Why does the second point of view seem more fair; while the first point of view seems like the rantings of someone who has mistaken justice as "equality for all" instead of "equality for equals"? All men are created equal -- naked, ugly, screaming moochers. Then you get a job. Or you don't, so fuck you.
It has to do with the people making the content trying to figure out how to get money for it. See they make movies, but the product they produce is effectively worthless: it can be copied with almost zero cost. So they spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to actually leverage their products to make money, when their products are by definition competing with a distribution service that comes well below their costs and thus has perfect position in a price war.
On the other hand, consumers also want those businesses to remain solvent not for any direct reason but rather for the simple fact that they want new movies and new seasons of the shows they watch. Consumers however don't want to pay; they also don't want to watch advertisements. Commercials are tolerable if they're long enough but not too long, because they're piss breaks or a couple minutes to go microwave something; unfortunately, businesses rely on revenue from selling advertising, and advertisers want you to stay and watch their advertisements.
It comes down to consumers wanting production but not wanting to supply consumption.
No you see, the Kinect Driver would be to access the data coming out of the Kinect hardware. It wouldn't be the Kinect software platform hijacked; it'd be something you plug into your kernel so when you plug in the hardware it exposes an API to userland to talk to the hardware. This is exactly NOT their code, because they didn't write it; they're threatening action against anyone who writes something that does the same thing their code does, not against anyone who copies their code.
The razor and blade model works for razors and blades. Even if you want to repurpose them to slit your wrists, you have to buy the more profitable blades rather than the useless loss-leader razor.
It doesn't work so great for anything actually interesting that people might buy for reasons other than subsidizing your business model.
So, vaguely knowing where you're going, versus "well we have an idea that somewhere in this country is some target. I think it's here, about, in the middle! Just start wandering around, I dunno about any landmarks but you'll find it eventually. Ask some of the locals, they might know."
What's wrong with resorting to better intelligence than you have in any case? That sounds innovative to me. "We don't know what the fuck we're doing" "Well the kiosks there hand out maps like candy, go there with a camera and a hawaiian shirt and flip flops and buy one for 25 cents. Hell, buy 6."
I got modded offtopic on the original post and the follow-up, so I'll make another fair point: Slashdot is full of "nerds" that are so mentally deficient they can't identify or understand analogy and metaphor. (Regardless of if my metaphor is any good, it should be easy to recognize that something is on topic-- even if it's a shitty comment on the topic)
Slashdot: News for preppy idiots, stuff that lets sheep disassociate themselves from other sheep.
In Go, often the few moves in the endgame can swing 5 or 10 points and turn an obvious loss into an obvious win.
Chess is a horrible analogy for the real world. If I wanted to make this a pure Go analogy, I would have to go into a really deep discussion about two players trying foolishly for specific goals such as capturing a set of corner stones, which wouldn't make sense to most people any more than my already horrible analogy.
In chess, people resign when they can't win. In Go, loss of an area of play can be walked away from, and possibly recovered from later due to a changed state of the board. My analogy sucks mainly because I have to somehow argue that losing pawns somehow matters when you manage to checkmate the king; in Chess it really doesn't, but in such an analogy it would be ridiculous to say that pawns lost along the way are meaningless when you ultimately win. Stupid laws go on the books, even if they're not the laws you WANT.
It's hard. But the funny thing is that the analogy to playing Go as you would play Chess-- directing your energy to concrete goals, which in the game of Go is harmful-- is actually highly relevant to people who are only concerned with their tiny little sphere of influence and their single-minded goals in the middle of such volatile and far-reaching issues.
No, it doesn't work that way. You asked if an X chromosome could become a Y chromosome. What you are asking is if strawberry jello can become solid gold. Yes there's a path; no it doesn't happen without a ton of energy input and intentional control. They are not similar and there is not a killswitch mechanism that trips over such a change.
Why would I need an opinion on that in this context?
Perhaps you should read, think, reread, think.
The first question you should ask is: why does Netflix matter? The answer, in this context, is because it's an argument being used for net neutrality.
Okay. Netflix no longer matters then. Why does net neutrality matter?
