Dude, you're an idiot. You probably read stuff on the internet about it and believed it. I actually worked on the systems. I'll ignore you know because you obviously have no clue.
So you don't consider someone who might be the next leader of the U.S., a person who can hugely influence on how much the U.S. government funds basic science projects as well as major scientific organizations like NASA, the CDC, the EPA, etc. etc. etc.... you don't consider what this person thinks and who he surrounds himself with to be very important or interesting to a group of people interested in science? You're a fucking idiot. Get out of the 1940's nuclear bomb lab... what goes on inside a technical shop is affected by outside influences like who it the potential next president and his running mate, and the outside world is affected by work done in many labs. There are consequences in both directions.
And just because he isn't elected yet (if he ever will be) doesn't mean he won't affect spending patterns. His policies could influence Obama's if Obama decides he needs to change his current ones in order to get re-elected. Narrow minded narrow focused... get a grip, some things outside of science are very, very important to science.
Personally I'm glad he chose Ryan. This guy is so tea party crazy right he has the power to induce a La Chattalier stress on the system and push moderates and undecideds towards Obama. Don't get me wrong. Normally I do side with the democrats, but I really don't like how Obama has performed in many respects and would have liked to have seen the more moderate side of Romney to provide at least an alternative or to force Obama to back off of all the Bush era policies he adopted. But by going hard right as Romney has been doing of late, Obama is likely to seem like the only sane choice to more people (not the rabid right, but more like the silent majority). Especially with the tea bagger Romney just picked. Who doesn't want medicare when they hit 65? Vote Romney!
Maybe for small boats it's OK to plow through it, but with larger boats and ships I would think it is not a good idea. They have a tonne of water inlets from below the water line for things like engine cooling/heat exchangers, and flushing out sewage, bilge pumps, etc. That pumice can thoroughly fuck up a pump. Or clog a heat exchanger. That could shut down one of those massive diesel engines right quick. It could also mean having to reapply antifouling paint on some vessels depending on how far they had to go to get through it and how much grinding action it had on the paint. That's not a cheap operation either. On the other hand, on some vessels it might provide a bit of needed hull cleaning. That'll take care of yer barnacle problem. (just kidding on the last bit... rubbing on the waterline doesn't count for proper cleaning).
I think most people can't tell the difference. I think the only real correlation is that the higher the audiophile pomposity index a person has, the more they think they can tell the difference, whether they can or can't... see the first sentence of this post.
Spoken like a true tech support guy who thinks because he knows how to install windows systems he is the be all know all of business systems. Y2K wasn't about the desktop. It was about business systems. And the desktop was small potatoes in that regard. If you have a company with 25,000 employees you can put a new desktop on every desk for less than 25 million dollars. It can be almost guaranteed that to replace the main business systems for a company that size it will cost at least 100 million dollars. In some cases like telecoms you can bet half a billion dollars or more. Desktops weren't ever the main problem of Y2K. It was the main business systems. The only reason there wasn't a melt down is because of the many, many hours of overtime in the few years leasing up to 2000 to prevent meltdown. I was working 50 to 70 hours weeks for most of 1999 (and at least 50 hours per week in 1998) so that companies with real Y2K issues (some that did $1 billion + in sales yearly) wouldn't fail. A lot of companies had to have the systems in place well before midnight on Dec 31, 1999. And many had to start implementing them years in advance. That is why there wasn't some sort of staggering convulsion on the night. One company where I implemented a big system... a very big system, needed the new system online by November 15, 1999 or they would not be producing the next day. Their entire customer base would be affected at the same time (a daily product for between 250,000 to 500,000 customers depending on day of the week, but never any less than the lower value). And that one system took nearly a year to implement. I ran two projects like that, that year (along with a host of developers, analysts, trainers, dbas, etc). If you didn't see any of that, it means you weren't paying attention or aren't as worldly as you think you are.
