Of course, it couldn't be because they made a crap album. It couldn't possibly be that. All recording artists under the RIAA make music that every Real American would be more than happy to hand over their hard-earned dollars for! Why, if we don't shell out $20 or more for each CD put out by an RIAA member, then the terrorists win!
Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that the whole point of bandwidth sharing for cable modems? If no one is using the pipe for the neighborhood, i'll get full speed on it, but once someone else jumps on and uses it, I'll get half of what i'm getting? I'm not talking about uncapping and all that garbage, I'm talking about usage according to what's offered. And I'm sorry, but 24/7 access is the same as 24/7 utilization. There's no difference. If there was, the buisness model would include time charges, like long distance phone calls.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I'm not talking about the cable lines, which is what their "bandwidth sharing" refers to. I'm talking about the cost of providing the network infrastructure based on 24/7 usage of a modem's full speed by all customers. This not what they have planned for. If they did, then you would have the insane overbuilding I referred to previously. When ISPs build their network, they do so based on the assumption that 24/7 access != 24/7 utilization. To do otherwise would drive costs, and thus their rates, through the roof.
Justifying the charges due to how much it costs them isn't my dilema. It's what's advertised. In fact, anything at or above 100k is fine with me. According to my math, using the person above's post, a t1 can support up to 7 users at 200k, 14 users at 100k. 14x55=770. Now you claim a T1 is 1000$ a month, but where the hell do you get that figure? I sincerely doubt that comcast or any of the major providers (baby bells) pay that much. I mean, the baby bells own the damn pipes. They certainly aren't paying what average geek joe would get for a t1. I'm sure the major cable companies (read comcast) has a sweet deal going. But it's not even like that. On a good day on my cable modem, i get like 50k at most, only does it shoot up past 100k during the night. This is the kind of service that i'm forced to pay for because of no competition in the area. DSL is plagued with last x mile connection, and it does not reach me in a rural place such as PA (one of comcast's states).
It's advertised as "always on" 24/7 access because that sounds better than "24/7 for up to [x]Gb/month". Remember - first and foremost, Comcast, just like any other business, is out to make money. Providing access isn't their goal, it's their chosen means to an end, and that end is big sacks of cash. If that means bending their advertising to appeal to the majority, then they will do so. Mr. John Doe consumer isn't going to have any idea what [x]Gb/month means, so he'll go for the 24/7. As for the $1000, it was a semi-educated guess based on what I've heard companies charge. While Comcast may get a discount based on volume purchases, they're still going to pay a hefty sum for each line. This is even more likely if your area is as rural as you claim it to be - to bring a high-speed circuit to outlying areas costs far more than a circuit in a city. And unless Comcast is the phone company in your area, they do NOT own the telco lines there. As far as your service goes, that's between you and Comcast. If you're not satisfied, let them know about it. As for DSL not being available, then you have to convince the phone company to make it available. If you can find enough people in your area to make it a profitable proposition for the telco to make a DSL-capable CO available, then they will do so.
Now back to something that people seem to forget to acknoledge is the fact that when order comcast broadband, they touted the fact that you can use the service 24/7, and seemly encouraged people to do so. Unless you own a server, there's practically no feasible way to use the connection all the time. But since u/l is capped at around 10-15k, there's no real way to run a server. This connection is primarily for d/l only. How can you actually defend their decision to up the rates of people who use it. Are they going to lower the rates of people who don't? And if they raise it on me, then it's not a flat fee after all, which they market it to be.That's the whole problem right there. Until you can address why i should have to pay more for the same service, it won't make any sense to me. You can claim all the figures you want, doesn't mean anything to me. I'm not the one who made the buisness model. It's like paying for one of those flat fee long distance plans, then having the company come back to you and telling you "Ohh, we're going to have to raise the rates on you because you're actually using the plan we offered. We thought you were going to just get it and keep paying the fees without using it". I'm sorry, but that plan does not work. And discrimination is based upon differences. If I'm a computer enthusiast (read geek), I'm different than most people.
I'm not defending their decision, I'm simply explaining it. If you have a problem with their business model, you're free to start your own ISP. As for your analogy of a flat-fee long distance plan - if you call Australia and leave that call connected every day for a month, they will indeed raise the rates on you. Remember - these are businesses. 24/7 != 24/7. Two jobs ago, I was told by the president of the company that "unlimited" means ~150-200 hours/month. Any usage past that, we charged the customer more based on "dedicated" rate plans. Dishonest? Hell yes. But that was what was required if we wanted to make money. With regard to discrimination based on "geekness", until there is legal precedent showing that this is a recognized form of discrimination, don't expect companies to care. If you want to claim that this is discrimination, get a damn good lawyer.
