No, it would be ironic if the attempt to destroy the earth ended the human race, otherwise the if only the Earth was destroyed and humanity continued, the diaspora of humanity from earth would have worked quite nicely.
But in your case everyone with kids, or access to kids, would be giving up their rights. As the law is written they are giving away other peoples rights. Who the hell isn't ready to give up someone elses rights to get their own schemes fulfilled? Remember, my rights matter, not yours.
Why should Hell have to be restricted to a single state? Kansas and Oklahoma are equally hell like to different groups of people. Dante had nine rings of Hell, we have 50 States of Hell.
No, you have Americans willing to put up token 50'lengths of barbed wire. I doubt you would have more than a handful of volunteers after the first week if they were constructing a real barrier three stage barrier. Especially through the Sonoran desert. That is one hot, unhospitable, stretch of dirt and sand. Lots of beautiful cacti and animals though.
Do you know how many Irish came to America illegaly via Canada during the potato famine? I'm guessing not. You did realize that the Irish were regarded as unskilled illiterate trash unfit for almost any job? That the government tried to keep them out, and failed.
Well, The standard voice channel used to be 64kbps with OOB signaling you got 56kbps. That number sure looks familiar, oh, that's what dialup uses. On top of that in an area where there is/was a shortage of twisted pairs the telco used muxes which gave 4 x 14.4 channels with compression per voice channel, so unless Skype is just really crappy they can do voice in 14.4 or less. I'm betting less. Their biggest issue is not bandwidth, but latency.
That said, if your ISP can't haul the traffic for what you pay them, they can damn well charge you for your requirements rather than charging Skype who will just end up charging their customers, most likely in a way that is even less equitable. It's a scam. A dodge. A very disingenuos way of trying to double dip for the same bandwidth. You pay for unlimited, and then they charge your content providers, or they get limited. It's not that the content providers need to pay for high bandwidth since you've already paid, it's simply the ISP wanting more money, or their customers get screwed in a way that they can blame it on someone else.
The OP uses it correctly. Since the media is the web, and the items under discussion are items published on the web, using redact to mean the adaptation of material by not displaying it, as in censorship (see U.S. Government documents), is fairly acurate. I know nothing about "The Office", but from your discription, I assume they meany retract, not redact.
In other words, let's say I send a phone call through Skype's servers. I'm not paying any more to my telco or cableco for them to do this. I'm just paying Skype and Skype is paying their own ISP, not my local ISP, even though my local ISP is carrying all the extra traffic load. This is especially galling for the Telco because this used to be revenue at $ 0.05 a minute and now it's not giving them one thin dime, even though they are providing the bandwidth for it to happen!
You ARE paying your ISP for the bandwidth already. That's that monthly "unlimited access" fee you pay to your ISP. Skype is paying their ISP, and the person on the other end is paying their ISP, if it's an IP to IP call. Everyone is already being paid for moving IP packets. If you are moving too many packets over your ISP, they should charge you, not Skype. Your ISP knows you want to use Skype, but will leave and go to another ISP if they raise your rates, so they extort money from Skype to be allowed to provide you a service you are already paying your ISP for, moving IP packets from your address to another and vice versa.
It is the providers ISP that carries the burden in your case, so they are well in their rights to charge for the bandwidth. It is not OK for MY ISP to charge me and the content provider for the same bandwidth. If I am a bandwidth hog, my ISP should charge me because I'm their customer. This is just a way to extort money from a company for services that have already been paid for. Those millions of Verison customers causing the peering issue you mention are already paying for the privilige of getting the bits delivered.
Don't you mean "Sorry, Your IP isnot on your content providers basic subscribers plan. Please urge them to upgrade to the Premium Plus package to be able to serve content to you OUR customer."
Well, not just that. If they are looking for patterns that look like terrorists planning attacks, they will look like any other group planning something. Planning and coordination is planning and coordination whether it is a terrorist attack on the U.S., or Great Aunt Gerties 95'th birthday. The patterns will be very similar, and after the second time that a family planning a party for their overseas cousin who is coming to visit is raided the FBI is going to be quite pissed at the false positive rate.
No it wouldn't. They would decry the the horrible vandals that are besmirching the names of the wonderful administrators who are only trying to do what's best for the children.
Good. Suits me just fine. About 70-80 of the laws need to go away. I wish that our elected officials would learn that just because we elect them it doesn't mean that many don't expect them to pass another 200 laws this session, just a few that actually benefit the citizens of this country.
Aparently you have a different definition of media center than myself and several others engaged in this conversation. I believe that may be where some of the confusion is coming from.
