The first solution that comes to my mind (to your hypothetical limiting condition, at least;D) would be to put leads on destructive logic gates to conserve the unused information electronically. Imagine an AND gate with a rarely used "remainder" bit, for example. Designers could glom on that if they wanted it, or if not lead most of the unutilized results off into a seeding algorithm for/dev/urandom, and the rest (those prone to entropy feedback) into controlling blinky LEDs.
Yeah, that's what they're really doing on all those sci-fi shows. Heat dissipation. 8I
liberals have pushed hard that people aren't at fault, but everything is at fault around them.
There's been no shortage of studies in the last 150 years showing that criminality is opportunity based.
So.... in one breath, you say crime is a person's fault but in another you say a lion's share of people will commit crimes if allowed the opportunity to do so.
Perhaps we're just working with different definitions of the word "blame" here? Is it easier to create legal systems, penal systems and business ecosystems with checks and balances that remove opportunities to commit crime without being caught, or is it easier to "fix" 70% of the population by magically transforming them into saintly creatures?
.....
Oh right. This is the part where you hand out the pamphlets.
Show me a Rails-like framework in PHP, and I'll bet money it'll perform worse.
Umm, CakePHP. A quick google doesn't show me any comparative benchmarks less than 2 years old though.
I'll take another look at Rails now. Haven't tried in 3+ years, and at the time I had trouble with inconsistent library calling conventions (same gripe I have with Java Swing and AWT before it) and significant challenges making it play nice with Apache in a manner comparable to mod_php. (has mod_ruby come of age, yet?;3)
That you define something different from others doesn' t mean anything, not unless you can demonstrate clearly that your new definition prevails logically or as de-facto. Otherwise, it's just another opinion, and opinions are not fact.
Wait, what are you even complaining about here? Does "fair price" have some sort of dictionary definition that you're accusing Parent of deviating from? If so, then why in hell didn't you just whip out a calculator and compute the exact value of this textbook's "fair price" to save everyone having to argue what it must be?
You seem to be saying that being subject to a law means you agree with the law. That's certainly not the case. Back in the 1860's we hashed that whole idea out, and it didn't go particularly well for your side of the argument. The only sense in which you've given positive consent to be governed by a law is by not moving out of its jurisdiction.
Further, you don't have a right to copy someone else's work. No one living in the U.S. today has ever had that right, except under exceptions to the copyright laws (e.g., fair use, and when the copyright expires).
I guess that depends on how you define "right", eh? We've been having that argument on Slashdot a lot recently. Some people contend that "right" means whatever you can do without fear of legal reprisal when caught. Other people contend that it means what set of things you ought morally be given licence to do, such that if everyone were allowed to pursue those actions it would lead to the greatest profit for society in general and the practitioners in particular.
I hold to the second definition, as the first definition immediately means you have no rights whatsoever. Thanks to overlapping laws and selective prosecution, every action up to and beyond breathing is illegal if your enemy sics enough lawyers at you. Everyone jay walks, everyone wafts a mile per hour above the speed limit.. especially as measured by a faulty radar gun. Everyone sings Happy Birthday at parties without paying ASCAP fees. Defining "rights" against a legal background is probably the stupidest thing I've heard in the last fifteen minutes.
As for whether we have the "right" to copy someone else's work from the perspective of whether allowing that right would benefit society, I contend that it does and that our culture would profit from respecting and encouraging the practice. If you disagree, then why don't you put might where your right is and sue me for reproducing your entire post as the prefix of mine, and then hope to hell GP doesn't counter-sue you for reproducing part of his.
The Stephen Kings of the world can afford to give away content in the hope that some people will buy their next work, but for someone starting out, every book they sell is important, and piracy really affects that.
I know. It's like, I make toys and virtual goods in this hopelessly obscure niche virtual world called Second Life. Nobody knows who I am. It's just a hobby, so it's not like I market or anything. I just put my goods for sale on the central market and left it at that.
Fool that I was though, I made all the permissions "full copy / full mod / full transfer" and left the source code and art in the products. In short this game has DRM built right in that I can use, and I opted out of that. Now how can I even hope to get sales off the ground? You know, if I start paying attention or anything? Anyone can just give copies to their friends, anyone can even repost and say they made it. Anyone can use my work in their products. I've failed already!