How is this discrimination in any legal sense? US law provides for redress in cases of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. Now, if Comcast were only raising rates when a customer downloaded hot man-on-man action, that's one thing. However, if you want to use you modem's full capacity 24/7, that has a definite impact on the network that Comcast will have to address by allocation of more resources to deal with the increased utilization while maintaining service to their other customers. This will cost more money. If I were one of the other customers, I would be vehemently opposed to having to pay more because you want to use as much bandwidth as you possibly can. 24/7 access does not mean 24/7 utilization. As I explained in my last post, if everyone were to use their modems at full speed all the time, the ISP would have to charge a significatly larger amount to cover the increased hardware and circuit costs. There's a reason why a cable modem connection costs only $55/month while a T1 costs over $1000/month - the provider has the infrastructure in place to handle the T1 running at full utilization 24/7. T1 speeds don't mean T1 usability or reliability. If you want to pass 1.5Mbps 24/7, then expect to pay for the privilege.
First - most ISPs don't own their routers, switches, multiplexers, etc. - they're leased from the manufacturer to reduce the cost of upgrading. Thus, there is a monthly cost associated with each device.
Second - those "pipes" have a huge monthly cost associated with them. I have yet to hear of ANY telco that will charge only for installation of a circuit, and I doubt there ever will be such a beastie as they would go bankrupt almost immediately.
Third - No monitoring? Let me know if you ever run an ISP, so I know who NOT to sign up with. Without monitoring of connections, how is the ISP to know when there is a problem? If ISPs don't monitor their networks, then there is no way to determine when circuit problems occur that might be dismissed by customers but point to an impending failure.
Monitoring the network is also the only way to tell when customer usage has increased, requiring a larger circuit. Personally, I see no problem with charging more for high bandwidth utilization. Increased usage requires an increase in the capacity of the circuits connecting those customers to the backbone. This is not a cheap proposition. In reality, ISPs genereally oversubscribe their customer links to a frightening degree for the simple reason that they cannot afford not to. For example, in a cable headend with 2000 modem customers, that equates to a total needed bandwidth (assuming everyone is running at 3Mb/sec all the time) of 6 Gb/sec. Assuming that the ISP is using a Cisco uBR , they would need to roll at least 7 gigabit ethernet lines into a single EtherChannel link (to allow for overhead) to a 12000-series GSR, then use at least 3 load-balanced OC48 lines just to provide a link to their backbone. The cost of this would be horrendous. In reality, a headend with 2000 modem customers would most likely be served with a fast ethernet link to a router running 6-8 T1s to the backbone. The reasons for this are that customers don't run at full usage all the time, and that this allows the ISP to keep the cost down. Therefore, if customers increase their utilization, then the ISP will have to provide more bandwidth to the headend, and the increased costs will be passed on to the customer. Personally, I'd rather not have to subsidize some joker downloading the complete works of GWAR because they're too cheap to shell out for a CD and actually support the artist. As far as it being the only broadband in the area, guess what - broadband isn't a public utility. If you want alternatives, you needtogive companies a compelling reason to roll out service in your area. Talk to the phone company about upgrading your CO, investigate wireless ISPs, and talk to other ISPs about convincing Comcast to open their lines.
Excite. Originally, Excite was bought by @Home simply to provide content. However, when Excite's CEO took over, that idea was quickly turned around - @Home's only purpose from then on was only to provide money to the cash-hemorrhaging, media-obsessed, dot-com-fetishists screaming "I'm not quite dead!" after having lost the "portal wars" to Yahoo long before. Had Excite not been the parasite that it turned out to be, @Home would have been profitable, strong, and still expanding today. They had a product that there is clearly a demand for, and (as the article states) in spite of Excite's draining away of every penny that @Home took in (and then some), they still managed to serve over 45% of all home broadband connections in the US. It would surprise me greatly to see any other company even come close to that accomplishment. What killed @Home Network? Excite@Home did.
Considering that @Home is closing its doors in a little over 2 months, I doubt it'll have any effect on @Home. The only way it might affect them is if Comcast were to also buy @Home (perhaps so they have a ready-built backbone to trasition customers to).
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Second Law only applies to closed systems. To quote MC Hawking, "The Earth's not a closed system - it's powered by the Sun."
Speaking of the red cross, how can you accept the fact that the red cross is begging for money in whole world to help the vitcim of the WTC while the US governement throw out 20 billions $ to "punish" ben laden?
Simple. The Red Cross is an organization whose goal is primarily humanitarian. The goal of the US government is to defend the interests of the citizens of the United States. Right now, it is in our interest to see that Al Qaida and the Taliban are punished for the acts of Sept. 11. At any rate - the projected cost of clearing the site of the WTC, providing for the survivors of the attack, and rebuilding is estimated to be over $100 billion - most of which will be borne by the US government in the form of disaster relief.
Since the US and other rich countries created the problems. For centuries they used Africa as a slave pit. When France leave Algeria, there were one school in the whole country! It's the same everywhere. US use the man force of thousands of slaves to build its economy. It would the least thing to do to help countries from where the slave where coming.
The US also used the manpower of millions of free men and women. Slavery was an atrocity. No argument. However, it has been extinct in the U.S. for over 150 years. The U.S. never established permanent colonies in Africa.
The only reason for this war was for US to control the petrol in Kuwait. Not to help people.