Hmm. I'll have to revise my analogy: it makes more direct sense if we consider Congress as the chess game rather than a player; and thus that the ISPs are playing against the Content Providers. I do not rescind my claim that Congress is also made up of merchant-minded chess players; only that I identified the wrong game here.
Now we're getting somewhere. The merchants (ISP companies) are haggling with the other merchants (Content providers) over "Netflix is eating our bandwidth, please make it stop, we didn't plan for this and it is an untenable exploitation of an oversight in our business operations!" As I said in the chess analogy, the merchants are playing chess: they are playing to capture the king. ISPs want the goal of taking the Net Neutrality king, winning the right to bill the Content Providers for all this shit. The Content Providers are trying to capture the ISPs king, winning the game for Net Neutrality and earning the right to keep the status quo.
Analogies are funny. We can't translate a Chess game into a Go game, or vice versa; however, when speaking philosophically, we can construct ridiculous allusions to such things. Further, in a philosophical sense, these allusions make sense by the reasoning that the analogy of a Chess game to the real world issue at hand does not make sense.
And so it is here. As I said, in a game of Go, every move you play adds to the board state. A stone placed here does nothing, and can easily be surrounded and taken. A stone played there does nothing. These stones cannot escape. Later in the game, though, it develops that those stones are near new constructs; territory is made, and the game is impacted greatly
The merchants are playing Chess. They don't realize that the result of the game they play will have far reaching results. The game they play is as a single stone laid in Go: it may be nothing; or it may suddenly become a huge strategic placement shifting the balance of power by 20 or 40 points... just one stone.
But that's the winning or losing of the game, yes? On a wider scale, though, what happens in between? They destroy each others' pawns and queens-- completely immaterial in Chess. But in reality, even if the ISPs lose and Net Neutrality is affixed in place, the battle itself can leave scars, laws that change the way the Internet works, laws that mute technology here and there. In this way, the game of Chess that they play is many stones being played on the Go board; and the play is haphazard, creating unforeseen effects on the outcome of the game, gaining and losing and destroying potential here and there.
I suppose my opinion is that these people are short-sighted, single-minded, and completely incapable of considering the broader ramifications of what they do. They only understand a single end goal; they don't understand profits made by careful play, but only the profit made by winning or by positioning themselves to settle a single goal or to mow a path down towards that single goal. They want to drive a spike straight into the heart of their opponent's defenses and take their prize: that is the extent of their planning and understanding.
It is foolishness. The entire battle is foolishness and it is waged by fools. That is my opinion.
OK, I watch too much streaming Netflix, that means I'm not entitled to what I paid for. But if I watch 20 movies a week on TBS, that's just fine. Thanks for clearing that up.
If you watch 20 movies a week on TBS, you are addicted to crack. 30 hours jesus, do you work or sleep at all? Ever shower? Is every meal order-out pizza or chinese?
Also 36GB/4.5gb = 8 movies. So 2-3 movies a week. Wow.
I guess you don't want to watch any TV online either.
2-3 movies of 90 minutes each a week ok let's see.
8 hours sleep.
1 hour to cook and eat breakfast, half an hour to wake up and shower and shave, half an hour to drive to work. Half an hour to drive home, an hour to cook and eat dinner. I assume that you can eat in front of the TV; this is probably a worthwhile investment in time.
The weekends give a full 32 hours, although there's about 6 hours lost to sleep/food so 26 hours total.
So I guess about 48 hours a week is leeway for shopping, social life, gym/martial arts, any driving needed to get to/from any of this shit, also any studying.
Getting groceries from a grocery store takes about an hour (drive, shop, pay, drive home; remember you have to spend a minute or two to park and walk the last 1000 feet to the store, or 10 minutes to find a parking spot within 30 feet of the store like most Americans who can't stand walking from the upper lot). For me I go to a German shop to get some high-quality sausages (the hotdogs are really good...) and specialty meats; and a farmer's market to get some specialty cheeses and fresher fruits sometimes. So 3-4 hours maybe, but that's a special case.