Oddly enough, when I do a quick search on the market I see lots of other similar goods but none seem to be copies of my stuff. Many offerings are cheaper than mine. All have reduced permissions. Most are no transfer, none let you see source code. So I'm sure they'll take off and get a tidy sum, since they aren't being passed around like the village bicycle. I guess, like you said, I am obscure enough for noone to put forth the effort to copy me and try to relist.
I mean, I know it's my fault but I just feel so bitter. I've probably wasted like, 10 or 20 hours of work that I probably would have done anyway since it is a tinkering hobby, and all I have to show for it is enough residual income over the past year to cover all my in-game expenses and half my monthly ISP bill. I mean sure, that tiny trickle keeps growing every month even though I haven't published anything new since April, but I really could have commanded some respect if I'd taken a moment to fight piracy! You know, I would be forcing money right out of people's pockets as we speak instead of losing a potential sale every time friends share the things I make, laughing at me behind my back.:(
Yes, I either misread TFS or got an earlier version from the RSS feed that said "million". Tony's "hey presto" comment makes sense if the fiber folk are quoting Million with an M, but Billion with a B sounds on par with the US's government subsidized fiber fiasco from the nineties.
I will admit I'm less supportive of the measure at 43 Billion.;D
Nothing, but that is not how virtually any business agreement in the world works. Instead of a an easy to understand sentence, you get multiple pages full of legal lingo that might require a lawyer to properly parse, thus making misunderstandings a lot more likely.
An airline can't overbook as it would be immediately obvious to it's customers if they did so.
Airlines overbook all the time. You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
Actually I do know what I'm talking about. Airlines can overbook, but only very small amounts... If they exceed that, and bump too many customers, they get heavy fines.
No wonder your idea of 'quite upfront' differs from everyone else's. You go from "no overbooking, or customers would be upset" to "not too much overbooking, or the government fines them".
Your original point was "They abuse the digital medium simply because it's less noticeable.", and then compare them to what sounds like a market pressure against Airlines. But then, you turn around and admit that Airlines are regulated in that regard. I don't know for a fact, but I would hazard a guess that the regulations exist to prevent the airlines from thumbing their nose at the market and trying to weasel money out of people.
As for the telcoms, They are in a hell of a pickle. They never wanted to be mobile ISP's, but market demand is forcing them into that position and their fighting the tide every step of the way. They want to route phone calls, and sell ringtones and other services like video. Those things are profitable so long as people will pay for them. Market demands data, and they generally don't mind providing that except that doing so inevitably cannibalizes the only markets that make them enough money to support their infrastructure. Worse yet, they have to pay for the data they provide you by the byte and even pay to stand by ready to provide data to people who aren't using it in case they suddenly switch on their phone, but customers are used to unmetered and unlimited wireline plans at a flat monthly rate and expect the same to their pocket on every mountaintop, and in many cases at the same pricepoint as wireline.
Now on the one hand I'm not saying the telco's aren't evil or greedy. What I am saying is this argument doesn't require them to be, because the average users are pretty evil and greedy themselves. To expect the impossible just because Jobs promised it to you when you bought your Ifail is a great way to guarantee disappointment.
There's nothing practical about expecting actually unlimited mobile data at any price, and those who can't recognize a limited resource and refuse to read so far as the fine print are not the victims here either. They're choosing to make their own messes too.
No, it is evil to recognize that they have less capacity, yet continue to sell to new customers who will continue to use more capacity.
Fine then, sign up with the hypothetical carrier who tells new customers "I'm sorry I can't sell you a new plan in Illinois because all our plans include nationwide roaming and presently our San Diego market is at capacity. Since you might conceivably travel there, I have to ask you to take your money elsewhere". They can't put you on a waiting list either, since that would admit the possibility that all the markets might clear one day, which they can't guarantee. Oh well, I guess you can't sign up for them after all, can you?
If we decide we don't want CEOs making billions while main street starves, BOOM! we can just make it so.
I'm glad you feel so empowered by your flawless representative democracy that you can "band together with like minded citizens" to "protect your interests from even the richest and most powerful". That sounds absolutely stellar and I have honestly never heard of anyone in or out of the beltway having that much clout. Hell, I don't think even Obama can boast that kind of pull.