The reason for this war was to restore an allied government to power after their country was invaded. Would you have prefer it if we never came to the defence of any allied country? The choice was between two evils - allow Saddam Hussein to control the Kuwati oil fields and all future profits derived from them (thus funding his research into N/B/C weaponry), or return the non-Democratic but internationally-recognized and US-friendly Kuwati government to power. The U.S. (along with the Saudis, British, Germans, etc.) chose the lesser evil.
That's why they used unranium-based weapon that now kill kosovars? That they bombed the Chinese ambassad, hospitals and all the power plants in the country? To help people?
They used depleted-uranium weapons because that's what they had. The bombing of the Chinese embassy was a mistake, and the U.S. has admitted as much. Many mistakes were indeed made in the Kosovo bombings. However, they did achieve their stated goal - drive the Serbians out. As for the power plants, it is standard tactics to destroy the infrastructure of one's enemy. Perhaps I chose a bad example - Try this: Violence ended the violence of Napoleon's drive to conquer Europe.
US don't *give* anything. They ask for repayment after.
Yeah - That must be why the Peace Corps, Red Cross and World Health Organization (all of whom are mostly, if not totally, US-funded) present bills to everyone they help. Right. Sure.
Do you know how many $ this war will cost? How many people could have been saved with just 1% of this money?
Since when is it the United States government's responsibility to save the world? Nothing in our constitution says that we have a duty to solve everyone's problems. Sound selfish? Damn right. Regardless of the motives at the time, we gave arms and money to the Afghani fighters to help them repel the Soviet invasion. When the Soviets left, we stopped helping. Now, those who owe their lives to US-provided money and weapons have made themselves our enemy. I have no sympathy for the Taliban, al-Qaida, or their supporters. I do have sympathy for the Afghani people, and am glad that we are airdropping food and medicine to the people while bombs fall on the Taliban. And you know what? We aren't including a bill - no repayment is expected for humanitarian aid.
Unwilling to accept that war is a solution? That violence can do anything else that creating more violence? Yes.
Violence ended the violence of the Holocaust. War was the solution to Imperial Japan's subjugation of Eastern Asia. Violence ended the violence of Serbia against Kosovo. War was the solution to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Violence ended the violence of Nazi Germany's attacks on Britain. War was the solution to China and North Korea's invasion of South Korea. To quote Heinlein, war is not uncontrolled violence. War is controlled violence directed toward a specific purpose. You will note that though it would be very easy for us to simply turn Afghanistan into a glass parking lot, we are not doing so. We are using controlled violence for a specific purpose. This is not a holy war, nor is it a crusade. This is simply the delivery of the consequences the Taliban and al-Qaida brought upon themselves.
NO, the US is attacking them. Someone committed a crime, not and act of war, and the US is responding by making war.
By that logic, should we have responded to Pearl Harbor by asking Japan to hand over Yamamoto? We lost over 2000 NON-MILITARY, NON-COMBATANT people in a few hours. At Pearl Harbor, the losses were mostly military. Make no mistake - this was an act of war. We are responding appropriately. There are crimes, and there are atrocities. This was an atrocity. We were more than patient in waiting for the Taliban (who do NOT represent Islam) to hand over bin Laden. They have not done so. We warned them of the consequences of their actions repeatedly, and they chose to disregard them.
you are most certainly wrong when you say this is NOT an attack on Islam - it most certainly is.
This is no more an attack on Islam than the invasion of Normandy in 1944 was an attack on Protestantism. We are attacking a government (the Taliban) and an army they are protecting (Al Qaida). The fact that they claim to be Islamic has no bearing on this. If the situation was that Al Qaida was taking refuge in a Hindu, Christian, Buddist, Confucian, Zoroastrian, or Atheist nation, it would make no difference. They have perpetrated an act of war. We are responding appropriately. And, if you hadn't noticed, most of the Islamic world is supporting the US in this response.
America is not blameless.
And Al Qaida and the Taliban are? We did not kill over 2000 people with no warning. We did not remove the rights of our population. We did not destroy world treasures. While I agree that America does have some very dark spots in its foreign relations record, there is no possible justification for the atrocities of September 11th. We are responding appropriately.
TCI/AT&T Broadband has been buying backbone access from @Home since 1997. AT&T only 'runs' the cable plant. Everything else until you get to a peering point is @Home-managed. Don't believe me? Traceroute to something. See all the "[blah].[blah].home.net"? That's @Home.
But what if a programmer develops a worm that destroys information perfectly, there by bring down an economy, possibly killing people? To go even farther, what if someone creates the technology that enables a terrorist attack, or enables that worm to exist?
Well, considering that computers are the technology that allow that worm to exist, Do you suggest we ban them? But computers use a lot of refined metals in their manufacture - and so do guns, knives, bullets, and swords. Should we ban metalworking, because it is "the technology that enables a terrorist attack"?
Granted, this is an argument from extremes. However, when I think of a physicist choosing to hide their findings, no matter how revolutionary, no matter the potential for increasing our understanding of the universe, I am reminded of the Catholic Church in the middle ages, where commoners were not allowed to read the Bible because they might not understand it, thus creating heretics. Everything can be used for both good and evil purposes. There is no such thing as a "purely benign" invention or discovery. Physics - nuclear power/nuclear weapons. Electronics - Pacemaker controllers/missle guidance systems. Biology - Vaccines/Viral warfare. Steelworking - Building support beams/Tanks. Blacksmithing - Ploughs/Swords.