I spend two days a week in an Aikido and Pentjak Silat dojo. This takes 2.5 hours; really though, I get home from work, rush to boil and consume a hotdog, then rush out to the dojo. I come back at 10pm so it's time to sleep. I barely find time to make a lunch meat sandwich to take to work, in lieu of paying $8 for one at work (yes...). So I lose here about 4.5 * 2 == 9 hours.
That leaves 39 hours. If you cut this stuff out, you're a defenseless out-of-shape ass; maybe you bike ride or go to the gym or something for 2 or 3 days a week, well then there goes your 9 hours.
Grocery shopping for me... by clever management I can stock my specialty foods for 2-3 weeks. So an hour and a half we'll say. I'll call that fair, since most people don't drive, buy, and come home; they waste time when shopping. Let's call that 37.5 hours left.
I spend about an hour cooking and eating; often I steam or bake rather than frying, so I don't have to be there. For longer slow-cooker things, the prep time is still there; for baking bread etc, prep time again. The cost exists somewhere. 2 meals a day (realistically I can prep a sandwich for lunch WHILE frying an egg, or make extra rice to roll Onigiri and Sushi and dice up cheese cubes and throw in some fruit and Sashimi...). I've accounted for this already; and the time expense for making lunch vanishes.
Because I have no friends in general and ESPECIALLY no friends during the week, I don't have to worry about social drains during the week. So I have 3 days of 4.5 hours each open.
For my other 3 days a week, I suppose I could read a book... in German, or Japanese, or any other language I teach myself while driving to work. Yes I do that. I guess this is where you'd watch TV. I tend to spend this time studying Go and Math as well, or teaching myself to play Piano and Guitar.
On weekends I tend to go out and talk to people, or just hover at a Starbucks in Barnes & Noble and study Go. I also need time to clean my apartment and do laundry, which generally absorbs several hours of my time. This is also when I go shopping. Studying math more during this time or practicing guitar would be a good idea.
3-4.5 hours a week would be 2-3 movies. That's a sizable time investment if 1) you have any friends; or 2) you have no life and want to do something worthwhile with your complete social void. If you want to rot away and drool all over yourself like an invalid, you can watch 10-12 movies a week and spend entire weeknights or 5
There are four base pairs arranged in sequences that ravel and unravel according to enzymes in the cytoplasm. These sequences open in strips called "Genes" which themselves attract complementary base pairs to produce miniature copies of DNA strands (copies of genes) which are called "RNA." The RNA goes into some kind of node thing I forget what it's called.. it's basically a giant zipper mechanism that attracts amino acids and protein fragments (chains of amino acids) to assemble proteins.
There are only two values in binary code. Can a 15 megapixel image of Brittany Spears' vagina turn into a copy of Basket Case in high quality Ogg Vorbis?... sure, if you have a carefully constructed file to XOR it with, and a determined process to do so intentionally. The code on the X and Y chromosomes is not a slight truncation or alteration; these things are completely different.
Simply Google now has a backbone which can put most tier 1s to shame and peers with anyone anywhere.
I almost dated a girl like that. God she was awesome... cute little shy thing but she'd still open her mouth and say what was on her mind. And yeah, she'd peer with anyone, anywhere.
For 1080p HD movies with 7.1 surround you could be looking at 25GB per movie, which only gives you 20 movies a month. In a family home there could easiy be 20 movies watched per month, even with some members of the household being out at work/school all day, or out getting fresh air in the evenings.
I exercise at least 3 times a week, but I still enjoy watching DVDs and blu-rays on my rest days, or after training..
Jesus how do you...
20 movies a month?
I don't even watch TV. When I do it's in bursts... I'll come across a good anime series maybe and absorb the whole thing.
Wouldn't it make sense to do it the other way instead?
First off, I don't even know when "peak" and "Off peak is," so I ignore that.
Second, I assume "peak" would be i.e. A/C and heating sucking power like crazy during the day. Now, my comment here is that many people will leave the heat up unnecessarily at night, when they're retaining heat under a blanket; it'd be better to discourage energy usage at night, then. As for A/C, a window unit in the bedroom is better: you shut the central air off at night and you leave the window unit set a few degrees warmer, and use a lighter blanket.
