"Moderation" is notoriously difficult to sell, despite the fact that moderate-yet-progressive policies tend to be the most effective and popular in the long-run.
Aside from Kennedy, name one President who had moderate-yet-"progressive" policies AND was popular in the long-run.
I'm convinced that, except for cans, the 5-cent deposit thingie is because municipalities realized they could take over the deposit and use it for general fund revenue.
Coke used to do the deposit because they would actually re-use the bottles. My guess is.. at some point people stopped bothering to return them because the deposit was insignificant and at some point the deposit was phased out on the corporate side and later ramped up on the municipal side.
I also signed up for 24/7 high-speed internet. But I didn't want to pay more than $50/month, so I went with the "may be metered" version. If there were one with an explicit meter at the time, I'd have gone with that one, since I really don't like hidden terms.
He wasn't suggesting that the DUST is the dark matter. He was suggesting that the stars' unaccounted-for mass is, at least part of, the "dark" matter: the matter that we cannot observe except by it's gravitational effects.
The article suggests two things by stating that the dust is obscuring galaxies more than previously thought:
1) there is more mass in the galaxies than previously thought (to be generating the light we don't see)
2) there is more mass in the dust than previously thought.
"dark" matter is in it's essence, unaccounted for matter. In a sense, Neptune was a "dark" planet until it was observed. Astronomers have suggested that the reason we haven't observed the "missing mass" is that it is not observable. The article does, in fact, suggest that at least part of the missing mass may be unobservable for mundane reasons rather than new physics.
that's right, if you want a steak that has flavor or a donut get ready to pay for more pork barrel spending,fatty!
I do find it ironic (Alanis sense) though. I've found that the more satisfying a food is, the less of it I need to eat to.. you know.. feel satisfied. Which is why I tend to overeat at fast-food restaurants: their fare just isn't particularly satisfying at all.
You bought a time-share Rolls-Royce for the price of a go-kart. You've now decided that you want that rolls 100% of the time. But the company you bought the time-share can't offer you a rolls for the price of a go-kart. Therefore they must be Villains.
What they're guilty of is not being entirely clear what the product they were offering was, but to anyone with technical knowledge it should have been quite obvious regardless. The solution is to demand that they are explicit and clear in describing the product. And perhaps a coupon or something in punitive "damages." The solution is NOT "they should give everyone the kind of bandwidth a few people were deliberately obtuse enough to pretend to think they were offering even though it would raise costs an order of magnitude above profitability."
"You imply people should accept using buggy software."
Well..a clearly labeled beta that you have to go through some hoops to deliberately download? Yeah, you should accept a few bugs. And also report them, so they won't be there in the final release.
This is an ADULT manipulating a CHILD (a child whom the adult knew was depressed and suicidal) to commit SUICIDE. This is not a case of peers trading insults, or homophobes telling people "don't be gay."
She may or may not have intended the suicide itself, but she clearly intended to inflict great psychological harm on an already mentally unstable child.
Responsibility isn't a conserved value. It multiplies. Of course someone who commits suicide is responsible for their actions. And they also receive the full consequences of it.
But that doesn't mean that the woman who used a false identity to goad her into doing it isn't also responsible. Especially since the woman knew she was having suicidal thoughts, and the woman was an adult. Adults are fully responsible for their own actions, especially when those actions involve children. She should have been trying to help the poor girl. Not avenge her own daughter's real or imagined slight.
Well, sure. Especially if "inquisitive and independent minded" means using the same interface as millions of others with everything interesting safely hidden from an ordinary user ever even encountering it.
Also.. a pointing device that you can still use while wearing oven mitts...
Oh, I knew what it was. I just thought it was overbearingly cliche. Granted, I would have accepted stunning visuals as a mitigating factor, but they weren't in any way stunning. In fact, they, too were horribly cliche.
I mean, we get it. War sucks, especially if there's Nazis. And Francisco Franco was a very bad guy. (or.. he was a good guy? It's even hard to tell who's resisting whom in the movie) But Pan's Labyrinth was no "Guernica."
*spoiler alert*
Not to mention that the fantasy bits didn't meld at all into the greater story: it was, apparently, a dying girl's final hallucination. But it was also the *cause* of hear death. So.. it was real? But then.. how can it be a metaphor?