1) Someone has to use a whole whack of energy just to make all that hydrogen
Not to be pedantic, but hydrogen has already been made - it's just a matter of harvesting it from whatever we choose as the source. Hydrogen is the single most abundant element in the universe. Most of the planet is covered in a huge potential source of hydrogen - seawater. Harvesting hydrogen is a simple process that can be done by anyone with a battery,a test tube, and a glass of water. This is a non-issue.
2) The Hindenburgh[sic] (Gas tanks tend to burn, pressurized gas cylinders tend to explode)
The Hindenburg burned so quickly not because it was filled with hydrogen, but because the fabric was covered ina paint whose main components were aluminum and iron oxide. Combined, these make thermite, which burns very hot and quickly, as the oxygen is self-contained. The hydrogen actually would stop a fire in the gas bag itself, as fire needs oxygen to keep burning.
That being said, I see no problem with using hydrogen as a fuel source, as it is highly efficient and produces pure water as the only byproduct of combustion.
NASA has a $14billion/yr budget to pay for all its programs right now. Not just space launches, everything. Remember - It's National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA gets publicity (which it needs to generate funding) through big space launches, but a large portion of their funding goes to running such things as research into weather and new aircraft techlogies to make flying easier and safer. The one thing that we must have gets very little. Whether we like it or not, we need to get off this planet. We know for certain that Earth has been hit by asteroids before, and that it will be again. Right now, all of our eggs (figuratively and literally) are in one basket. Because of the shortsighted thinking of "Solve our problems NOW!", we are dooming ourselves. As for it not being fair, nothing is. But, to paraphrase J. Michael Straczynski, imagine how much worse life would be if it were fair, and every bad thing that happened to you happened because you deserved it. And with regard to "preventing another Columbine", the answer is simple - stop treating children as adults. They aren't. They need their parents to be parents. If parents would take their job seriously, not plunk their child in front of a TV. There is no substitute for a parent being involved with their children. Take responsibility, for fuck's sake! The schools are there to impart facts, wisdom and morals must come from the parents. In summary, NASA is doing far more than it is percieved as doing, and every project has payback. Problems don't disappear when money gets thrown at them, all that does is create new problems. For the rest - life isn't fair. Get over it.
Napster is a filesharing service. It does not use HTTP. You cannot access it via Mozilla, Konqueror, Mosaic, Lynx, Netscape, or IE. The daemon running the Napster service is not Apache, Netscape Server, IIS, or any similar beastie.
Communism is a third world philosophy, not a western one.
Sorry to be pedantic, but Communism actually is a western philosophy. Communism (more specifically Bolshevism, which is what the bulk of current "Communist" countries actually operate under) was an economic and social philosophy put forward by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (white European) and Leon Trotsky (another white European). Communism itself is based on Socialism, an economic and social philosophy put forth by Karl Marx (yet another white European).
Not just _towards_ extrasolar life - if they find an atmosphere with a significant amount of free O2, that is direct evidence of life. Without life, O2 tends to naturally combine with silicon, leaving the atmosphere with no free O2. Therefore, if we find a strong O2 signature in any spectra taken from an extrasolar planet, that planet has life.
Granted, Star Wars ANH has an extremely high body count overall, but almost all of them happen "offscreen". How many Alderannians did we actually see getting incinerated or blown out into space? None. How many occupants of the Death Star did we watch getting vaporized when its reactor blew? None.
My vote for the most violent movie has to be Starship Troopers. To steal a line from the Self-Made Critic, in the book, the bugs have guns. In the movie, they can only slice the bejeezus out of you. There are more gore-filled, screaming, slashing, bloody, horrific deaths happening right on screen, in front of you, and in more amazing detail than in any other movie that I've ever seen.
While I don't agree that the government (or any other agency) should decide what we, as adults, are allowed to watch. However, I just ask that you think before exposing your children to these movies. A three-year-old that sees a giant bug hacking a girl who looks like his babysitter into tiny bits is going to become a quivering, crying, snot-gushing puddle of screaming fear.
In my opinion, Starship Troopers is a pathetic adaptation of a very good book with liberal servings of intestines, brains, limbs, and a side order of blood tacked on (Hmm... sounds like a haggis and black pudding), I still enjoy occasionally turning off my higher brain functions and feeding the primal bloodlust (if only by proxy). I only ask that parents remember that sometimes there are some very good reasons that a movie is rated R.
Considering the average particle density of the universe (IIRC, it's something on the order of 1 proton/km^3), the amount of mass taken away by Hawking radiation when compared to the intake of a small black hole is not insignificant.
While I know nothing of Canadian law, under US law, it would require that the producers make it easy to exercise your right to a fair use copy. The precedent is the ill-concieved Marijuana Stamp Act. When first passed (in the 20s-30s IIRC), it simply said that to posess marijuana, you had to have a tax stamp from the government (similar to that on cigarette packets). Problem was, the government never actually made any of these stamps, so the law was struck down in the '70s on the basis that while it allowed an action given the proper permit, that permit was impossible to obtain.