It seems charging on peak is encouraging people to turn up the AC or turn down the heat a bit; but go ahead and leave it running at night.
Does your electrical company increase your rates or move to a higher tier if you run appliances all day long? What about your water company?
My electric company charges me per bulk of electrons used out to some 5 decimal places of a kW/h. Is this not similar to charging per bandwidth used?
My power company can give me a "Budget" plan where I pay $120/mo; if I run over my $120, they raise my bill. This means that consistently I might wind up paying $120 for $110/mo of power; but if I use $140 of power, they bill me $120 and tell me next month it's $140, then for the next several months I get billed $140 while I use $110 of power.
Scare stories like this are used as a marketing chess move by the anti net neutrality lot of lobbyists.
Yes and of course, they are simple minded merchants. Chess is played by merchants and accountants; while philosophers and warriors play Go.
It is unfortunate that the people in power are also merchants and accountants. They will be more apt to respect the chess moves; while those of us who see the larger game in Go-- looking at the whole of the board, seeing how this move doesn't just change this area for the next few moves but alters future positions until the very end of the game dozens of moves later-- will see these chess moves as short-sighted self-serving drivel, and see the larger game taking better shape only if more care and consideration is taken before playing any move.
Of course, the merchants in power will play out with their fellow chess players, haggling over their simple goal of capturing or defending the king with no regard to how many pieces are lost on the board in the process by either side. Even if the businesses don't capture their king, they'll likely spread disaster before submitting to a checkmate; and both sides will think nothing of the destruction wrought, because one side won and the other lost.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the vote that decides things, it's how they convince many, many other people to vote. Not as individuals, but as a herd.
Sheepvoters.
Why does the second point of view seem more fair; while the first point of view seems like the rantings of someone who has mistaken justice as "equality for all" instead of "equality for equals"? All men are created equal -- naked, ugly, screaming moochers. Then you get a job. Or you don't, so fuck you.
Because sea kittens are fluffy.
Blades cost almost nothing to produce. I shave with a straight razor so fuck your blades, I found a smooth rock somewhere.
It has to do with the people making the content trying to figure out how to get money for it. See they make movies, but the product they produce is effectively worthless: it can be copied with almost zero cost. So they spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to actually leverage their products to make money, when their products are by definition competing with a distribution service that comes well below their costs and thus has perfect position in a price war.
On the other hand, consumers also want those businesses to remain solvent not for any direct reason but rather for the simple fact that they want new movies and new seasons of the shows they watch. Consumers however don't want to pay; they also don't want to watch advertisements. Commercials are tolerable if they're long enough but not too long, because they're piss breaks or a couple minutes to go microwave something; unfortunately, businesses rely on revenue from selling advertising, and advertisers want you to stay and watch their advertisements.
It comes down to consumers wanting production but not wanting to supply consumption.
No you see, the Kinect Driver would be to access the data coming out of the Kinect hardware. It wouldn't be the Kinect software platform hijacked; it'd be something you plug into your kernel so when you plug in the hardware it exposes an API to userland to talk to the hardware. This is exactly NOT their code, because they didn't write it; they're threatening action against anyone who writes something that does the same thing their code does, not against anyone who copies their code.
The razor and blade model works for razors and blades. Even if you want to repurpose them to slit your wrists, you have to buy the more profitable blades rather than the useless loss-leader razor.
It doesn't work so great for anything actually interesting that people might buy for reasons other than subsidizing your business model.
So, vaguely knowing where you're going, versus "well we have an idea that somewhere in this country is some target. I think it's here, about, in the middle! Just start wandering around, I dunno about any landmarks but you'll find it eventually. Ask some of the locals, they might know."
What's wrong with resorting to better intelligence than you have in any case? That sounds innovative to me. "We don't know what the fuck we're doing" "Well the kiosks there hand out maps like candy, go there with a camera and a hawaiian shirt and flip flops and buy one for 25 cents. Hell, buy 6."