So.. when are you going to pop all those golden parachutes from the recent credit bubble? Have you brought those AIG execs to justice yet? Reversed the BP oil spill? Look, if all you need is another bloke like me to write some letters just let me know, but I want a timeline on when this is happening. (and of course, any failure to meet that timeline would be viewed as Lying, and therefor Evil on your part.;3 )
Back in reality, no direct political action you have ever taken in your life has ever had any influence on any CEO of any corporation ever, nor could you so much as spit in the political wind regarding the network neutrality debate, so quit fronting.
You have a voice in the ether as the rest of us do, while not political action what we say here sometimes gets heard and measured as a sample of public opinion, but your voice is spreading FUD (intentional or not) that the people actually getting things done don't have our support. Your call for nothing less than the impossible and spit on any practical attempts at change. This is why the rest of our voices are asking you to pipe the hell down.
Google: We're gonna pave this road!
Google: Status report, today we're paving the first mile.
spun: What? The first mile of the road is not The Road, so you're lying. We all know you'll never pave the rest and you've sold out. Look, if you can't pave the whole damned road in one day then I don't want it paved. I'll do it myself and you're just in the way. Now, where's the mixing bowl with my asphalt in it?
Verizon does not have veto powers over proposed US laws.
I'm sorry, what planet are you living on? Verizon absofuckinglutely has the power to negatively influence legislation, and within it's baliwick pretty much pass or kill any bill it wants. Have you never heard of lobbying? Corrupt political officials? Your planet must not have those.
All lobbying aside though, if I were Verizon and had no scruples, I'd save some $$$ by just letting the congresscritters know that "a yes vote on this bill means I find an excuse to cut off the FiOS to your house". We'd end up with a negative "yes" vote that would confuse mathematicians for generations to come.
Google could loudly fight and lose on purpose, dooming us all, but they would rather get something done with a strong option to finish the battle later, and also pen a profitable deal with Verizon.
Damn those typos, but I know what you mean. Where does Google get off trying to do business with other companies? You'd think they were trying to improve service to people instead of sacrificing all of their political leverage prior to using it.
This discussion aside, I think it would be hilarious to play a game of Go against you. You'd lose almost immediately by trying to encircle the entire board one stone at a time, and then complain that the game is broken because that isn't a winning strategy.
Google is not a wireless carrier. No part of this proposal calls for discharging firearms at wireless networks. Wireless networks are not land. Poster complains about FUD but ends his post foaming FUD at the mouth.
It's almost getting to where comparisons to the 2009 credit bubble are the new Godwin.:P
"MYTH: Google is eliminating network neutrality over wireless from this proposal"
If that's how you're reading it, then that statement is accurate: but that's not how the statement is written. Here's how we read the text:
"MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless from ever being achievable"
Nothing in the FACT section confirms that myth, and I am reasonably certain that is how Google intended that line to be read.
"No, we're not deep sixing wireless net neutrality, we're just choosing not to fight that battle today. We've determined that if we bite off too much in this proposal, it will fail. Failed proposals help nobody."
Except maybe dishonest people who really want the proposal to get overloaded so that it will fail. 8I
No, you mean you can get that from cable. With a bandwidth cap. I live in a place approximately as rural as Australia, and ten miles from the nearest cable coverage.
Due to advances in technology, the cost of that quality fiber and switches will probably be 1/1000th as much in 2020.
That will always be true, and that quality of fiber and switches will also be meaningless 10 years from now. At least, it will be so long as it costs one thousand times less, since it's actually pretty reasonable after price drops earlier this year.
Also you presume everyone needs 1 Gbit/s..
How do you arrive at that conclusion from the statement "personally be happy to get 0.03GB/sec"? All we're saying is, if you can get the gear in the ground for 43 million that's a great deal and a better idea than Tony Abbot's dumb proposal. 100Mbit? Gigabit? Sure why not. Anything to get the bottleneck away from my welcome mat.
Right now NO country has 100% gigabit internet to all its citizens..... not even close to that numbers.
A> if they are planning out a network that won't go live until the future, it would make sense no to limit one's expectations to today's status quo.
