First of all, where did this number come from? It's just a nice round number. Well, may be not that round, but nice nevertheless. It would be quite surprising, if we used (BTW, "use" needs to be defined) exactly 100.0000000000% of our brains, i.e. every single neuron and every single neuronal connection. Since neurons die all the time, we would be extremely unfit if we depended on all of them working.
And second, if it's accurate, I would think that last 0.00001% couldn't be all that useful Recently some scientists have shown that you can use TCP/IP overhead to do calculations. Surely there must be a way to use those unused neurons in some way.
With good reason. I doubt we could just use the rest of our brain to do other stuff at the same time for any useful purpose. Quite the opposite. Again, we would be extremely unfit if we used our brains at 100% of capacity all the time. I think we would tend to die rather quickly. Imagine an OS that would use 100% of CPU cycles even when idle. Not a very competitive one, is it? So I am quite sure that there are ways to use the free capacity, just like spies are trained to pay attention to license plates and stuff like that even though they are concentrating on some other task at the moment. Another point is that we might be able to reorganise our thought processes and use the freed up time to do calculations for the Matrix.:)
That's like saying "we only use a portion of our muscles." In general, we use all of them. We may be able to push ourselves and do things we didn't think we were capable of doing, but that doesn't mean there's all sorts of mysterious untapped potential. Well, I don't know what "in general" means to you, but we definitely do not use all our muscles all the time. Because, if we did, we would be unable to move.;)
I never said there is anything mysterious about this. But there is untapped potential - when we are "able to push ourselves and do things we didn't think we were capable of doing", that's called untapped potential.
And my point is that this potential is very real and is present in everybody. So the parent's post was technically true (he didn't mention 10%, just said "a portion") and to some extent true in principle (although snopes is right too), because we can learn new tricks, some of them extremely impressive.
This potential is not in the form of some mysterious 90% of unused neurons (like the "third eye"), it's our ability to use all neurons (and the brain as a whole) more efficiently.
Although I applaud your efforts at ignorance fighting, we do, in fact, use only a portion of our brain.
First, 99.99999% is still only a portion. Second, ever seen those brain scans that show which parts are active, while you are doing some thing? It might be a bit of an oversimplification, but it shows that we only use a portion of our brain at a time.
Even if you dig deeper into the meaning of the 10% myth, you will still be surprised at how true it is. It usually implies that there are hidden reserves from which you can tap to do some cool stuff. And I don't think you can argue with that. Almost any human being have potential to become a virtuos pianist, to learn to memorize whole page of text by looking at it once, to speak 50 languages, etc. If you can potentially learn to do it, but can't do it now, this means there ARE those hidden reserves, even if they are not literally parts of the brain lying dormant.
luddite (2) - One who opposes technical or technological change. You are a luddite, because you oppose the change. You don't mind technology, as long as it doesn't really change anything. You may accept bigger TV, faster and more efficient car, cheaper computers, but you don't want change, you are afraid of it, you hate uncertainty. That is normal, most people feel this way, but that is because they are weak, stupid and cowardly.
This technology has the potential to change the world. It will change the world, or rather one of it's next iterations. The exponential growth in the number of people connected to computers and in total brain-computer traffic has already started. We don't notice it, like we didn't notice Internet in 1970s, but it is here. Expect brain-computer networking to be a bigger hit in 2015 than Wi-Fi was in 2000.
I don't know about monkey's, but you can find some videos of remote-controlled rats on the net. Google for remote controlled rats video. Some news site have short clips of rats going through the "obstacle course".:)
If the guy's name was Tolkien then he might have a case. As it is, he's just typical low life internet scum trying to profit off of other people's name.
And since when is it wrong to profit off of other people's names? Is it wrong to make a computer game called Caesar? To make parfume called Napoleon? To make cigarettes called Peter I? To make vodka called Rasputin? Or is it suddenly ok when there are no greedy heirs left?
I don't like cybersquatting, but it should not be declared wrong, simply because he used a name of yet another dead guy. The name is not a trademark, it's not a copyrighted work, it's not a patent. The judges who made this decision are idiots and Tokien's estate is a bunch of pathetic jerks.
For an informative post it's got too many factual errors.:) The laser actually was not used to cut dinosaur patterns, it's what the customer said they want to ultimately be able to do. And "numbers" are not mentioned anywhere in the text. The only example mentioned is the University of Wisconsin-Madison motif (with a picture).