From the sounds of the article there is no standard yet, just a proposed standard. So what makes MS any worse than Google in this? Is it because Google proposed a standard that fits in with their own technology first? Do people here still think Google is benign? Their standard proposal may be good, but let's not delude ourselves that it doesn't somehow fit in with what they've already developed, just the same as MS. They just made the proposal first. Maybe MS is proposing this because they see Google moving their proposed standard to a place that is incompatible with the long established Skype platform (which is something I would do if I were Google in order to hamstring a competitor). While I am not a fan of MS business practices, and think Ballmer is the worst thing to happen to any company, especially MS, I don't think there is enough evidence presented yet to say which is the better proposal. First doesn't mean better, and Google doesn't mean "do no evil" any longer. Being the first and biggest related technology (i.e. Skype) doesn't mean best, either. Let some independent people who actually know what they're talking about have a look and report back. Hopefully it isn't the standards body itself or we won't hear back until we evolve mind to mind communication that will make this all moot.
And if they would reinvest in their own bloody business they would have their own backbone and last mile. Statement still stands because it is their decision on what their business model will be. So none of your post is meaningful.
I don't know if it's true, but a friend of mine told me recently that deposits in northern Manitoba are so high they would be considered a security concern if they were stuck in sold rock. And that is pretty much bedrock Canadian Shield up there. I wonder if that is true and how accessible it is for mining.
I'd like to see as much research going into thorium reactors right now as is put into fusion. In a guaranteed relatively short time (compared to developing fusion which is still not certain as a viable source) we could have pretty stable pretty safe, low grade impact nuclear power for everyone. Once that is done and everyone is taken care of (also helps to power desalination plants too... no more water worries), full steam on fusion power. Pun intended.
In northern Ontario (like Elliot Lake) the uranium mines were in solid granite bedrock. I don't think there was much groundwater that anyone was going to be able to access. IIRC ground water exists only in sedimentary layers or higher which are softer than granite. Once you reach granite bedrock the next thing lower is the mantle. I believe other uranium mines in Canada were also in bedrock, but could be mistaken. I know Elliot Lake this must be the case though because that whole area for hundreds or thousands of square kilometres (if not tens of thousands), the Canadian Shield bedrock is pretty much completely exposed except for just enough soil to keep allow pine trees to root without falling over, but that is pretty much it. And in many cases not even that. Just rock. A barren kind of beauty with a lot of surface lakes.
Novus in downtown Vancouver has connected all the condos and highrises with their own fibre optic network and it kicks ass. Even 6 or 7 years ago you could get 10 meg down AND up. For the same or cheaper than Shaw or Telus. Now they have even faster. Now it is only in the downtown condos and highrises. But it is their own infrastructure. I wish Teksavvy would at least do that in Toronto. But they are contect to coast. I don't believe for a minute that anyone would block Teksavvy if they wanted to do do this. Their is no conspiracy, there is only inertia.
I've always thought about that. The radioactive material comes out of the ground and is concentrated. But it still came out of the ground. It was there to begin with. Glassifying it and then storing it in a salt mine (that basically reseals itself if it cracks) can't be any worse than when it was in the ground to begin with.
I am less than enthralled by them, and getting less so as time goes by. The moan and complain about not being able to make easy money renting lines from the big companies. And they make no effort to reinvest so that they can start offering their own infrastructure and increase stability and add competition. They seem more and more to me like some easy money guys who will dump this business when things like this (running out of bandwidth) stop them from making enough money. i.e. they're here for a good time, not a long time. The sad truth is that the big guys got a lock on things and no-one wants to be the little start up any more.
I think the only reason we're all still here is that almost everybody else thinks the same way as the author. If you're of the belief that nuclear war is (or at that time was) a survivable event, you are very much in the minority. Especially with the number of bombs on a hair trigger they had. You essentially had to let loose with everything if they fired at you because you probably wouldn't get a second chance.
It looks like highly geek touted Teksavvy is one of the worst for throttling in Canada. (disclosure: I use Teksavvy but I don't use bit torrent much if at all, so cannot provide my own observations).
What is VERY interesting is late last year Bell Canada told the CRTC regulator that they would stop throttling. And here they are, the worst offender according to the data provided on this new list. I'm not surprised that they seem to be a bunch of lying scumbags. In discussions with the federal regulator and in the publicity wars, they pretty much lead the charge over the years for throttling and bandwidth caps. I wonder if this can be used to file a complaint against them.