The reason that data from various observatories (SNO, Hubble, KPNO, etc.) is not immediately available to the public is that the scientists who run the experiments on the instruments in these obeservatories need to protect priority. For example, you've just spent 5 years and several thousand dollars getting time on Hubble. If you immediately release the data to the public, there's a possibility that someone could take that data and preempt your research, getting the publication and increased grant opportunities for nothing. It's a matter of protecting your investment in time and money. Granted, public funds go into these observatories, but the measurements taken are taken by researchers for a specific purpose. If that purpose is to further their research, then they do whatever is necessary to protect their priority.
Hmm... Imagine the possibilities of a superconducting network cable. Loop-length restrictions could become a thing of the past, repeaters would be almost totally unnecessary, and the geek factor is nearly off the scale. Grated, this would only work for systems using copper wiring (though a fiber that was truly 100% transparent would also be nifty).
Don't forget the PCG-C1X series! I've had mine for over a year now, and it's still running like a champ, even with a mere P133 (yes, you read that right - no roman numerals). Not only does it make a great portable mp3 player (being a bit smaller than an O'Reilly 2nd Ed. camel book), but it's great to see the look on people's faces when you pull that bad boy out and people see you working with this tiny little computer as you build mozilla, play zork, etc. Also,with the newer models, drivers for the camera have been written for Linux! Unfortunately, my model does not have this particular niftyness, but I'm looking for a newer one right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Minor nit - the atmosphere of Venus is actually composed mostly of CO2. It's the clouds which are made up of H2SO4.
Of course, it couldn't be because they made a crap album. It couldn't possibly be that. All recording artists under the RIAA make music that every Real American would be more than happy to hand over their hard-earned dollars for! Why, if we don't shell out $20 or more for each CD put out by an RIAA member, then the terrorists win!
Or wait - maybe it is a crap album.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I'm not talking about the cable lines, which is what their "bandwidth sharing" refers to. I'm talking about the cost of providing the network infrastructure based on 24/7 usage of a modem's full speed by all customers. This not what they have planned for. If they did, then you would have the insane overbuilding I referred to previously. When ISPs build their network, they do so based on the assumption that 24/7 access != 24/7 utilization. To do otherwise would drive costs, and thus their rates, through the roof.It's advertised as "always on" 24/7 access because that sounds better than "24/7 for up to [x]Gb/month". Remember - first and foremost, Comcast, just like any other business, is out to make money. Providing access isn't their goal, it's their chosen means to an end, and that end is big sacks of cash. If that means bending their advertising to appeal to the majority, then they will do so. Mr. John Doe consumer isn't going to have any idea what [x]Gb/month means, so he'll go for the 24/7. As for the $1000, it was a semi-educated guess based on what I've heard companies charge. While Comcast may get a discount based on volume purchases, they're still going to pay a hefty sum for each line. This is even more likely if your area is as rural as you claim it to be - to bring a high-speed circuit to outlying areas costs far more than a circuit in a city. And unless Comcast is the phone company in your area, they do NOT own the telco lines there. As far as your service goes, that's between you and Comcast. If you're not satisfied, let them know about it. As for DSL not being available, then you have to convince the phone company to make it available. If you can find enough people in your area to make it a profitable proposition for the telco to make a DSL-capable CO available, then they will do so.
I'm not defending their decision, I'm simply explaining it. If you have a problem with their business model, you're free to start your own ISP. As for your analogy of a flat-fee long distance plan - if you call Australia and leave that call connected every day for a month, they will indeed raise the rates on you. Remember - these are businesses. 24/7 != 24/7. Two jobs ago, I was told by the president of the company that "unlimited" means ~150-200 hours/month. Any usage past that, we charged the customer more based on "dedicated" rate plans. Dishonest? Hell yes. But that was what was required if we wanted to make money. With regard to discrimination based on "geekness", until there is legal precedent showing that this is a recognized form of discrimination, don't expect companies to care. If you want to claim that this is discrimination, get a damn good lawyer.
How is this discrimination in any legal sense? US law provides for redress in cases of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. Now, if Comcast were only raising rates when a customer downloaded hot man-on-man action, that's one thing. However, if you want to use you modem's full capacity 24/7, that has a definite impact on the network that Comcast will have to address by allocation of more resources to deal with the increased utilization while maintaining service to their other customers. This will cost more money. If I were one of the other customers, I would be vehemently opposed to having to pay more because you want to use as much bandwidth as you possibly can. 24/7 access does not mean 24/7 utilization. As I explained in my last post, if everyone were to use their modems at full speed all the time, the ISP would have to charge a significatly larger amount to cover the increased hardware and circuit costs. There's a reason why a cable modem connection costs only $55/month while a T1 costs over $1000/month - the provider has the infrastructure in place to handle the T1 running at full utilization 24/7. T1 speeds don't mean T1 usability or reliability. If you want to pass 1.5Mbps 24/7, then expect to pay for the privilege.
Put down the crack pipe and step away.