I got modded offtopic on the original post and the follow-up, so I'll make another fair point: Slashdot is full of "nerds" that are so mentally deficient they can't identify or understand analogy and metaphor. (Regardless of if my metaphor is any good, it should be easy to recognize that something is on topic-- even if it's a shitty comment on the topic)
Slashdot: News for preppy idiots, stuff that lets sheep disassociate themselves from other sheep.
In Go, often the few moves in the endgame can swing 5 or 10 points and turn an obvious loss into an obvious win.
Chess is a horrible analogy for the real world. If I wanted to make this a pure Go analogy, I would have to go into a really deep discussion about two players trying foolishly for specific goals such as capturing a set of corner stones, which wouldn't make sense to most people any more than my already horrible analogy.
In chess, people resign when they can't win. In Go, loss of an area of play can be walked away from, and possibly recovered from later due to a changed state of the board. My analogy sucks mainly because I have to somehow argue that losing pawns somehow matters when you manage to checkmate the king; in Chess it really doesn't, but in such an analogy it would be ridiculous to say that pawns lost along the way are meaningless when you ultimately win. Stupid laws go on the books, even if they're not the laws you WANT.
It's hard. But the funny thing is that the analogy to playing Go as you would play Chess-- directing your energy to concrete goals, which in the game of Go is harmful-- is actually highly relevant to people who are only concerned with their tiny little sphere of influence and their single-minded goals in the middle of such volatile and far-reaching issues.
No, it doesn't work that way. You asked if an X chromosome could become a Y chromosome. What you are asking is if strawberry jello can become solid gold. Yes there's a path; no it doesn't happen without a ton of energy input and intentional control. They are not similar and there is not a killswitch mechanism that trips over such a change.
Why would I need an opinion on that in this context?
Perhaps you should read, think, reread, think.
The first question you should ask is: why does Netflix matter? The answer, in this context, is because it's an argument being used for net neutrality.
Okay. Netflix no longer matters then. Why does net neutrality matter?
Hmm. I'll have to revise my analogy: it makes more direct sense if we consider Congress as the chess game rather than a player; and thus that the ISPs are playing against the Content Providers. I do not rescind my claim that Congress is also made up of merchant-minded chess players; only that I identified the wrong game here.
Now we're getting somewhere. The merchants (ISP companies) are haggling with the other merchants (Content providers) over "Netflix is eating our bandwidth, please make it stop, we didn't plan for this and it is an untenable exploitation of an oversight in our business operations!" As I said in the chess analogy, the merchants are playing chess: they are playing to capture the king. ISPs want the goal of taking the Net Neutrality king, winning the right to bill the Content Providers for all this shit. The Content Providers are trying to capture the ISPs king, winning the game for Net Neutrality and earning the right to keep the status quo.
Analogies are funny. We can't translate a Chess game into a Go game, or vice versa; however, when speaking philosophically, we can construct ridiculous allusions to such things. Further, in a philosophical sense, these allusions make sense by the reasoning that the analogy of a Chess game to the real world issue at hand does not make sense.
And so it is here. As I said, in a game of Go, every move you play adds to the board state. A stone placed here does nothing, and can easily be surrounded and taken. A stone played there does nothing. These stones cannot escape. Later in the game, though, it develops that those stones are near new constructs; territory is made, and the game is impacted greatly
The merchants are playing Chess. They don't realize that the result of the game they play will have far reaching results. The game they play is as a single stone laid in Go: it may be nothing; or it may suddenly become a huge strategic placement shifting the balance of power by 20 or 40 points... just one stone.
But that's the winning or losing of the game, yes? On a wider scale, though, what happens in between? They destroy each others' pawns and queens-- completely immaterial in Chess. But in reality, even if the ISPs lose and Net Neutrality is affixed in place, the battle itself can leave scars, laws that change the way the Internet works, laws that mute technology here and there. In this way, the game of Chess that they play is many stones being played on the Go board; and the play is haphazard, creating unforeseen effects on the outcome of the game, gaining and losing and destroying potential here and there.