In Canada, Ontario at least, most geeks having been trumpeting how good Teksavvy is because they have higher or no bandwidth caps. They are no cheaper and can be more expensive if on a dry loop. And according to these numbers, they look to be as bad or worse on throttling than the often maligned (in my opinion with merit) Telus, and Rogers. The only one that is worse is Bell who, and I'll make no bones about it, is in my opinion a pretty disreputable company and one of the worst abusers of their position in the marketplace..
It is amazing that Telus and Rogers are among the least offenders here. But I wonder how much a ruling earlier this year telling Rogers to stop throttling has to do with it. I may be mistaken but I don't believe Bell received the same warning. Probably because they had already at this point, lied to the regulators saying they would stop voluntarily (which apparently they haven't).
I have been considering going back to Rogers but past experience makes me gun shy. Present experience with cost/benefit with Teksavvy is making me think hard about it though.
That is a trip. I can't even imagine how she felt. I think the word 'upset' probably didn't even approach it. Especially if it was back in the days when that kind of worry was a very real thing.
lol... that is one way to look at it. People are kind. Now they're dead. [grin]
I read your post and couldn't help but google "depressing philosopher." I have a dark sense of humour. Anyway, I don't know why I found it so funny, but I did, that the first result would be exactly what I was thinking about first:
Discussion List on "Who is the most depressing philosopher. Given the subject of this post I shouldn't have been surprised that a group somewhere would be discussing philosophies that are truly depressing.
However, I found a most heartening result on, of all places, Facebook. And it made me laugh my ass off. It is so droll it is beyond belief. I love this humour. It is a Facebook page for Depressing Philosophers Who Say That Nothing Matters So Why Bother Anyway. If you click the link you will see the humour. Honest.
The irony is that it is all because of a lazy liberal journalist at Rolling Stone misquoting Gore because he couldn't be bothered to at least ask for clarification before writing on a topic he knew nothing about. I know what Gore said, and it was accurate. That misquote by the reporter however, killed him politically.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, you're an idiot. You probably read stuff on the internet about it and believed it. I actually worked on the systems. I'll ignore you know because you obviously have no clue.
So you don't consider someone who might be the next leader of the U.S., a person who can hugely influence on how much the U.S. government funds basic science projects as well as major scientific organizations like NASA, the CDC, the EPA, etc. etc. etc. ... you don't consider what this person thinks and who he surrounds himself with to be very important or interesting to a group of people interested in science? You're a fucking idiot. Get out of the 1940's nuclear bomb lab... what goes on inside a technical shop is affected by outside influences like who it the potential next president and his running mate, and the outside world is affected by work done in many labs. There are consequences in both directions.
And just because he isn't elected yet (if he ever will be) doesn't mean he won't affect spending patterns. His policies could influence Obama's if Obama decides he needs to change his current ones in order to get re-elected. Narrow minded narrow focused... get a grip, some things outside of science are very, very important to science.
Personally I'm glad he chose Ryan. This guy is so tea party crazy right he has the power to induce a La Chattalier stress on the system and push moderates and undecideds towards Obama. Don't get me wrong. Normally I do side with the democrats, but I really don't like how Obama has performed in many respects and would have liked to have seen the more moderate side of Romney to provide at least an alternative or to force Obama to back off of all the Bush era policies he adopted. But by going hard right as Romney has been doing of late, Obama is likely to seem like the only sane choice to more people (not the rabid right, but more like the silent majority). Especially with the tea bagger Romney just picked. Who doesn't want medicare when they hit 65? Vote Romney!
Now that was a real wreck.
Maybe for small boats it's OK to plow through it, but with larger boats and ships I would think it is not a good idea. They have a tonne of water inlets from below the water line for things like engine cooling/heat exchangers, and flushing out sewage, bilge pumps, etc. That pumice can thoroughly fuck up a pump. Or clog a heat exchanger. That could shut down one of those massive diesel engines right quick. It could also mean having to reapply antifouling paint on some vessels depending on how far they had to go to get through it and how much grinding action it had on the paint. That's not a cheap operation either. On the other hand, on some vessels it might provide a bit of needed hull cleaning. That'll take care of yer barnacle problem. (just kidding on the last bit... rubbing on the waterline doesn't count for proper cleaning).