Pretty much same here. They've been "building" that "milkfarm" for a while now. How long does it take to pile up some high-clay content earth around an area the size of a city block and fill it with three feet of water, anyway?
You just don't get it, do you. If the ISPs are going to conform to your plan of "building out to match the demand," that involves a capital cost which they will have to recoup through increased pricing.
There are only a few options here for the ISPs. One is to build out as you say and charge everyone. Another is to build out some more and charge most people the same, but make the limits more explicit. Nudging the higher bandwidth consumers into higher price brackets. This nicely solves the scarcity problem as prices rise, bandwidth increases and usage drops to market-clearing levels.
IOW, it's either increased pricing for some who actually use the bandwidth or increased pricing for everyone. "Eating the loss" only goes so far before the company goes out of business and is replaced by a company that charges what their product is worth. You're asking for everyone else to subsidize YOUR usage ya filthy hippie.
Oh, and BTW, some of us knew what we were getting when we subscribed to our service like.. a decade ago. We knew we were paying for shared service, but we bought it anyway because it met our needs: we wanted responsive web and occasional downloads (like..patches and linux isos)to be relatively fast. And they were. We didn't want a T1, but we wanted O(T1) speed for a lot of little sessions.
And if we wanted to run servers, we knew we could just call up and get business accounts with static IPs and do whatever we wanted. And since we're now paying the same price ($6 more for me, but factoring in inflation and the dollar slide...), but getting about 6x the speed (for me at least. Not quite Moore improvement, but still satisfactory), we're pretty satisfied with what we're getting for the price we're paying. Which doesn't mean that if we see a better deal we won't switch.
Because the bandwidth you think you're paying for costs a lot more than you're actually paying right now.
What you're actually paying for is a kind of time-share bandwidth thing. Based on a profile of an average user who wants spurts of high speed (to make web pages responsive) but doesn't actually need that data rate anywhere near 100% of the time.
This is generally a good deal all around, because by selling it this way, the ISPs ensure good utilization of the equipment, and you get fast web pages. And that connection is on 24/7.
If your use profile doesn't conform to that estimate, for instance, if you're actually using a fairly constant bandwidth, then you need to upgrade your service to a plan that figures that in. Prices for those plans are sure to come down soon, as the capacity is built in to satisfy the upcoming demand for internet-tv.
It is unfortunate that the ad campaigns didn't specify this explicitly at the outset (although they're getting better). But I think it was in the name of brevity rather than malice. And also some malice, but at least at some point someone probably figured that many people either weren't bright enough or didn't have enough time to fully absorb the details, so they oversimplified them. I don't think that assumption is wrong, btw.
Haven't you ever wondered why a T1 line, which ostensibly has lower data rate than your plan by a factor of between 3 and 5 in most of the country, costs so very much more? That's because they don't expect you to use that data rate anywhere near all the time.
Ultraviolet was fun. I suppose there might have been a comic book or something that you could get snobby about. But at it's heart, it was just yet another vehicle for Milla Jovovich to prance about in skin-tight outfits waving around a sword.
We all knew Wild Wild West was crap then as well. We just thought it would *also* be a fun piece of crap. And it sort of was. If you don't think too hard, and were drunk.
But keep in mind that these same critics thought "Pan's Labyrinth" and "Fountain" were good films. Blessedly, the critics have finally come around on "Fountain" but critics are why I went to see both of those films and they were sadly disappointing.
Step 2: Buy all new hardware because your current hardware isn't supported.
But seriously.. Why does it need at least one full computer running all the time: backend, if you want to record shows while you're away. You can put frontend on the same machine, or a lower power machine, but that doesn't remove the need for the full box.
Tivo comes in one box that's quiet enough to put under the TV. My cable company's DVR is in one box that's quiet enough if you're watching a show at moderate volume. Why does myth require so much hardware?
And why does it require you to understand MySQL server?
Unless your business is IT, IT is nothing more than a necessary evil. Something that needs to exist, just like the janitorial staff. I don't know why people think this is an insult, though. Sanitation is essential to productivity and health and most people would rather not have to do it themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm convinced that, except for cans, the 5-cent deposit thingie is because municipalities realized they could take over the deposit and use it for general fund revenue.