First - most ISPs don't own their routers, switches, multiplexers, etc. - they're leased from the manufacturer to reduce the cost of upgrading. Thus, there is a monthly cost associated with each device.
Second - those "pipes" have a huge monthly cost associated with them. I have yet to hear of ANY telco that will charge only for installation of a circuit, and I doubt there ever will be such a beastie as they would go bankrupt almost immediately.
Third - No monitoring? Let me know if you ever run an ISP, so I know who NOT to sign up with. Without monitoring of connections, how is the ISP to know when there is a problem? If ISPs don't monitor their networks, then there is no way to determine when circuit problems occur that might be dismissed by customers but point to an impending failure.
Monitoring the network is also the only way to tell when customer usage has increased, requiring a larger circuit. Personally, I see no problem with charging more for high bandwidth utilization. Increased usage requires an increase in the capacity of the circuits connecting those customers to the backbone. This is not a cheap proposition. In reality, ISPs genereally oversubscribe their customer links to a frightening degree for the simple reason that they cannot afford not to. For example, in a cable headend with 2000 modem customers, that equates to a total needed bandwidth (assuming everyone is running at 3Mb/sec all the time) of 6 Gb/sec. Assuming that the ISP is using a Cisco uBR , they would need to roll at least 7 gigabit ethernet lines into a single EtherChannel link (to allow for overhead) to a 12000-series GSR, then use at least 3 load-balanced OC48 lines just to provide a link to their backbone. The cost of this would be horrendous. In reality, a headend with 2000 modem customers would most likely be served with a fast ethernet link to a router running 6-8 T1s to the backbone. The reasons for this are that customers don't run at full usage all the time, and that this allows the ISP to keep the cost down. Therefore, if customers increase their utilization, then the ISP will have to provide more bandwidth to the headend, and the increased costs will be passed on to the customer. Personally, I'd rather not have to subsidize some joker downloading the complete works of GWAR because they're too cheap to shell out for a CD and actually support the artist. As far as it being the only broadband in the area, guess what - broadband isn't a public utility. If you want alternatives, you needtogive companies a compelling reason to roll out service in your area. Talk to the phone company about upgrading your CO, investigate wireless ISPs, and talk to other ISPs about convincing Comcast to open their lines.
Looks like someone finally listened to them...
Excite. Originally, Excite was bought by @Home simply to provide content. However, when Excite's CEO took over, that idea was quickly turned around - @Home's only purpose from then on was only to provide money to the cash-hemorrhaging, media-obsessed, dot-com-fetishists screaming "I'm not quite dead!" after having lost the "portal wars" to Yahoo long before. Had Excite not been the parasite that it turned out to be, @Home would have been profitable, strong, and still expanding today. They had a product that there is clearly a demand for, and (as the article states) in spite of Excite's draining away of every penny that @Home took in (and then some), they still managed to serve over 45% of all home broadband connections in the US. It would surprise me greatly to see any other company even come close to that accomplishment. What killed @Home Network? Excite@Home did.
Considering that @Home is closing its doors in a little over 2 months, I doubt it'll have any effect on @Home. The only way it might affect them is if Comcast were to also buy @Home (perhaps so they have a ready-built backbone to trasition customers to).
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Second Law only applies to closed systems. To quote MC Hawking, "The Earth's not a closed system - it's powered by the Sun."
Simple. The Red Cross is an organization whose goal is primarily humanitarian. The goal of the US government is to defend the interests of the citizens of the United States. Right now, it is in our interest to see that Al Qaida and the Taliban are punished for the acts of Sept. 11. At any rate - the projected cost of clearing the site of the WTC, providing for the survivors of the attack, and rebuilding is estimated to be over $100 billion - most of which will be borne by the US government in the form of disaster relief.
Since the US and other rich countries created the problems. For centuries they used Africa as a slave pit. When France leave Algeria, there were one school in the whole country! It's the same everywhere. US use the man force of thousands of slaves to build its economy. It would the least thing to do to help countries from where the slave where coming.
The US also used the manpower of millions of free men and women. Slavery was an atrocity. No argument. However, it has been extinct in the U.S. for over 150 years. The U.S. never established permanent colonies in Africa.
The only reason for this war was for US to control the petrol in Kuwait. Not to help people.
The reason for this war was to restore an allied government to power after their country was invaded. Would you have prefer it if we never came to the defence of any allied country? The choice was between two evils - allow Saddam Hussein to control the Kuwati oil fields and all future profits derived from them (thus funding his research into N/B/C weaponry), or return the non-Democratic but internationally-recognized and US-friendly Kuwati government to power. The U.S. (along with the Saudis, British, Germans, etc.) chose the lesser evil.
That's why they used unranium-based weapon that now kill kosovars? That they bombed the Chinese ambassad, hospitals and all the power plants in the country? To help people?
They used depleted-uranium weapons because that's what they had. The bombing of the Chinese embassy was a mistake, and the U.S. has admitted as much. Many mistakes were indeed made in the Kosovo bombings. However, they did achieve their stated goal - drive the Serbians out. As for the power plants, it is standard tactics to destroy the infrastructure of one's enemy. Perhaps I chose a bad example - Try this: Violence ended the violence of Napoleon's drive to conquer Europe.