I think most people can't tell the difference. I think the only real correlation is that the higher the audiophile pomposity index a person has, the more they think they can tell the difference, whether they can or can't... see the first sentence of this post.
Speaking of amplification, I looked at the article and couldn't see any tubes (valves). Where are the tubes?
Spoken like a true tech support guy who thinks because he knows how to install windows systems he is the be all know all of business systems. Y2K wasn't about the desktop. It was about business systems. And the desktop was small potatoes in that regard. If you have a company with 25,000 employees you can put a new desktop on every desk for less than 25 million dollars. It can be almost guaranteed that to replace the main business systems for a company that size it will cost at least 100 million dollars. In some cases like telecoms you can bet half a billion dollars or more. Desktops weren't ever the main problem of Y2K. It was the main business systems. The only reason there wasn't a melt down is because of the many, many hours of overtime in the few years leasing up to 2000 to prevent meltdown. I was working 50 to 70 hours weeks for most of 1999 (and at least 50 hours per week in 1998) so that companies with real Y2K issues (some that did $1 billion + in sales yearly) wouldn't fail. A lot of companies had to have the systems in place well before midnight on Dec 31, 1999. And many had to start implementing them years in advance. That is why there wasn't some sort of staggering convulsion on the night. One company where I implemented a big system... a very big system, needed the new system online by November 15, 1999 or they would not be producing the next day. Their entire customer base would be affected at the same time (a daily product for between 250,000 to 500,000 customers depending on day of the week, but never any less than the lower value). And that one system took nearly a year to implement. I ran two projects like that, that year (along with a host of developers, analysts, trainers, dbas, etc). If you didn't see any of that, it means you weren't paying attention or aren't as worldly as you think you are.
From the sounds of the article there is no standard yet, just a proposed standard. So what makes MS any worse than Google in this? Is it because Google proposed a standard that fits in with their own technology first? Do people here still think Google is benign? Their standard proposal may be good, but let's not delude ourselves that it doesn't somehow fit in with what they've already developed, just the same as MS. They just made the proposal first. Maybe MS is proposing this because they see Google moving their proposed standard to a place that is incompatible with the long established Skype platform (which is something I would do if I were Google in order to hamstring a competitor). While I am not a fan of MS business practices, and think Ballmer is the worst thing to happen to any company, especially MS, I don't think there is enough evidence presented yet to say which is the better proposal. First doesn't mean better, and Google doesn't mean "do no evil" any longer. Being the first and biggest related technology (i.e. Skype) doesn't mean best, either. Let some independent people who actually know what they're talking about have a look and report back. Hopefully it isn't the standards body itself or we won't hear back until we evolve mind to mind communication that will make this all moot.
Everyone is ready with an excuse why something can't be done.
Knew I should have hit preview. Bites me every time. If they WEREN'T in solid rock.
And if they would reinvest in their own bloody business they would have their own backbone and last mile. Statement still stands because it is their decision on what their business model will be. So none of your post is meaningful.
I don't know if it's true, but a friend of mine told me recently that deposits in northern Manitoba are so high they would be considered a security concern if they were stuck in sold rock. And that is pretty much bedrock Canadian Shield up there. I wonder if that is true and how accessible it is for mining.
I'd like to see as much research going into thorium reactors right now as is put into fusion. In a guaranteed relatively short time (compared to developing fusion which is still not certain as a viable source) we could have pretty stable pretty safe, low grade impact nuclear power for everyone. Once that is done and everyone is taken care of (also helps to power desalination plants too... no more water worries), full steam on fusion power. Pun intended.
In northern Ontario (like Elliot Lake) the uranium mines were in solid granite bedrock. I don't think there was much groundwater that anyone was going to be able to access. IIRC ground water exists only in sedimentary layers or higher which are softer than granite. Once you reach granite bedrock the next thing lower is the mantle. I believe other uranium mines in Canada were also in bedrock, but could be mistaken. I know Elliot Lake this must be the case though because that whole area for hundreds or thousands of square kilometres (if not tens of thousands), the Canadian Shield bedrock is pretty much completely exposed except for just enough soil to keep allow pine trees to root without falling over, but that is pretty much it. And in many cases not even that. Just rock. A barren kind of beauty with a lot of surface lakes.
