions lead to the ban of buckyballs, it's not a far stretch to imagine that they can lead to the banishment of other things as well.
Exactly, though they don't use that word (well, some of them do, calling the NRA terrorists, I shit you not.) The government uses the term "national security issue", which it seems lately they throw that term on just about everything they don't like.
That's the problem. Some people say "NATIONALIZE IT!" Only problem is that historically when this happens the service tends to fall into disrepair while the prices go up.
Price controls are an even worse idea. I didn't live in the 70's, but my parents told me how horrible it was to get gas because there were always long lines at the pump, and you probably spent the amount saved on gas just moving your car through the line. When it went back to the free market, these problems went away.
I'm a very libertarian guy, but I think the government can play a role in broadband development. I would think something in the interest of preventing monopolies from having the same effect of nationalization. That is, if the company can provide better service in one area (in this case, Kansas City) they should do the same in other areas within a reasonable amount of time (say, a year,) unless it creates undue hardship.
For example, it will probably cost more to run broadband in New York than Kansas City, so a price difference is understandable. A speed difference is also understandable if city regulations make it impractical to have the physical capacity towards higher bandwidth. But only of course if the broadband carrier can prove such a hardship, and see if putting pressure on the local government can make things easier in order to overcome that objection. Also, rural areas are another thing entirely. You get low subscriber counts so it isn't as easy to oversubscribe (a very necessary evil, by the way, speaking as a network engineer myself) and the costs go way up.
That last bit might have a ring of truth to it. From what I've heard about lolita city (at least, if anonymous is correct) they share photos from each according to his ability to have access to children, to each according to his need without children, and sometimes the kids live in terror.
So indeed you can fit those three words into the same sentence.
I'm curious what it will base this on. You can have a given subject that two people will disagree on with regard to what is fact and what isn't, and both could be right depending on your source.
Take for example the Trayvon/Zimmerman mess. If a politician says Zimmerman was racially motivated, will this fact checker say true or false? Likewise if a politician says Trayvon had criminal intent.
I would also say auto cad, 3dsmax, photoshop, sound forge, office suite, and of course *real* games, not just the distraction games.
While I'm sure you can do these things on a touch screen to a degree, it is a miserable experience compared to a keyboard and mouse. Typing this on my iPad 2 by the way.
Limits on working hours are another means of reducing the labor supply that has achieved broad adoption and popularity.
At initial glance you'd think something like that increases wages and reduces unemployment, but in practice it does neither, and in fact results in the opposite in all cases of implementation. It's pretty easy to see why when you consider a few things:
As I explained in another post, the economy, and even resources in general, aren't a zero-sum-game. There is no "pie". By artificially decreasing the supply in labor, you're also decreasing the supply of goods produced. For necessity goods, this generally results in higher prices and therefore lower demand. In the end, the supplier will probably see the same revenue as they did before, only now there are fewer goods produced. But that's just for that one closed system; it also impacts the economy in other ways.
Due to lower availability of necessity goods, say capital goods like construction equipment, the construction companies will now find that it is harder to get contracts due to higher prices that fewer people can afford. This means that they have to lay off employees. Now that we have increased unemployment, we also have reduced consumer spending, which eventually ripples back around to the original company that made the construction equipment.
Now you might say that since these people work less, surely other people will take over where they stopped working. It doesn't work out that way in practice. I'm sure you've run across your fair share of people who either simply don't want to work, or just downright do their job half-assed. What you're doing is pushing these people into jobs that they otherwise wouldn't take, and likewise your production doesn't increase in the same way it would if the other workers could simply work as many hours as they wanted to.
This is why, for example, after France instituted the 35 hours a week limit, their GDP saw a decline and their unemployment rate increased. It absolutely did not result in what they had planned on.
There's no "pie" to slice from, unless that pie dynamically shrinks and grows (it's not a zero-sum-game.) If you're a regular slashdot reader, I'm sure your familiar with the concept that a pirated song isn't a lost sale. If somebody didn't want to spend the money to buy it anyways, they still wouldn't have bought it. When you lower the price, you increase demand. In the case of a song, free is a pretty low price. As an anecdote, I recall one time a soda machine was misconfigured to sell sodas for 5 cents, and when people in my class found out, they all went to buy a soda where they wouldn't have otherwise. Anyways, if you accept that principle, then lets carry it over to physical luxury goods (which are what these factories produce, such as iphones.)
These same rules apply to labor, and likewise, decreasing the supply of labor doesn't (typically) result in higher wages when it comes to luxury goods, rather it most often results in lower supply, therefore higher prices, and therefore less demand (remember, people who already didn't want to pay the cheaper price still wouldn't have bought it anyways, and now even fewer people will buy it.) Overall, your revenue declines, and you still have the same number of employees, so you can't raise their wages even if you wanted to (and remember, you have lower demand, so your demand for more workers is also reduced.)
Often times even in short supply, the price won't go up. A real-world example of that is when e.g. the iphone, or the nexus 4 as a more recent example, although there isn't enough supply, they don't raise the prices because the demand will fall (that and it spells bad PR for the company.) And remember, these are Chinese made, so taking the kids out of the workforce again doesn't help wages any.
Now increasing the supply of labor does lower the prices for necessities that people are willing to buy with almost no concern of the price, like petroleum, but China doesn't deal in many of those goods. And if they did raise the price that much, they wouldn't hold their position very long. The reason why is because China holds their position entirely due to how cheap they can make stuff, and if they couldn't make stuff as cheaply, then other countries would compete (and readily so due to the west's general distrust of Chinese goods.) So in any case, you still don't increase the wages.
To add to that, in rural China there isn't much in the way of education.