Coke used to do the deposit because they would actually re-use the bottles. My guess is.. at some point people stopped bothering to return them because the deposit was insignificant and at some point the deposit was phased out on the corporate side and later ramped up on the municipal side.
They were when they came out. I wouldn't be so sure about that a year or two later, though.
In that universe, there would be one more happy person. And the execution neatly gets rid of the unhappy person that would be averaged in.
I also signed up for 24/7 high-speed internet. But I didn't want to pay more than $50/month, so I went with the "may be metered" version. If there were one with an explicit meter at the time, I'd have gone with that one, since I really don't like hidden terms.
He wasn't suggesting that the DUST is the dark matter. He was suggesting that the stars' unaccounted-for mass is, at least part of, the "dark" matter: the matter that we cannot observe except by it's gravitational effects.
The article suggests two things by stating that the dust is obscuring galaxies more than previously thought:
1) there is more mass in the galaxies than previously thought (to be generating the light we don't see)
2) there is more mass in the dust than previously thought.
"dark" matter is in it's essence, unaccounted for matter. In a sense, Neptune was a "dark" planet until it was observed. Astronomers have suggested that the reason we haven't observed the "missing mass" is that it is not observable. The article does, in fact, suggest that at least part of the missing mass may be unobservable for mundane reasons rather than new physics.
As I always say: It's all about the m-dot.
If divergence (you) = 0, then you won't gain weight. period.
(I wish slashdot allowed math symbols..)
I do find it ironic (Alanis sense) though. I've found that the more satisfying a food is, the less of it I need to eat to.. you know.. feel satisfied. Which is why I tend to overeat at fast-food restaurants: their fare just isn't particularly satisfying at all.
That is certainly not Mozilla's fault.
To further the auto analogy:
You bought a time-share Rolls-Royce for the price of a go-kart. You've now decided that you want that rolls 100% of the time. But the company you bought the time-share can't offer you a rolls for the price of a go-kart. Therefore they must be Villains.
What they're guilty of is not being entirely clear what the product they were offering was, but to anyone with technical knowledge it should have been quite obvious regardless. The solution is to demand that they are explicit and clear in describing the product. And perhaps a coupon or something in punitive "damages." The solution is NOT "they should give everyone the kind of bandwidth a few people were deliberately obtuse enough to pretend to think they were offering even though it would raise costs an order of magnitude above profitability."
"You imply people should accept using buggy software."
..a clearly labeled beta that you have to go through some hoops to deliberately download? Yeah, you should accept a few bugs. And also report them, so they won't be there in the final release.
Well
This is an ADULT manipulating a CHILD (a child whom the adult knew was depressed and suicidal) to commit SUICIDE. This is not a case of peers trading insults, or homophobes telling people "don't be gay."
She may or may not have intended the suicide itself, but she clearly intended to inflict great psychological harm on an already mentally unstable child.
Responsibility isn't a conserved value. It multiplies. Of course someone who commits suicide is responsible for their actions. And they also receive the full consequences of it.
But that doesn't mean that the woman who used a false identity to goad her into doing it isn't also responsible. Especially since the woman knew she was having suicidal thoughts, and the woman was an adult. Adults are fully responsible for their own actions, especially when those actions involve children. She should have been trying to help the poor girl. Not avenge her own daughter's real or imagined slight.
Well, sure. Especially if "inquisitive and independent minded" means using the same interface as millions of others with everything interesting safely hidden from an ordinary user ever even encountering it.
Also.. a pointing device that you can still use while wearing oven mitts...
Oh, I knew what it was. I just thought it was overbearingly cliche. Granted, I would have accepted stunning visuals as a mitigating factor, but they weren't in any way stunning. In fact, they, too were horribly cliche.
I mean, we get it. War sucks, especially if there's Nazis. And Francisco Franco was a very bad guy. (or.. he was a good guy? It's even hard to tell who's resisting whom in the movie) But Pan's Labyrinth was no "Guernica."
*spoiler alert*
Not to mention that the fantasy bits didn't meld at all into the greater story: it was, apparently, a dying girl's final hallucination. But it was also the *cause* of hear death. So.. it was real? But then.. how can it be a metaphor?
Pretty much same here. They've been "building" that "milkfarm" for a while now. How long does it take to pile up some high-clay content earth around an area the size of a city block and fill it with three feet of water, anyway?