Eh? I think because different moderators have different opinions about what exactly are the limits of ontopic in this dicsussion. One thought that Assault Rifles are not terribly relevant to a discussion about slicing cheese. Another thought that clearing a misconception whould be valuable to Slashdot readers. The system is democratic and overall it works. If you don't like the results, Meta-Moderate.
And to tell the truth, your post was not a very good one. You copy-pasted some definitions, tried to flame Intratec (do you really think that 50% of the injured by it are shooters?) and gave a few links to real submachine guns.
First poster you link to gave a more detailed description of Tec 9, including some of his personal experience with it. Another poster made a long original post, with more interesting info about different kinds of guns. These were modded up, despite being slightly offtopic. Your post simply doesn't warrant an upmod.
There surely must be at least a few jokes in the whole book (or the whole series) that can be translated well into cinema... Remember, that the script (speech only) is usually 5-10 times smaller than the speech in the book.
This is a fascinating story and the first true (iirc) challenge to the open source movement. The outcome is much more important than the future of Linux, or even OSS in general. The outcome of the first true challenge to OSS is more important than the OSS itself? Don't tell me there was supposed to be some logic there, because I don't see any.
I might be wrong again, but I think Trinity was still the codename for the project Carmack wanted to do after Q3. The squabble they had in id is described in Masters of Doom book and in Carmack's.plan (albeit briefly). It was supposed to be something more innovative than just another FPS, but the rest of the team wanted to redo Doom.
I don't have the book with me now, so I can't check if it really was the name.
If there is one thing I hate in the world, it's fanatical brand followers. Lego is not god, Apple is not god, Nike is not god, Cisco is not god. There is no monopoly on quality! Making plastic bricks is not rocket science. You just place an order in China and you get it. Want a 1 mm precision - here is the price. Want 1 micron precision - here is the price. And if you don't have to pay to the patentholder, and if you don't charge for your brand name, the price can be an order of magnitude lower. There is no reason why Megabloks should be worse than Legos in quality. And if they actually did explode when picked up, I guess, someone would do something about it. I don't know, return a product, file a lawsuit, or something.
I have two alarmclocks on my table - one made in Thailand and one made in England. Guess which clock features a feature unique in its idiocy. There is backlight activated by the snooze button, but the hands have an opaque screen behind them...:) A hint - it's not the Thai clock. Asian countries produce really good stuff, that's the reason production of pretty much everything is moved there from the US.
Geeks can think and imagine. You are turning you 2 year old into a person that has to have flashly lights to be entertained.
No, he is turning his 2 year old into a person that enjoys playing with smart matter, that understands how everything around him can have memory, motion and instincts. Kids like his will feel at home in the future of 2020, when every object manufactured anywhere on Earth would have a built-in computer, when nanotechnology would finally start becoming mainstream. That is the future you need to prepare your kids to. And today that means batteries.
Give me a break! I don't know how much Legos actually cost, but for 1$ you can buy a Chinese ball mouse. This include a pretty complex plastic case, some mechanics, electronics, a ball, some wires, etc. And it works as a mouse. For 4$ you can buy a keyboard, which includes more than one hundred of keys, each being at least as complex as a simple Lego block. And electronics, and it works. And I have never seen a key on even the cheapest keyboard physically break.
So I don't give a shit about "quality" and you are stupid if you believe in that yourself. There is as much "quality" there as in Nike shoes or Benetton clothes. You pay for a brandname. Lego might sell quality bricks, but everyone in China can do the same.
From the article: He said the company would now go back to its roots, focusing on building blocks and abandoning its forays into multimedia and film products.
To me that is potentially a big mistake. It is pretty obvious that the bricks product line can't be maintained forever. And a good guess is that kids are going to switch to digital entertainment. Thus the solution would be to revitalise the building blocks arm of Lego to continue milking the market for cash, but also continue the efforts to find new digital markets. I don't pretend to know the kids better than Lego market researchers, but I am quite sure that in 2010 5 y.o. kids will not enjoy play traditional Lego very much. Yes, creativity is important and yes, 3 y.o. kids are probably not smart enough to play advanced Lego replacements, but a) this might change in a few years, just like kids became more comfortable with computers in the past. b) 5-7 y.o. can be creative enough to use more advanced toys. May be something like advanced version of Second Life MMOG is the answer?:) Unlimited creativity, simple (in the future) interfaces, a lot of fun.
Come on, people, you can pretend as much as you want that "creativity" allows you to see 2 triangles as a Star Destroyer, but how many of you would settle for these for your kids? Times change, get over it. We humans tend to use more and more complex technology because we learn to do it. And if your kids stick to low-tech building blocks, how will that help them become transhumans when they grow up?