Some people do want them. Some people with huge families probably want them. I never said that families wouldn't want them, or enjoy them. I said "I haven't seen one that would be worth much for anyone who wasn't single." That is an opinion. I never said people wouldn't like them or want them, just that *I* didn't see them as useful outside a small niche. In my other post, I said "For me it would be cheaper and easier", not "for everyone it would be cheaper and easier". I never insisted you were wrong about people wanting them. I never said you wern't allowed to hold your own opinion on them. There is no "Gospel according to 'nother poster".
No, you missed my point, maybe intentionally. (Well, your assuming motives for me, why shouldn't I do it for you.;) )
My point was that unless you are single, a media center is less cost effective. For a family it is usually a waste of money to buy a media center device when those functions that it performs are going to be wanted, or needed, by multiple people in the family at the same time. For me it would be cheaper and easier to simply buy one or two game consoles that are just game consoles, a dvd player or two, a video recorder of some type, and one or two other items that perform some of the functionality of a media center rather than two, or three, or even four of the media center units.
I don't expect a media center to make me breakfast, but with several people in the house, I damn well want to be able to make breakfast if my wife wants to wash the dishes without having to buy a second kitchen.
You need to read a bit about what capitalism is, how it evolved, and how it is defined. I see you use a capital C when typing it as if it were a proper noun like it's something to be worshipped. I assume what you meant was free market. Even in free markets there are reasons that pricing structures exist.
I've never seen a media center that did nearly what I need. I haven't seen one that would be worth much for anyone who wasn't single. As soon as they make one that will let me watch tv on the big screen while my wife watches her chick flick sob fest on the 36 in. tube TV and my kids slaughet another 20,000 aliens in their favorite FPS I'll be interested. Till then I'll go with a DVD player, a set top box, and a game console or two. Having a console that is also a DVD player doesn't help much if one kid wants to watch a movie, and the other wants to play. Cheaper individual components are the way to go for most people.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it would be ironic if the attempt to destroy the earth ended the human race, otherwise the if only the Earth was destroyed and humanity continued, the diaspora of humanity from earth would have worked quite nicely.
But in your case everyone with kids, or access to kids, would be giving up their rights. As the law is written they are giving away other peoples rights. Who the hell isn't ready to give up someone elses rights to get their own schemes fulfilled? Remember, my rights matter, not yours.
... And stupid. Being a moderate in an area that has enclaves of extremist Liberalism in a quagmire of Neocon hate and loathing is very disheartining.
Why should Hell have to be restricted to a single state? Kansas and Oklahoma are equally hell like to different groups of people. Dante had nine rings of Hell, we have 50 States of Hell.
No, you have Americans willing to put up token 50'lengths of barbed wire. I doubt you would have more than a handful of volunteers after the first week if they were constructing a real barrier three stage barrier. Especially through the Sonoran desert. That is one hot, unhospitable, stretch of dirt and sand. Lots of beautiful cacti and animals though.
Do you know how many Irish came to America illegaly via Canada during the potato famine? I'm guessing not. You did realize that the Irish were regarded as unskilled illiterate trash unfit for almost any job? That the government tried to keep them out, and failed.
How do you play a text adventure with a DualShock2 controller?!?!?!
Well, The standard voice channel used to be 64kbps with OOB signaling you got 56kbps. That number sure looks familiar, oh, that's what dialup uses. On top of that in an area where there is/was a shortage of twisted pairs the telco used muxes which gave 4 x 14.4 channels with compression per voice channel, so unless Skype is just really crappy they can do voice in 14.4 or less. I'm betting less. Their biggest issue is not bandwidth, but latency.
That said, if your ISP can't haul the traffic for what you pay them, they can damn well charge you for your requirements rather than charging Skype who will just end up charging their customers, most likely in a way that is even less equitable. It's a scam. A dodge. A very disingenuos way of trying to double dip for the same bandwidth. You pay for unlimited, and then they charge your content providers, or they get limited. It's not that the content providers need to pay for high bandwidth since you've already paid, it's simply the ISP wanting more money, or their customers get screwed in a way that they can blame it on someone else.
The OP uses it correctly. Since the media is the web, and the items under discussion are items published on the web, using redact to mean the adaptation of material by not displaying it, as in censorship (see U.S. Government documents), is fairly acurate. I know nothing about "The Office", but from your discription, I assume they meany retract, not redact.
In other words, let's say I send a phone call through Skype's servers. I'm not paying any more to my telco or cableco for them to do this. I'm just paying Skype and Skype is paying their own ISP, not my local ISP, even though my local ISP is carrying all the extra traffic load. This is especially galling for the Telco because this used to be revenue at $ 0.05 a minute and now it's not giving them one thin dime, even though they are providing the bandwidth for it to happen!