Novus in downtown Vancouver has connected all the condos and highrises with their own fibre optic network and it kicks ass. Even 6 or 7 years ago you could get 10 meg down AND up. For the same or cheaper than Shaw or Telus. Now they have even faster. Now it is only in the downtown condos and highrises. But it is their own infrastructure. I wish Teksavvy would at least do that in Toronto. But they are contect to coast. I don't believe for a minute that anyone would block Teksavvy if they wanted to do do this. Their is no conspiracy, there is only inertia.
I've always thought about that. The radioactive material comes out of the ground and is concentrated. But it still came out of the ground. It was there to begin with. Glassifying it and then storing it in a salt mine (that basically reseals itself if it cracks) can't be any worse than when it was in the ground to begin with.
I am less than enthralled by them, and getting less so as time goes by. The moan and complain about not being able to make easy money renting lines from the big companies. And they make no effort to reinvest so that they can start offering their own infrastructure and increase stability and add competition. They seem more and more to me like some easy money guys who will dump this business when things like this (running out of bandwidth) stop them from making enough money. i.e. they're here for a good time, not a long time. The sad truth is that the big guys got a lock on things and no-one wants to be the little start up any more.
They're really big, nothing bad could happen to them, right? Right?
You do know that almost every journalist now-a-days has to be a university graduate? [ducks]
I think the only reason we're all still here is that almost everybody else thinks the same way as the author. If you're of the belief that nuclear war is (or at that time was) a survivable event, you are very much in the minority. Especially with the number of bombs on a hair trigger they had. You essentially had to let loose with everything if they fired at you because you probably wouldn't get a second chance.
It looks like highly geek touted Teksavvy is one of the worst for throttling in Canada. (disclosure: I use Teksavvy but I don't use bit torrent much if at all, so cannot provide my own observations).
What is VERY interesting is late last year Bell Canada told the CRTC regulator that they would stop throttling. And here they are, the worst offender according to the data provided on this new list. I'm not surprised that they seem to be a bunch of lying scumbags. In discussions with the federal regulator and in the publicity wars, they pretty much lead the charge over the years for throttling and bandwidth caps. I wonder if this can be used to file a complaint against them.
In Canada, Ontario at least, most geeks having been trumpeting how good Teksavvy is because they have higher or no bandwidth caps. They are no cheaper and can be more expensive if on a dry loop. And according to these numbers, they look to be as bad or worse on throttling than the often maligned (in my opinion with merit) Telus, and Rogers. The only one that is worse is Bell who, and I'll make no bones about it, is in my opinion a pretty disreputable company and one of the worst abusers of their position in the marketplace..
It is amazing that Telus and Rogers are among the least offenders here. But I wonder how much a ruling earlier this year telling Rogers to stop throttling has to do with it. I may be mistaken but I don't believe Bell received the same warning. Probably because they had already at this point, lied to the regulators saying they would stop voluntarily (which apparently they haven't).
I have been considering going back to Rogers but past experience makes me gun shy. Present experience with cost/benefit with Teksavvy is making me think hard about it though.
That is a trip. I can't even imagine how she felt. I think the word 'upset' probably didn't even approach it. Especially if it was back in the days when that kind of worry was a very real thing.
lol... that is one way to look at it. People are kind. Now they're dead. [grin]
I read your post and couldn't help but google "depressing philosopher." I have a dark sense of humour. Anyway, I don't know why I found it so funny, but I did, that the first result would be exactly what I was thinking about first: Discussion List on "Who is the most depressing philosopher. Given the subject of this post I shouldn't have been surprised that a group somewhere would be discussing philosophies that are truly depressing.
However, I found a most heartening result on, of all places, Facebook. And it made me laugh my ass off. It is so droll it is beyond belief. I love this humour. It is a Facebook page for Depressing Philosophers Who Say That Nothing Matters So Why Bother Anyway. If you click the link you will see the humour. Honest.
You hit the nail square on the head.
The irony is that it is all because of a lazy liberal journalist at Rolling Stone misquoting Gore because he couldn't be bothered to at least ask for clarification before writing on a topic he knew nothing about. I know what Gore said, and it was accurate. That misquote by the reporter however, killed him politically.
Have you seen him lately. He needs to buy two or more seats. Might as well charter a plain.