That's the problem with kids raised in a capitalistic country. When they grow up, they think everything should be owned by something. I am sure, if we were moving from the ocean just now, and introducing the novel concept of breathing today, people would think about grabbing as much of the Air (tm) as possible.
P.S. Doctor, please give me anti-greediness pills. More! More! More!
Thanks for correcting me, the id's project was called Trinity. It was postponed in favour of Quake III (this one was a cash cow) and then apparently abandoned in favour of Doom 3.
Why don't single men buy advanced ingredients? Because they can't cook them anyway! When they have a cooking robot, they will simply buy what it orders (to always maintain a nice supply of ingredients to provide a varied menu) or the robot will simply send a message to the automated store that will send the food (on the automated delivery system) to the home, where the intelligent refridgerator will take it in and supply the cooking robot as needed.
You can't easily invent another genre in a mature market. id created FPSes, now FPS is a genre inside which they have to work (because they are best at FPS games). They have a lot of creative ideas, but there are certain limitations (like the game is first-person, you run around and basically shoot stuff) they have to respect. Still, Doom3 promises a lot of innovation in the style. It won't be the first movie-like FPS experience, but enough not to be considered a clone.
Another thing is that id guys had a lot of ideas for their next game, including a very innovative Prey (IIRC). But ultimately they decided that they want to make Doom3, because they loved the original Doom and felt like the possibilities were simply to great to be ignored. This was neither milking the cash cow, nor investors' decision. The programmers (designers) made the decision.
Then you might also think about the reason FPS games are popular. It's because there is very specific behaviour that we humans enjoy very much - wreaking havoc. We have a very good picture of what we want to experience in such games and the FPS genre is doomed to assimptotically approach the image in our minds. That's why FPS game can't be too innovative, we are already close enough to the perfect experience and changing too much would be straying in the wrong direction.
Next hundred years? What? Apparently, you think that either a) It's more difficult to come from QRIO to a general-purpose intelligent robot than from radio to Internet, from Wright's Flyer to 1000+ passenger jets, solar-powered planes and UAVs, from Model T to GM's Autonomy. or b) The rate of progress is decreasing. is true. But I think both a and b are false. And we will have intelligent robots in a few decades, not centuries. Check this out.
I just switched from cable to ADSL. Here are the costs.
Cable: 12$ - monthly fee for 128kbps/32kbps, traffic paid separately, 0.07$/Mb. This means about 100$/month for my regular use (without stuff like trailers, demos, MP3s, P2P, etc.).
ADSL: 200$ setup fee. Monthly fee - 60$ for 64kbps/16kbps connection, unlimited traffic. The speeds are the guaranteed ones, actual download/upload rates are closer to 256/64 most of the time.
Only two companies offer ADSL in the city (4.5 mln population, although average salary is 170$/month). One company owns the equipment and charges for traffic, another one (my ISP) uses the equipment of the first and offers unlimited usage plans.
Two or three companies offer cable access, but only about 10% of the city is covered. Some firms offer radio-Ethernet, people can also use their CDMA or GPRS mobiles to access the Net, but these are used by only a few people.
Most people still use dial-up, which is basically 0.5-1$/hour.
From the article: Microsoft, it said, "has recently broken its policy of unified pricing of products worldwide. In Thailand and England there were reductions of hundreds of percent" on products that it sells. I want a two hundred percent reduction in price too!
Ah why do I even bother responding to an obvious idiot. For the same reason I am doing it?
Counterfeiting money is a crime, counterfeiting music is not, it's a civil offence called copyright infridgment. The physical copy belongs to the seller, not to RIAA or an artist. And until the court rules that he may not distribute them, he is in the clear.
I have a 64/16 ADSL (yes, that's 64kbits/sec). It costs me 60$ (the best deal one can find in St. Petersburg) and 64kbit/sec is a guaranteed speed. Still, whenever possible, I get higher download rates, usually around 256kbit/sec. But my ISP doesn't have to guarantee me that, simply because he can't.
Do the same. If you can't guarantee 768kbps to your budget users, don't do that. Promise them that they will get 768kbps most of the time, but not always. Offer an "enterprise" plan with 768kbps/300$.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, where did this number come from?