B> I think everyone would rather they install gigabit switches and fiber to the home than rely on wireless spectrum, whether or not "100% of the population" is "guaranteed" a gigabit of service.
The only significant cost to having a gigabit network is the last mile lines. The routers can be crap today and still give you terrific speeds (even 30mbps is nothing to sneeze at) and it's cheap to upgrade the routers to handle greater load tomorrow. As long as you've got the lines in the dirt, you are headed in the right direction.
Instead the owner/managers of the company would be directly responsible for the actions of the company
I also think corporations should somehow be exposed to accountability, but I don't think pinning individual humans is the right course of action. Firstly it is not always cut and dried to find out who is really pulling the strings in an organization, so we'd just end up with scapegoating. Hire an idiot as CEO and manipulate the company around him to do terrible things while he thinks he's really in charge, then he takes the fall.
Secondly, in most organizations of any size there is no one human who is pulling all the strings or who can effectively control the entire behemoth. So what happens when whoever is sitting in the accountability seat notices wrongdoing, but lacks the pull to be able to make it stop? You can't blame an engineer for not being able to brake a freight train before it collides with an auto parked over the tracks. Well, I mean you could try, but that's still scapegoating which just injures everyone involved.
We need a cleverer way of making a corporation accountable. They're hard to kill, since they just re-manifest (AT&T?) and since they often hold economies hostage. I don't really know a solution. But it bears more scrutiny.
If you're someone who's under the age of, like, 20, and says his least favorite film in the series is The Empire Strikes Back because it was "The Most Boringest One"? Then I suggest you shut this review off right now. Before I carefully explain how much of a Fucking Idiot you are.
So he showed us the oldest story in the world - a hero, coming of age; evil father; damsel in distress; old wise hermit; mythic force. How original!!
Now I need to explain that I don't think that all movies should be the same, or conform to the same kind of structure, but it works well in certain kind of movies. So unless you're thecoenbrothers-davidlynch-paulthomasanderson-stanleykubrick-alfredhitchcock-larsvontrier-davidcronenberg-gusvansant-quentintarantino-johnwaters-wesanderson-sampeckinpah-terrygilliam-martinscorsese-wernerherzog or Jim Jarmusch, you really shouldn't stray away too far from this kind of formula.
Especially if you're making a movie that's aimed at children that has a cartoon rabbit in it? That steps in the poopy.
If you can exercise supreme discipline and watch the old ones like you have never seen them before you will not find them interesting at all.
Describe this character to your friends like they ain't never seen Star Wars.
Han Solo..
Qui-Gon Jinn..
As for the midichlorians - I though this is a stroke or genius!!
The students blatantly copied somebody else's work. In many circumstances that can get you expelled from school. Why are we supposed to have sympathy for them except that it's "evil corp" vs "innocent students"?
Oh no, oh gods you're right. My.. *sniffle* my compsci teacher taught us Pascal by assigning us to make Tic Tac Toe clones. I.. I never realized the damage this could cause to the inventors of the game.
Those poor inventors of crosses and naughts. They.. They were just trying to feed their familes! *choke*sob*
*ahem*, ok I'm better now. So, you're saying plagiarism, and they should be expelled. Is that right? Fine, quite right, so please demonstrate from whence they cribbed the code for NAMCO's Pac Man.
...
Wait, so you're saying they didn't crib any code, they just did the same thing over again and it's still plagiarism?
Right, that just means you need to be expelled for every book review you've ever turned in since, you know, someone else has reviewed that same book before you.
Slashdot Mirror
*squints* at your sig. So the $q stands for quine?
Ocrap, you meant the Brief History of Thingybook. Yeah, I read that. It were pants. :3
they killed Dr Who
Yeah, well, but, by "killed" I assume you mean it went off the air in '89, right? And then it came back in '05.
Or else do you just not like the new series? I think it's pants. xD
Also, bow ties are cool. 8I
The solution is reversible computing.
The first solution that comes to my mind (to your hypothetical limiting condition, at least ;D) would be to put leads on destructive logic gates to conserve the unused information electronically. Imagine an AND gate with a rarely used "remainder" bit, for example. Designers could glom on that if they wanted it, or if not lead most of the unutilized results off into a seeding algorithm for /dev/urandom, and the rest (those prone to entropy feedback) into controlling blinky LEDs.
