Yes, because there is no blame going to the vendor for not delivering to the contract. Blame the government, no matter where the failure is. Never blame the private sector, even when you see failure to deliver. Hypocrisy.
No, you ban no "innocent" people. You ban an IP. The IP isn't the person, remember? They can edit from home, or get a login and keep editing all they want. The IP offended, so the IP is banned.
No innocent IP was harmed in the making of this message.
Unlimited bandwidth means no limits above the physical layer. Nobody is expecting a 10 Mbps dial-up service. or 4.4 Tbps 2G service. But if you sell a 10 Mbps service as "unlimited", putting speed/bandwidth caps on it is fraud.
That isn't a choice so yes they are in fact barred from doing it. Just because you and I want it doesn't mean they can afford to do it.
Just because the market wants it and would pay for it doesn't mean it would be profitable.
They presume it won't be, so they don't try it. I worked for a cable company once. I ran the numbers. It worked to make money a la carte.
The problem was "everyone else is doing it the package way" so risk was avoided. It is profitable to provide channels a la carte. It's just confusing to the cable companies, if not the customers. But I imagine most customers wouldn't mind or get confused by "order the base package, and check all the optional channels you want". Also, Starz and others ran "free weekend" promotions every few years. The cable company could open everything up and let people see what the other choices are.
Of course, as the guy that oversaw the build of the delivery of content, and not the buying of content or marketing side, nobody listened. But the numbers were sound. Unless the people who said what they' pay for a la carte channels were lying.
The real reason it would never work is that consumers are dumb. Would you pay $30 for your favorite 30 channels, where you spend 99%+ of your watching time, when you could get 200 channels for $50? Sure, you've never watched 150 of them, and another 20 had a show on it that you watched that was on one of the remaining 30 channels, but is being re run. But you "need" 200+ channels.
If Comcast, Verizon, AT&T want ESPN they must carry ALL ESPN channels. It's one of the main reasons we can't get A La Carte programming.
The *only* reason we don't have a la carte pricing is that the carriers refuse to provide it. The carrier may be required to "buy" ESPN 2-54 if a subscriber has ESPN 1, but I've never seen where the subscriber must "pay" for ESPN 2-54. They could still be a la carted with the prices proportional to the cost. The carriers suspect it would be a poor model, but nobody actually knows, they just refuse to try.
"Truth" You've obviously never seen the UK series Airline. Agents gladly *cause* people to miss flights. Never piss an agent off. They didn't criticize the company, but the company's agent. She got them back. oops, missed your flight.
Was the baby a citizen? I thought the rules were any legally-born child (not to an illegal entrant) was a citizen. And that was another reason they kicked them out more recently. But those rules also changed between your time here and mine. I just didn't follow too closely, as they didn't affect me.
From your link:
"MSM [gay males] accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available"[snip]"and 63% of all new infections"
So it isn't hard to extrapolate and guess that some date before 2009, the "gay male" segment was below half (as now, it's almost exactly half), but the gay male segment grew faster than others recently to overtake it.
The last time I had looked, straight people still lead the gay-male category, but it has been a few years. And its still more non-Black than Black, but it was more white than non-white when I last paid attention.
I don't check the statistics on an annual basis to see what the trends are. None of those results affect my behavior.
Since then, they changed the rules to throw out pregnant tourists. The TB test may have started out as prevention at one point, but at this point in time, it's about costs only.
GAAP requires private companies to respond to FOI requests?
No, it's properly documented for the annual report, but listed as "one time write-off", often as part of an acquisition cost, with insufficient details to determine the actual cause. And when the company turns a multi-billion dollar profit, you can lose $300M on a single project without bankrupting the company.
They don't want to keep the disease out. They want to keep people with TB out of the health care system. If you were diagnosed as a tourist, they'd throw you out. If you are diagnosed as a prospective migrant, they throw you out. If you are diagnosed as a resident, they treat you. It isn't about the disease, but the treatment costs.
When you only talk in sarcasm, you say nothing. Your opinion is only as valid as the justifications you can make for it. Apparently, that's nothing. So we'll treat your opinion with all the respect you deserve.
Ebola isn't airborne, but there could be an airborne delivery mechanism created. Cook up 3 gallons of Jello. Spread lots of Ebola in it in the final cooling stages. Put that Jello in w warhead. Launch it somewhere. When it explodes, the Jello will act as a protection for the more delicate virus, and the infected Jello "dust" could be airborne transmission of Ebola.
I'm not saying it would work. I'm saying that unusual low-tech solutions can have unexpected results, and I wouldn't want to bet everyone's safety on the musings of some nay-sayer on the Internet.
For every advance made, there were always people who claimed it was impossible. Even after the commercial Tesla S release, people were still insisting it was "impossible" to make a car with the released specifications and price. I wonder how many would die from EVD while claiming it was impossible.
Yes. Like TV is "free" with ads that take lots of space. Thankfully, the TV content makers don't make TVs and stereos, so we still get "mute" buttons. With Android, the ad maker is essentially the device maker (via the O/S), so they did leave out the common "mute" button, as well as any easy way for it to be emulated.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because there is no blame going to the vendor for not delivering to the contract. Blame the government, no matter where the failure is. Never blame the private sector, even when you see failure to deliver. Hypocrisy.
No, you ban no "innocent" people. You ban an IP. The IP isn't the person, remember? They can edit from home, or get a login and keep editing all they want. The IP offended, so the IP is banned.
No innocent IP was harmed in the making of this message.
Yes, they do. At a minimum, it's false advertising.
Calling it "unlimited" isn't fraud. Calling it "unlimited" while imposing artificial limits is fraud.