:)
;)
It's just a nice round number. Well, may be not that round, but nice nevertheless. It would be quite surprising, if we used (BTW, "use" needs to be defined) exactly 100.0000000000% of our brains, i.e. every single neuron and every single neuronal connection. Since neurons die all the time, we would be extremely unfit if we depended on all of them working.
And second, if it's accurate, I would think that last 0.00001% couldn't be all that useful
Recently some scientists have shown that you can use TCP/IP overhead to do calculations. Surely there must be a way to use those unused neurons in some way.
With good reason. I doubt we could just use the rest of our brain to do other stuff at the same time for any useful purpose.
Quite the opposite. Again, we would be extremely unfit if we used our brains at 100% of capacity all the time. I think we would tend to die rather quickly. Imagine an OS that would use 100% of CPU cycles even when idle. Not a very competitive one, is it? So I am quite sure that there are ways to use the free capacity, just like spies are trained to pay attention to license plates and stuff like that even though they are concentrating on some other task at the moment. Another point is that we might be able to reorganise our thought processes and use the freed up time to do calculations for the Matrix.
That's like saying "we only use a portion of our muscles." In general, we use all of them. We may be able to push ourselves and do things we didn't think we were capable of doing, but that doesn't mean there's all sorts of mysterious untapped potential.
Well, I don't know what "in general" means to you, but we definitely do not use all our muscles all the time. Because, if we did, we would be unable to move.
I never said there is anything mysterious about this. But there is untapped potential - when we are "able to push ourselves and do things we didn't think we were capable of doing", that's called untapped potential.
And my point is that this potential is very real and is present in everybody. So the parent's post was technically true (he didn't mention 10%, just said "a portion") and to some extent true in principle (although snopes is right too), because we can learn new tricks, some of them extremely impressive.
This potential is not in the form of some mysterious 90% of unused neurons (like the "third eye"), it's our ability to use all neurons (and the brain as a whole) more efficiently.
Yes, we do.
Although I applaud your efforts at ignorance fighting, we do, in fact, use only a portion of our brain.
First, 99.99999% is still only a portion.
Second, ever seen those brain scans that show which parts are active, while you are doing some thing? It might be a bit of an oversimplification, but it shows that we only use a portion of our brain at a time.
Even if you dig deeper into the meaning of the 10% myth, you will still be surprised at how true it is. It usually implies that there are hidden reserves from which you can tap to do some cool stuff. And I don't think you can argue with that. Almost any human being have potential to become a virtuos pianist, to learn to memorize whole page of text by looking at it once, to speak 50 languages, etc. If you can potentially learn to do it, but can't do it now, this means there ARE those hidden reserves, even if they are not literally parts of the brain lying dormant.
luddite (2) - One who opposes technical or technological change. You are a luddite, because you oppose the change. You don't mind technology, as long as it doesn't really change anything. You may accept bigger TV, faster and more efficient car, cheaper computers, but you don't want change, you are afraid of it, you hate uncertainty. That is normal, most people feel this way, but that is because they are weak, stupid and cowardly.
This technology has the potential to change the world. It will change the world, or rather one of it's next iterations. The exponential growth in the number of people connected to computers and in total brain-computer traffic has already started. We don't notice it, like we didn't notice Internet in 1970s, but it is here. Expect brain-computer networking to be a bigger hit in 2015 than Wi-Fi was in 2000.
I don't know about monkey's, but you can find some videos of remote-controlled rats on the net. Google for remote controlled rats video. Some news site have short clips of rats going through the "obstacle course". :)
If the guy's name was Tolkien then he might have a case. As it is, he's just typical low life internet scum trying to profit off of other people's name.
And since when is it wrong to profit off of other people's names? Is it wrong to make a computer game called Caesar? To make parfume called Napoleon? To make cigarettes called Peter I? To make vodka called Rasputin? Or is it suddenly ok when there are no greedy heirs left?
I don't like cybersquatting, but it should not be declared wrong, simply because he used a name of yet another dead guy. The name is not a trademark, it's not a copyrighted work, it's not a patent. The judges who made this decision are idiots and Tokien's estate is a bunch of pathetic jerks.
For an informative post it's got too many factual errors. :) The laser actually was not used to cut dinosaur patterns, it's what the customer said they want to ultimately be able to do. And "numbers" are not mentioned anywhere in the text. The only example mentioned is the University of Wisconsin-Madison motif (with a picture).
Eh? I think because different moderators have different opinions about what exactly are the limits of ontopic in this dicsussion. One thought that Assault Rifles are not terribly relevant to a discussion about slicing cheese. Another thought that clearing a misconception whould be valuable to Slashdot readers. The system is democratic and overall it works. If you don't like the results, Meta-Moderate.