I suppose my opinion is that these people are short-sighted, single-minded, and completely incapable of considering the broader ramifications of what they do. They only understand a single end goal; they don't understand profits made by careful play, but only the profit made by winning or by positioning themselves to settle a single goal or to mow a path down towards that single goal. They want to drive a spike straight into the heart of their opponent's defenses and take their prize: that is the extent of their planning and understanding.
It is foolishness. The entire battle is foolishness and it is waged by fools. That is my opinion.
OK, I watch too much streaming Netflix, that means I'm not entitled to what I paid for. But if I watch 20 movies a week on TBS, that's just fine. Thanks for clearing that up.
If you watch 20 movies a week on TBS, you are addicted to crack. 30 hours jesus, do you work or sleep at all? Ever shower? Is every meal order-out pizza or chinese?
Also 36GB /4.5gb = 8 movies. So 2-3 movies a week. Wow.
I guess you don't want to watch any TV online either.
2-3 movies of 90 minutes each a week ok let's see.
8 hours sleep.
1 hour to cook and eat breakfast, half an hour to wake up and shower and shave, half an hour to drive to work. Half an hour to drive home, an hour to cook and eat dinner. I assume that you can eat in front of the TV; this is probably a worthwhile investment in time.
24 - 8 == 16. 16 - (1 + .5 + .5 + .5 + 1) == 12.5. 8 hours of work hmm 12.5 - 8 == 4.5.
The weekends give a full 32 hours, although there's about 6 hours lost to sleep/food so 26 hours total.
So I guess about 48 hours a week is leeway for shopping, social life, gym/martial arts, any driving needed to get to/from any of this shit, also any studying.
Getting groceries from a grocery store takes about an hour (drive, shop, pay, drive home; remember you have to spend a minute or two to park and walk the last 1000 feet to the store, or 10 minutes to find a parking spot within 30 feet of the store like most Americans who can't stand walking from the upper lot). For me I go to a German shop to get some high-quality sausages (the hotdogs are really good...) and specialty meats; and a farmer's market to get some specialty cheeses and fresher fruits sometimes. So 3-4 hours maybe, but that's a special case.
I spend two days a week in an Aikido and Pentjak Silat dojo. This takes 2.5 hours; really though, I get home from work, rush to boil and consume a hotdog, then rush out to the dojo. I come back at 10pm so it's time to sleep. I barely find time to make a lunch meat sandwich to take to work, in lieu of paying $8 for one at work (yes...). So I lose here about 4.5 * 2 == 9 hours.
That leaves 39 hours. If you cut this stuff out, you're a defenseless out-of-shape ass; maybe you bike ride or go to the gym or something for 2 or 3 days a week, well then there goes your 9 hours.
Grocery shopping for me... by clever management I can stock my specialty foods for 2-3 weeks. So an hour and a half we'll say. I'll call that fair, since most people don't drive, buy, and come home; they waste time when shopping. Let's call that 37.5 hours left.
I spend about an hour cooking and eating; often I steam or bake rather than frying, so I don't have to be there. For longer slow-cooker things, the prep time is still there; for baking bread etc, prep time again. The cost exists somewhere. 2 meals a day (realistically I can prep a sandwich for lunch WHILE frying an egg, or make extra rice to roll Onigiri and Sushi and dice up cheese cubes and throw in some fruit and Sashimi...). I've accounted for this already; and the time expense for making lunch vanishes.
Because I have no friends in general and ESPECIALLY no friends during the week, I don't have to worry about social drains during the week. So I have 3 days of 4.5 hours each open.
For my other 3 days a week, I suppose I could read a book... in German, or Japanese, or any other language I teach myself while driving to work. Yes I do that. I guess this is where you'd watch TV. I tend to spend this time studying Go and Math as well, or teaching myself to play Piano and Guitar.
On weekends I tend to go out and talk to people, or just hover at a Starbucks in Barnes & Noble and study Go. I also need time to clean my apartment and do laundry, which generally absorbs several hours of my time. This is also when I go shopping. Studying math more during this time or practicing guitar would be a good idea.