Yeah - That must be why the Peace Corps, Red Cross and World Health Organization (all of whom are mostly, if not totally, US-funded) present bills to everyone they help. Right. Sure.
Do you know how many $ this war will cost? How many people could have been saved with just 1% of this money?
Since when is it the United States government's responsibility to save the world? Nothing in our constitution says that we have a duty to solve everyone's problems. Sound selfish? Damn right. Regardless of the motives at the time, we gave arms and money to the Afghani fighters to help them repel the Soviet invasion. When the Soviets left, we stopped helping. Now, those who owe their lives to US-provided money and weapons have made themselves our enemy. I have no sympathy for the Taliban, al-Qaida, or their supporters. I do have sympathy for the Afghani people, and am glad that we are airdropping food and medicine to the people while bombs fall on the Taliban. And you know what? We aren't including a bill - no repayment is expected for humanitarian aid.
Unwilling to accept that war is a solution? That violence can do anything else that creating more violence? Yes.
Violence ended the violence of the Holocaust. War was the solution to Imperial Japan's subjugation of Eastern Asia. Violence ended the violence of Serbia against Kosovo. War was the solution to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Violence ended the violence of Nazi Germany's attacks on Britain. War was the solution to China and North Korea's invasion of South Korea. To quote Heinlein, war is not uncontrolled violence. War is controlled violence directed toward a specific purpose. You will note that though it would be very easy for us to simply turn Afghanistan into a glass parking lot, we are not doing so. We are using controlled violence for a specific purpose. This is not a holy war, nor is it a crusade. This is simply the delivery of the consequences the Taliban and al-Qaida brought upon themselves.
By that logic, should we have responded to Pearl Harbor by asking Japan to hand over Yamamoto? We lost over 2000 NON-MILITARY, NON-COMBATANT people in a few hours. At Pearl Harbor, the losses were mostly military. Make no mistake - this was an act of war. We are responding appropriately. There are crimes, and there are atrocities. This was an atrocity. We were more than patient in waiting for the Taliban (who do NOT represent Islam) to hand over bin Laden. They have not done so. We warned them of the consequences of their actions repeatedly, and they chose to disregard them.
you are most certainly wrong when you say this is NOT an attack on Islam - it most certainly is.
This is no more an attack on Islam than the invasion of Normandy in 1944 was an attack on Protestantism. We are attacking a government (the Taliban) and an army they are protecting (Al Qaida). The fact that they claim to be Islamic has no bearing on this. If the situation was that Al Qaida was taking refuge in a Hindu, Christian, Buddist, Confucian, Zoroastrian, or Atheist nation, it would make no difference. They have perpetrated an act of war. We are responding appropriately. And, if you hadn't noticed, most of the Islamic world is supporting the US in this response.
America is not blameless.
And Al Qaida and the Taliban are? We did not kill over 2000 people with no warning. We did not remove the rights of our population. We did not destroy world treasures. While I agree that America does have some very dark spots in its foreign relations record, there is no possible justification for the atrocities of September 11th. We are responding appropriately.
TCI/AT&T Broadband has been buying backbone access from @Home since 1997. AT&T only 'runs' the cable plant. Everything else until you get to a peering point is @Home-managed. Don't believe me? Traceroute to something. See all the "[blah].[blah].home.net"? That's @Home.
Well, considering that computers are the technology that allow that worm to exist, Do you suggest we ban them? But computers use a lot of refined metals in their manufacture - and so do guns, knives, bullets, and swords. Should we ban metalworking, because it is "the technology that enables a terrorist attack"?
Granted, this is an argument from extremes. However, when I think of a physicist choosing to hide their findings, no matter how revolutionary, no matter the potential for increasing our understanding of the universe, I am reminded of the Catholic Church in the middle ages, where commoners were not allowed to read the Bible because they might not understand it, thus creating heretics. Everything can be used for both good and evil purposes. There is no such thing as a "purely benign" invention or discovery. Physics - nuclear power/nuclear weapons. Electronics - Pacemaker controllers/missle guidance systems. Biology - Vaccines/Viral warfare. Steelworking - Building support beams/Tanks. Blacksmithing - Ploughs/Swords.
There are two sides to every coin
Not to be pedantic, but hydrogen has already been made - it's just a matter of harvesting it from whatever we choose as the source. Hydrogen is the single most abundant element in the universe. Most of the planet is covered in a huge potential source of hydrogen - seawater. Harvesting hydrogen is a simple process that can be done by anyone with a battery,a test tube, and a glass of water. This is a non-issue.
2) The Hindenburgh[sic] (Gas tanks tend to burn, pressurized gas cylinders tend to explode)
The Hindenburg burned so quickly not because it was filled with hydrogen, but because the fabric was covered ina paint whose main components were aluminum and iron oxide. Combined, these make thermite, which burns very hot and quickly, as the oxygen is self-contained. The hydrogen actually would stop a fire in the gas bag itself, as fire needs oxygen to keep burning.