And to tell the truth, your post was not a very good one. You copy-pasted some definitions, tried to flame Intratec (do you really think that 50% of the injured by it are shooters?) and gave a few links to real submachine guns.
First poster you link to gave a more detailed description of Tec 9, including some of his personal experience with it. Another poster made a long original post, with more interesting info about different kinds of guns. These were modded up, despite being slightly offtopic. Your post simply doesn't warrant an upmod.
There surely must be at least a few jokes in the whole book (or the whole series) that can be translated well into cinema... Remember, that the script (speech only) is usually 5-10 times smaller than the speech in the book.
This is a fascinating story and the first true (iirc) challenge to the open source movement. The outcome is much more important than the future of Linux, or even OSS in general.
The outcome of the first true challenge to OSS is more important than the OSS itself? Don't tell me there was supposed to be some logic there, because I don't see any.
I might be wrong again, but I think Trinity was still the codename for the project Carmack wanted to do after Q3. The squabble they had in id is described in Masters of Doom book and in Carmack's .plan (albeit briefly). It was supposed to be something more innovative than just another FPS, but the rest of the team wanted to redo Doom.
I don't have the book with me now, so I can't check if it really was the name.
If there is one thing I hate in the world, it's fanatical brand followers. Lego is not god, Apple is not god, Nike is not god, Cisco is not god. There is no monopoly on quality!
:) A hint - it's not the Thai clock. Asian countries produce really good stuff, that's the reason production of pretty much everything is moved there from the US.
Making plastic bricks is not rocket science. You just place an order in China and you get it. Want a 1 mm precision - here is the price. Want 1 micron precision - here is the price. And if you don't have to pay to the patentholder, and if you don't charge for your brand name, the price can be an order of magnitude lower. There is no reason why Megabloks should be worse than Legos in quality. And if they actually did explode when picked up, I guess, someone would do something about it. I don't know, return a product, file a lawsuit, or something.
I have two alarmclocks on my table - one made in Thailand and one made in England. Guess which clock features a feature unique in its idiocy. There is backlight activated by the snooze button, but the hands have an opaque screen behind them...
Geeks can think and imagine. You are turning you 2 year old into a person that has to have flashly lights to be entertained.
No, he is turning his 2 year old into a person that enjoys playing with smart matter, that understands how everything around him can have memory, motion and instincts. Kids like his will feel at home in the future of 2020, when every object manufactured anywhere on Earth would have a built-in computer, when nanotechnology would finally start becoming mainstream. That is the future you need to prepare your kids to. And today that means batteries.
Give me a break! I don't know how much Legos actually cost, but for 1$ you can buy a Chinese ball mouse. This include a pretty complex plastic case, some mechanics, electronics, a ball, some wires, etc. And it works as a mouse. For 4$ you can buy a keyboard, which includes more than one hundred of keys, each being at least as complex as a simple Lego block. And electronics, and it works. And I have never seen a key on even the cheapest keyboard physically break.
So I don't give a shit about "quality" and you are stupid if you believe in that yourself. There is as much "quality" there as in Nike shoes or Benetton clothes. You pay for a brandname. Lego might sell quality bricks, but everyone in China can do the same.
From the article:
:) Unlimited creativity, simple (in the future) interfaces, a lot of fun.
He said the company would now go back to its roots, focusing on building blocks and abandoning its forays into multimedia and film products.
To me that is potentially a big mistake. It is pretty obvious that the bricks product line can't be maintained forever. And a good guess is that kids are going to switch to digital entertainment. Thus the solution would be to revitalise the building blocks arm of Lego to continue milking the market for cash, but also continue the efforts to find new digital markets. I don't pretend to know the kids better than Lego market researchers, but I am quite sure that in 2010 5 y.o. kids will not enjoy play traditional Lego very much. Yes, creativity is important and yes, 3 y.o. kids are probably not smart enough to play advanced Lego replacements, but
a) this might change in a few years, just like kids became more comfortable with computers in the past.
b) 5-7 y.o. can be creative enough to use more advanced toys. May be something like advanced version of Second Life MMOG is the answer?
Come on, people, you can pretend as much as you want that "creativity" allows you to see 2 triangles as a Star Destroyer, but how many of you would settle for these for your kids? Times change, get over it. We humans tend to use more and more complex technology because we learn to do it. And if your kids stick to low-tech building blocks, how will that help them become transhumans when they grow up?