You ARE paying your ISP for the bandwidth already. That's that monthly "unlimited access" fee you pay to your ISP. Skype is paying their ISP, and the person on the other end is paying their ISP, if it's an IP to IP call. Everyone is already being paid for moving IP packets. If you are moving too many packets over your ISP, they should charge you, not Skype. Your ISP knows you want to use Skype, but will leave and go to another ISP if they raise your rates, so they extort money from Skype to be allowed to provide you a service you are already paying your ISP for, moving IP packets from your address to another and vice versa.
It is the providers ISP that carries the burden in your case, so they are well in their rights to charge for the bandwidth. It is not OK for MY ISP to charge me and the content provider for the same bandwidth. If I am a bandwidth hog, my ISP should charge me because I'm their customer. This is just a way to extort money from a company for services that have already been paid for. Those millions of Verison customers causing the peering issue you mention are already paying for the privilige of getting the bits delivered.
Don't you mean "Sorry, Your IP isnot on your content providers basic subscribers plan. Please urge them to upgrade to the Premium Plus package to be able to serve content to you OUR customer."
Well, not just that. If they are looking for patterns that look like terrorists planning attacks, they will look like any other group planning something. Planning and coordination is planning and coordination whether it is a terrorist attack on the U.S., or Great Aunt Gerties 95'th birthday. The patterns will be very similar, and after the second time that a family planning a party for their overseas cousin who is coming to visit is raided the FBI is going to be quite pissed at the false positive rate.
Ok. Got it. I assumed yo were applying it to the OP, but were referencing MS. Now it makes sense, I just missed it. Thanks.
Ok, maybe I'm missing it. What does the OP comment have to do with the fox and the grapes? He is not lamenting or deriding something he can not have.
Well, that would be a start. As long as I get to choose who is executed. I'm just trying to make the world a better place.
No it wouldn't. They would decry the the horrible vandals that are besmirching the names of the wonderful administrators who are only trying to do what's best for the children.
Ack. Scratch the don't between many and expect.
Good. Suits me just fine. About 70-80 of the laws need to go away. I wish that our elected officials would learn that just because we elect them it doesn't mean that many don't expect them to pass another 200 laws this session, just a few that actually benefit the citizens of this country.
Aparently you have a different definition of media center than myself and several others engaged in this conversation. I believe that may be where some of the confusion is coming from.
Some people do want them. Some people with huge families probably want them. I never said that families wouldn't want them, or enjoy them. I said "I haven't seen one that would be worth much for anyone who wasn't single." That is an opinion. I never said people wouldn't like them or want them, just that *I* didn't see them as useful outside a small niche. In my other post, I said "For me it would be cheaper and easier", not "for everyone it would be cheaper and easier". I never insisted you were wrong about people wanting them. I never said you wern't allowed to hold your own opinion on them. There is no "Gospel according to 'nother poster".
No, you missed my point, maybe intentionally. (Well, your assuming motives for me, why shouldn't I do it for you. ;) )
My point was that unless you are single, a media center is less cost effective. For a family it is usually a waste of money to buy a media center device when those functions that it performs are going to be wanted, or needed, by multiple people in the family at the same time. For me it would be cheaper and easier to simply buy one or two game consoles that are just game consoles, a dvd player or two, a video recorder of some type, and one or two other items that perform some of the functionality of a media center rather than two, or three, or even four of the media center units.
I don't expect a media center to make me breakfast, but with several people in the house, I damn well want to be able to make breakfast if my wife wants to wash the dishes without having to buy a second kitchen.
You need to read a bit about what capitalism is, how it evolved, and how it is defined. I see you use a capital C when typing it as if it were a proper noun like it's something to be worshipped. I assume what you meant was free market. Even in free markets there are reasons that pricing structures exist.
I've never seen a media center that did nearly what I need. I haven't seen one that would be worth much for anyone who wasn't single. As soon as they make one that will let me watch tv on the big screen while my wife watches her chick flick sob fest on the 36 in. tube TV and my kids slaughet another 20,000 aliens in their favorite FPS I'll be interested. Till then I'll go with a DVD player, a set top box, and a game console or two. Having a console that is also a DVD player doesn't help much if one kid wants to watch a movie, and the other wants to play. Cheaper individual components are the way to go for most people.
Yeah, that is more likely a monthly salary number. Still, given that, if any console was 2/3 of my monthly I would most likely pass on it.