That being said, I see no problem with using hydrogen as a fuel source, as it is highly efficient and produces pure water as the only byproduct of combustion.
NASA has a $14billion/yr budget to pay for all its programs right now. Not just space launches, everything. Remember - It's National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA gets publicity (which it needs to generate funding) through big space launches, but a large portion of their funding goes to running such things as research into weather and new aircraft techlogies to make flying easier and safer. The one thing that we must have gets very little. Whether we like it or not, we need to get off this planet. We know for certain that Earth has been hit by asteroids before, and that it will be again. Right now, all of our eggs (figuratively and literally) are in one basket. Because of the shortsighted thinking of "Solve our problems NOW!", we are dooming ourselves. As for it not being fair, nothing is. But, to paraphrase J. Michael Straczynski, imagine how much worse life would be if it were fair, and every bad thing that happened to you happened because you deserved it. And with regard to "preventing another Columbine", the answer is simple - stop treating children as adults. They aren't. They need their parents to be parents. If parents would take their job seriously, not plunk their child in front of a TV. There is no substitute for a parent being involved with their children. Take responsibility, for fuck's sake! The schools are there to impart facts, wisdom and morals must come from the parents. In summary, NASA is doing far more than it is percieved as doing, and every project has payback. Problems don't disappear when money gets thrown at them, all that does is create new problems. For the rest - life isn't fair. Get over it.
It's NOT a friggin' WEBSITE!
Sorry to be pedantic, but Communism actually is a western philosophy. Communism (more specifically Bolshevism, which is what the bulk of current "Communist" countries actually operate under) was an economic and social philosophy put forward by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (white European) and Leon Trotsky (another white European). Communism itself is based on Socialism, an economic and social philosophy put forth by Karl Marx (yet another white European).
So, how is Communism not a western philosophy?
Not just _towards_ extrasolar life - if they find an atmosphere with a significant amount of free O2, that is direct evidence of life. Without life, O2 tends to naturally combine with silicon, leaving the atmosphere with no free O2. Therefore, if we find a strong O2 signature in any spectra taken from an extrasolar planet, that planet has life.
My vote for the most violent movie has to be Starship Troopers. To steal a line from the Self-Made Critic, in the book, the bugs have guns. In the movie, they can only slice the bejeezus out of you. There are more gore-filled, screaming, slashing, bloody, horrific deaths happening right on screen, in front of you, and in more amazing detail than in any other movie that I've ever seen.
While I don't agree that the government (or any other agency) should decide what we, as adults, are allowed to watch. However, I just ask that you think before exposing your children to these movies. A three-year-old that sees a giant bug hacking a girl who looks like his babysitter into tiny bits is going to become a quivering, crying, snot-gushing puddle of screaming fear.
In my opinion, Starship Troopers is a pathetic adaptation of a very good book with liberal servings of intestines, brains, limbs, and a side order of blood tacked on (Hmm... sounds like a haggis and black pudding), I still enjoy occasionally turning off my higher brain functions and feeding the primal bloodlust (if only by proxy). I only ask that parents remember that sometimes there are some very good reasons that a movie is rated R.
Considering the average particle density of the universe (IIRC, it's something on the order of 1 proton/km^3), the amount of mass taken away by Hawking radiation when compared to the intake of a small black hole is not insignificant.
While I know nothing of Canadian law, under US law, it would require that the producers make it easy to exercise your right to a fair use copy. The precedent is the ill-concieved Marijuana Stamp Act. When first passed (in the 20s-30s IIRC), it simply said that to posess marijuana, you had to have a tax stamp from the government (similar to that on cigarette packets). Problem was, the government never actually made any of these stamps, so the law was struck down in the '70s on the basis that while it allowed an action given the proper permit, that permit was impossible to obtain.
The reason that data from various observatories (SNO, Hubble, KPNO, etc.) is not immediately available to the public is that the scientists who run the experiments on the instruments in these obeservatories need to protect priority. For example, you've just spent 5 years and several thousand dollars getting time on Hubble. If you immediately release the data to the public, there's a possibility that someone could take that data and preempt your research, getting the publication and increased grant opportunities for nothing. It's a matter of protecting your investment in time and money. Granted, public funds go into these observatories, but the measurements taken are taken by researchers for a specific purpose. If that purpose is to further their research, then they do whatever is necessary to protect their priority.
Hmm... Imagine the possibilities of a superconducting network cable. Loop-length restrictions could become a thing of the past, repeaters would be almost totally unnecessary, and the geek factor is nearly off the scale. Grated, this would only work for systems using copper wiring (though a fiber that was truly 100% transparent would also be nifty).
Don't forget the PCG-C1X series! I've had mine for over a year now, and it's still running like a champ, even with a mere P133 (yes, you read that right - no roman numerals). Not only does it make a great portable mp3 player (being a bit smaller than an O'Reilly 2nd Ed. camel book), but it's great to see the look on people's faces when you pull that bad boy out and people see you working with this tiny little computer as you build mozilla, play zork, etc. Also ,with the newer models, drivers for the camera have been written for Linux! Unfortunately, my model does not have this particular niftyness, but I'm looking for a newer one right now.