3-4.5 hours a week would be 2-3 movies. That's a sizable time investment if 1) you have any friends; or 2) you have no life and want to do something worthwhile with your complete social void. If you want to rot away and drool all over yourself like an invalid, you can watch 10-12 movies a week and spend entire weeknights or 5
There are four base pairs arranged in sequences that ravel and unravel according to enzymes in the cytoplasm. These sequences open in strips called "Genes" which themselves attract complementary base pairs to produce miniature copies of DNA strands (copies of genes) which are called "RNA." The RNA goes into some kind of node thing I forget what it's called.. it's basically a giant zipper mechanism that attracts amino acids and protein fragments (chains of amino acids) to assemble proteins.
There are only two values in binary code. Can a 15 megapixel image of Brittany Spears' vagina turn into a copy of Basket Case in high quality Ogg Vorbis? ... sure, if you have a carefully constructed file to XOR it with, and a determined process to do so intentionally. The code on the X and Y chromosomes is not a slight truncation or alteration; these things are completely different.
Simply Google now has a backbone which can put most tier 1s to shame and peers with anyone anywhere.
I almost dated a girl like that. God she was awesome... cute little shy thing but she'd still open her mouth and say what was on her mind. And yeah, she'd peer with anyone, anywhere.
For 1080p HD movies with 7.1 surround you could be looking at 25GB per movie, which only gives you 20 movies a month. In a family home there could easiy be 20 movies watched per month, even with some members of the household being out at work/school all day, or out getting fresh air in the evenings.
I exercise at least 3 times a week, but I still enjoy watching DVDs and blu-rays on my rest days, or after training..
Jesus how do you ...
20 movies a month?
I don't even watch TV. When I do it's in bursts... I'll come across a good anime series maybe and absorb the whole thing.
Wouldn't it make sense to do it the other way instead?
First off, I don't even know when "peak" and "Off peak is," so I ignore that.
Second, I assume "peak" would be i.e. A/C and heating sucking power like crazy during the day. Now, my comment here is that many people will leave the heat up unnecessarily at night, when they're retaining heat under a blanket; it'd be better to discourage energy usage at night, then. As for A/C, a window unit in the bedroom is better: you shut the central air off at night and you leave the window unit set a few degrees warmer, and use a lighter blanket.
It seems charging on peak is encouraging people to turn up the AC or turn down the heat a bit; but go ahead and leave it running at night.
Does your electrical company increase your rates or move to a higher tier if you run appliances all day long? What about your water company?
My electric company charges me per bulk of electrons used out to some 5 decimal places of a kW/h. Is this not similar to charging per bandwidth used?
My power company can give me a "Budget" plan where I pay $120/mo; if I run over my $120, they raise my bill. This means that consistently I might wind up paying $120 for $110/mo of power; but if I use $140 of power, they bill me $120 and tell me next month it's $140, then for the next several months I get billed $140 while I use $110 of power.
I opted for my own budgeting.
A full quality DVD is 4.5GB, you need about 10 of these a month? You watch too much TV, or don't use enough compression.
At least they are now forced to speak honestly about what they offer.
Scare stories like this are used as a marketing chess move by the anti net neutrality lot of lobbyists.
Yes and of course, they are simple minded merchants. Chess is played by merchants and accountants; while philosophers and warriors play Go.
It is unfortunate that the people in power are also merchants and accountants. They will be more apt to respect the chess moves; while those of us who see the larger game in Go-- looking at the whole of the board, seeing how this move doesn't just change this area for the next few moves but alters future positions until the very end of the game dozens of moves later-- will see these chess moves as short-sighted self-serving drivel, and see the larger game taking better shape only if more care and consideration is taken before playing any move.
Of course, the merchants in power will play out with their fellow chess players, haggling over their simple goal of capturing or defending the king with no regard to how many pieces are lost on the board in the process by either side. Even if the businesses don't capture their king, they'll likely spread disaster before submitting to a checkmate; and both sides will think nothing of the destruction wrought, because one side won and the other lost.
Who cares about lost pawns when you won?
The idea that sex == sin is ridiculous since God basically told people to go out and have loads of sex. Directly.
Well, to be fair, a female XX chromosome pair cannot produce an XY egg....