You just don't get it, do you. If the ISPs are going to conform to your plan of "building out to match the demand," that involves a capital cost which they will have to recoup through increased pricing.
There are only a few options here for the ISPs. One is to build out as you say and charge everyone. Another is to build out some more and charge most people the same, but make the limits more explicit. Nudging the higher bandwidth consumers into higher price brackets. This nicely solves the scarcity problem as prices rise, bandwidth increases and usage drops to market-clearing levels.
IOW, it's either increased pricing for some who actually use the bandwidth or increased pricing for everyone. "Eating the loss" only goes so far before the company goes out of business and is replaced by a company that charges what their product is worth. You're asking for everyone else to subsidize YOUR usage ya filthy hippie.
Oh, and BTW, some of us knew what we were getting when we subscribed to our service like.. a decade ago. We knew we were paying for shared service, but we bought it anyway because it met our needs: we wanted responsive web and occasional downloads (like..patches and linux isos)to be relatively fast. And they were. We didn't want a T1, but we wanted O(T1) speed for a lot of little sessions.
And if we wanted to run servers, we knew we could just call up and get business accounts with static IPs and do whatever we wanted. And since we're now paying the same price ($6 more for me, but factoring in inflation and the dollar slide...), but getting about 6x the speed (for me at least. Not quite Moore improvement, but still satisfactory), we're pretty satisfied with what we're getting for the price we're paying. Which doesn't mean that if we see a better deal we won't switch.
Because the bandwidth you think you're paying for costs a lot more than you're actually paying right now.
What you're actually paying for is a kind of time-share bandwidth thing. Based on a profile of an average user who wants spurts of high speed (to make web pages responsive) but doesn't actually need that data rate anywhere near 100% of the time.
This is generally a good deal all around, because by selling it this way, the ISPs ensure good utilization of the equipment, and you get fast web pages. And that connection is on 24/7.
If your use profile doesn't conform to that estimate, for instance, if you're actually using a fairly constant bandwidth, then you need to upgrade your service to a plan that figures that in. Prices for those plans are sure to come down soon, as the capacity is built in to satisfy the upcoming demand for internet-tv.
It is unfortunate that the ad campaigns didn't specify this explicitly at the outset (although they're getting better). But I think it was in the name of brevity rather than malice. And also some malice, but at least at some point someone probably figured that many people either weren't bright enough or didn't have enough time to fully absorb the details, so they oversimplified them. I don't think that assumption is wrong, btw.
Haven't you ever wondered why a T1 line, which ostensibly has lower data rate than your plan by a factor of between 3 and 5 in most of the country, costs so very much more? That's because they don't expect you to use that data rate anywhere near all the time.
In 100 years, I will be moldering in an over-engineered tomb. But if I'm not, I'll be sitting in my solar-thermal powered air-conditioned bunker.
Ultraviolet was fun. I suppose there might have been a comic book or something that you could get snobby about. But at it's heart, it was just yet another vehicle for Milla Jovovich to prance about in skin-tight outfits waving around a sword.
So all-in-all, I'd call it a success.
We all knew Wild Wild West was crap then as well. We just thought it would *also* be a fun piece of crap. And it sort of was. If you don't think too hard, and were drunk.
But keep in mind that these same critics thought "Pan's Labyrinth" and "Fountain" were good films. Blessedly, the critics have finally come around on "Fountain" but critics are why I went to see both of those films and they were sadly disappointing.
Step 2: Buy all new hardware because your current hardware isn't supported.
But seriously.. Why does it need at least one full computer running all the time: backend, if you want to record shows while you're away. You can put frontend on the same machine, or a lower power machine, but that doesn't remove the need for the full box.
Tivo comes in one box that's quiet enough to put under the TV. My cable company's DVR is in one box that's quiet enough if you're watching a show at moderate volume. Why does myth require so much hardware?
And why does it require you to understand MySQL server?
Unless your business is IT, IT is nothing more than a necessary evil. Something that needs to exist, just like the janitorial staff. I don't know why people think this is an insult, though. Sanitation is essential to productivity and health and most people would rather not have to do it themselves.
Perhaps. But Hitler was a much better painter than Pollock...
4 is not enough because of Alaska. 4 is only sufficient if all countries are contiguous.