Yeah, that's what they're really doing on all those sci-fi shows. Heat dissipation. 8I
Someone mod this +6 865 877 562
Your call cannot be completed as dialed, please check your country code and dial again. Message I D ten T.
liberals have pushed hard that people aren't at fault, but everything is at fault around them.
There's been no shortage of studies in the last 150 years showing that criminality is opportunity based.
So .... in one breath, you say crime is a person's fault but in another you say a lion's share of people will commit crimes if allowed the opportunity to do so.
Perhaps we're just working with different definitions of the word "blame" here? Is it easier to create legal systems, penal systems and business ecosystems with checks and balances that remove opportunities to commit crime without being caught, or is it easier to "fix" 70% of the population by magically transforming them into saintly creatures?
Oh right. This is the part where you hand out the pamphlets.
Show me a Rails-like framework in PHP, and I'll bet money it'll perform worse.
Umm, CakePHP. A quick google doesn't show me any comparative benchmarks less than 2 years old though.
I'll take another look at Rails now. Haven't tried in 3+ years, and at the time I had trouble with inconsistent library calling conventions (same gripe I have with Java Swing and AWT before it) and significant challenges making it play nice with Apache in a manner comparable to mod_php. (has mod_ruby come of age, yet? ;3)
That you define something different from others doesn' t mean anything, not unless you can demonstrate clearly that your new definition prevails logically or as de-facto. Otherwise, it's just another opinion, and opinions are not fact.
Wait, what are you even complaining about here? Does "fair price" have some sort of dictionary definition that you're accusing Parent of deviating from? If so, then why in hell didn't you just whip out a calculator and compute the exact value of this textbook's "fair price" to save everyone having to argue what it must be?
God, are you ever doin' it wrong. ;P
You seem to be saying that being subject to a law means you agree with the law. That's certainly not the case. Back in the 1860's we hashed that whole idea out, and it didn't go particularly well for your side of the argument. The only sense in which you've given positive consent to be governed by a law is by not moving out of its jurisdiction. Further, you don't have a right to copy someone else's work. No one living in the U.S. today has ever had that right, except under exceptions to the copyright laws (e.g., fair use, and when the copyright expires).
I guess that depends on how you define "right", eh? We've been having that argument on Slashdot a lot recently. Some people contend that "right" means whatever you can do without fear of legal reprisal when caught. Other people contend that it means what set of things you ought morally be given licence to do, such that if everyone were allowed to pursue those actions it would lead to the greatest profit for society in general and the practitioners in particular.
I hold to the second definition, as the first definition immediately means you have no rights whatsoever. Thanks to overlapping laws and selective prosecution, every action up to and beyond breathing is illegal if your enemy sics enough lawyers at you. Everyone jay walks, everyone wafts a mile per hour above the speed limit .. especially as measured by a faulty radar gun. Everyone sings Happy Birthday at parties without paying ASCAP fees. Defining "rights" against a legal background is probably the stupidest thing I've heard in the last fifteen minutes.
As for whether we have the "right" to copy someone else's work from the perspective of whether allowing that right would benefit society, I contend that it does and that our culture would profit from respecting and encouraging the practice. If you disagree, then why don't you put might where your right is and sue me for reproducing your entire post as the prefix of mine, and then hope to hell GP doesn't counter-sue you for reproducing part of his.
The Stephen Kings of the world can afford to give away content in the hope that some people will buy their next work, but for someone starting out, every book they sell is important, and piracy really affects that.
I know. It's like, I make toys and virtual goods in this hopelessly obscure niche virtual world called Second Life. Nobody knows who I am. It's just a hobby, so it's not like I market or anything. I just put my goods for sale on the central market and left it at that.
Fool that I was though, I made all the permissions "full copy / full mod / full transfer" and left the source code and art in the products. In short this game has DRM built right in that I can use, and I opted out of that. Now how can I even hope to get sales off the ground? You know, if I start paying attention or anything? Anyone can just give copies to their friends, anyone can even repost and say they made it. Anyone can use my work in their products. I've failed already!