Unlimited bandwidth means no limits above the physical layer. Nobody is expecting a 10 Mbps dial-up service. or 4.4 Tbps 2G service. But if you sell a 10 Mbps service as "unlimited", putting speed/bandwidth caps on it is fraud.
That isn't a choice so yes they are in fact barred from doing it. Just because you and I want it doesn't mean they can afford to do it.
Just because the market wants it and would pay for it doesn't mean it would be profitable.
They presume it won't be, so they don't try it. I worked for a cable company once. I ran the numbers. It worked to make money a la carte.
The problem was "everyone else is doing it the package way" so risk was avoided. It is profitable to provide channels a la carte. It's just confusing to the cable companies, if not the customers. But I imagine most customers wouldn't mind or get confused by "order the base package, and check all the optional channels you want". Also, Starz and others ran "free weekend" promotions every few years. The cable company could open everything up and let people see what the other choices are.
Of course, as the guy that oversaw the build of the delivery of content, and not the buying of content or marketing side, nobody listened. But the numbers were sound. Unless the people who said what they' pay for a la carte channels were lying.
The real reason it would never work is that consumers are dumb. Would you pay $30 for your favorite 30 channels, where you spend 99%+ of your watching time, when you could get 200 channels for $50? Sure, you've never watched 150 of them, and another 20 had a show on it that you watched that was on one of the remaining 30 channels, but is being re run. But you "need" 200+ channels.
Yes, now tell me which of my points is wrong.
Are they contractually banned from it? I said no. What do you say?
" The carriers suspect it would be a poor model," I said yes. What did you say?
So you are agreeing that they aren't banned from a la carte, but choose not to do it?
Got it. You win for the most disagreeable agreement of the day.
If Comcast, Verizon, AT&T want ESPN they must carry ALL ESPN channels. It's one of the main reasons we can't get A La Carte programming.
The *only* reason we don't have a la carte pricing is that the carriers refuse to provide it. The carrier may be required to "buy" ESPN 2-54 if a subscriber has ESPN 1, but I've never seen where the subscriber must "pay" for ESPN 2-54. They could still be a la carted with the prices proportional to the cost. The carriers suspect it would be a poor model, but nobody actually knows, they just refuse to try.
So a person didn't make the edits because the IP did it?
"Truth" You've obviously never seen the UK series Airline. Agents gladly *cause* people to miss flights. Never piss an agent off. They didn't criticize the company, but the company's agent. She got them back. oops, missed your flight.
Yes, it's so unfair to be blamed for monumentally poor management of a project.
It is when the same incompetence in the private sector isn't condemned.
Was the baby a citizen? I thought the rules were any legally-born child (not to an illegal entrant) was a citizen. And that was another reason they kicked them out more recently. But those rules also changed between your time here and mine. I just didn't follow too closely, as they didn't affect me.
You'd never see that if Mobile did a new middleware upgrade that wasted $300M and never worked.
And the issue here isn't Lockheed Martin's incompetence in delivering the contract, but the Government's in poorly managing a vendor.
The hypocrisy is that the government is always blamed.
From your link:
"MSM [gay males] accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available"[snip]"and 63% of all new infections"
So it isn't hard to extrapolate and guess that some date before 2009, the "gay male" segment was below half (as now, it's almost exactly half), but the gay male segment grew faster than others recently to overtake it.
The last time I had looked, straight people still lead the gay-male category, but it has been a few years. And its still more non-Black than Black, but it was more white than non-white when I last paid attention.
I don't check the statistics on an annual basis to see what the trends are. None of those results affect my behavior.
Since then, they changed the rules to throw out pregnant tourists. The TB test may have started out as prevention at one point, but at this point in time, it's about costs only.
GAAP requires private companies to respond to FOI requests?
No, it's properly documented for the annual report, but listed as "one time write-off", often as part of an acquisition cost, with insufficient details to determine the actual cause. And when the company turns a multi-billion dollar profit, you can lose $300M on a single project without bankrupting the company.
Statistically, AIDS is mostly a disease of straight white people.
They don't want to keep the disease out. They want to keep people with TB out of the health care system. If you were diagnosed as a tourist, they'd throw you out. If you are diagnosed as a prospective migrant, they throw you out. If you are diagnosed as a resident, they treat you. It isn't about the disease, but the treatment costs.
When you only talk in sarcasm, you say nothing. Your opinion is only as valid as the justifications you can make for it. Apparently, that's nothing. So we'll treat your opinion with all the respect you deserve.
If it can be spread by infected fluids flung, then the next biological war will be fought by soldiers throwing infected water balloons at each other.
Fill water balloons with infected water. Throw it at riot police.
There are piles of ways to deliver things that aren't "traditional".
Ebola isn't airborne, but there could be an airborne delivery mechanism created. Cook up 3 gallons of Jello. Spread lots of Ebola in it in the final cooling stages. Put that Jello in w warhead. Launch it somewhere. When it explodes, the Jello will act as a protection for the more delicate virus, and the infected Jello "dust" could be airborne transmission of Ebola.
I'm not saying it would work. I'm saying that unusual low-tech solutions can have unexpected results, and I wouldn't want to bet everyone's safety on the musings of some nay-sayer on the Internet.
For every advance made, there were always people who claimed it was impossible. Even after the commercial Tesla S release, people were still insisting it was "impossible" to make a car with the released specifications and price. I wonder how many would die from EVD while claiming it was impossible.
Delays and mismanagement is standard for any large enterprise. The only difference is that corporations have more legal room to hide their mistakes.
Yes. Like TV is "free" with ads that take lots of space. Thankfully, the TV content makers don't make TVs and stereos, so we still get "mute" buttons. With Android, the ad maker is essentially the device maker (via the O/S), so they did leave out the common "mute" button, as well as any easy way for it to be emulated.