That's the problem with kids raised in a capitalistic country. When they grow up, they think everything should be owned by something. I am sure, if we were moving from the ocean just now, and introducing the novel concept of breathing today, people would think about grabbing as much of the Air (tm) as possible.
P.S. Doctor, please give me anti-greediness pills. More! More! More!
Thanks for correcting me, the id's project was called Trinity. It was postponed in favour of Quake III (this one was a cash cow) and then apparently abandoned in favour of Doom 3.
Why don't single men buy advanced ingredients? Because they can't cook them anyway! When they have a cooking robot, they will simply buy what it orders (to always maintain a nice supply of ingredients to provide a varied menu) or the robot will simply send a message to the automated store that will send the food (on the automated delivery system) to the home, where the intelligent refridgerator will take it in and supply the cooking robot as needed.
Of course, I already grabbed it myself.
Impressive. I only grabbed it 8 months ago myself...
You can't easily invent another genre in a mature market. id created FPSes, now FPS is a genre inside which they have to work (because they are best at FPS games). They have a lot of creative ideas, but there are certain limitations (like the game is first-person, you run around and basically shoot stuff) they have to respect. Still, Doom3 promises a lot of innovation in the style. It won't be the first movie-like FPS experience, but enough not to be considered a clone.
Another thing is that id guys had a lot of ideas for their next game, including a very innovative Prey (IIRC). But ultimately they decided that they want to make Doom3, because they loved the original Doom and felt like the possibilities were simply to great to be ignored. This was neither milking the cash cow, nor investors' decision. The programmers (designers) made the decision.
Then you might also think about the reason FPS games are popular. It's because there is very specific behaviour that we humans enjoy very much - wreaking havoc. We have a very good picture of what we want to experience in such games and the FPS genre is doomed to assimptotically approach the image in our minds. That's why FPS game can't be too innovative, we are already close enough to the perfect experience and changing too much would be straying in the wrong direction.
Next hundred years? What? Apparently, you think that either
a) It's more difficult to come from QRIO to a general-purpose intelligent robot than from radio to Internet, from Wright's Flyer to 1000+ passenger jets, solar-powered planes and UAVs, from Model T to GM's Autonomy.
or
b) The rate of progress is decreasing.
is true. But I think both a and b are false. And we will have intelligent robots in a few decades, not centuries.
Check this out.
St. Petersburg, the 2nd largest city in Russia.
I just switched from cable to ADSL. Here are the costs.
Cable: 12$ - monthly fee for 128kbps/32kbps, traffic paid separately, 0.07$/Mb. This means about 100$/month for my regular use (without stuff like trailers, demos, MP3s, P2P, etc.).
ADSL: 200$ setup fee. Monthly fee - 60$ for 64kbps/16kbps connection, unlimited traffic. The speeds are the guaranteed ones, actual download/upload rates are closer to 256/64 most of the time.
Only two companies offer ADSL in the city (4.5 mln population, although average salary is 170$/month). One company owns the equipment and charges for traffic, another one (my ISP) uses the equipment of the first and offers unlimited usage plans.
Two or three companies offer cable access, but only about 10% of the city is covered. Some firms offer radio-Ethernet, people can also use their CDMA or GPRS mobiles to access the Net, but these are used by only a few people.
Most people still use dial-up, which is basically 0.5-1$/hour.
From the article:
Microsoft, it said, "has recently broken its policy of unified pricing of products worldwide. In Thailand and England there were reductions of hundreds of percent" on products that it sells.
I want a two hundred percent reduction in price too!
Ah why do I even bother responding to an obvious idiot.
For the same reason I am doing it?
Counterfeiting money is a crime, counterfeiting music is not, it's a civil offence called copyright infridgment. The physical copy belongs to the seller, not to RIAA or an artist. And until the court rules that he may not distribute them, he is in the clear.
Sue for copyright infringment? I think I can deal with that. Hope they didn't patent racketeering, though.
DO NOT OVERSELL BANDWIDTH.
I have a 64/16 ADSL (yes, that's 64kbits/sec). It costs me 60$ (the best deal one can find in St. Petersburg) and 64kbit/sec is a guaranteed speed. Still, whenever possible, I get higher download rates, usually around 256kbit/sec. But my ISP doesn't have to guarantee me that, simply because he can't.
Do the same. If you can't guarantee 768kbps to your budget users, don't do that. Promise them that they will get 768kbps most of the time, but not always. Offer an "enterprise" plan with 768kbps/300$.