Oddly enough, when I do a quick search on the market I see lots of other similar goods but none seem to be copies of my stuff. Many offerings are cheaper than mine. All have reduced permissions. Most are no transfer, none let you see source code. So I'm sure they'll take off and get a tidy sum, since they aren't being passed around like the village bicycle. I guess, like you said, I am obscure enough for noone to put forth the effort to copy me and try to relist.
I mean, I know it's my fault but I just feel so bitter. I've probably wasted like, 10 or 20 hours of work that I probably would have done anyway since it is a tinkering hobby, and all I have to show for it is enough residual income over the past year to cover all my in-game expenses and half my monthly ISP bill. I mean sure, that tiny trickle keeps growing every month even though I haven't published anything new since April, but I really could have commanded some respect if I'd taken a moment to fight piracy! You know, I would be forcing money right out of people's pockets as we speak instead of losing a potential sale every time friends share the things I make, laughing at me behind my back. :(
43 billion not million
Yes, I either misread TFS or got an earlier version from the RSS feed that said "million". Tony's "hey presto" comment makes sense if the fiber folk are quoting Million with an M, but Billion with a B sounds on par with the US's government subsidized fiber fiasco from the nineties.
I will admit I'm less supportive of the measure at 43 Billion. ;D
Nothing, but that is not how virtually any business agreement in the world works. Instead of a an easy to understand sentence, you get multiple pages full of legal lingo that might require a lawyer to properly parse, thus making misunderstandings a lot more likely.
ORLY?
An airline can't overbook as it would be immediately obvious to it's customers if they did so.
Airlines overbook all the time. You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
Actually I do know what I'm talking about. Airlines can overbook, but only very small amounts ... If they exceed that, and bump too many customers, they get heavy fines.
No wonder your idea of 'quite upfront' differs from everyone else's. You go from "no overbooking, or customers would be upset" to "not too much overbooking, or the government fines them".
Your original point was "They abuse the digital medium simply because it's less noticeable.", and then compare them to what sounds like a market pressure against Airlines. But then, you turn around and admit that Airlines are regulated in that regard. I don't know for a fact, but I would hazard a guess that the regulations exist to prevent the airlines from thumbing their nose at the market and trying to weasel money out of people.
As for the telcoms, They are in a hell of a pickle. They never wanted to be mobile ISP's, but market demand is forcing them into that position and their fighting the tide every step of the way. They want to route phone calls, and sell ringtones and other services like video. Those things are profitable so long as people will pay for them. Market demands data, and they generally don't mind providing that except that doing so inevitably cannibalizes the only markets that make them enough money to support their infrastructure. Worse yet, they have to pay for the data they provide you by the byte and even pay to stand by ready to provide data to people who aren't using it in case they suddenly switch on their phone, but customers are used to unmetered and unlimited wireline plans at a flat monthly rate and expect the same to their pocket on every mountaintop, and in many cases at the same pricepoint as wireline.
Now on the one hand I'm not saying the telco's aren't evil or greedy. What I am saying is this argument doesn't require them to be, because the average users are pretty evil and greedy themselves. To expect the impossible just because Jobs promised it to you when you bought your Ifail is a great way to guarantee disappointment.
There's nothing practical about expecting actually unlimited mobile data at any price, and those who can't recognize a limited resource and refuse to read so far as the fine print are not the victims here either. They're choosing to make their own messes too.
No, it is evil to recognize that they have less capacity, yet continue to sell to new customers who will continue to use more capacity.
Fine then, sign up with the hypothetical carrier who tells new customers "I'm sorry I can't sell you a new plan in Illinois because all our plans include nationwide roaming and presently our San Diego market is at capacity. Since you might conceivably travel there, I have to ask you to take your money elsewhere". They can't put you on a waiting list either, since that would admit the possibility that all the markets might clear one day, which they can't guarantee. Oh well, I guess you can't sign up for them after all, can you?
If we decide we don't want CEOs making billions while main street starves, BOOM! we can just make it so.
I'm glad you feel so empowered by your flawless representative democracy that you can "band together with like minded citizens" to "protect your interests from even the richest and most powerful". That sounds absolutely stellar and I have honestly never heard of anyone in or out of the beltway having that much clout. Hell, I don't think even Obama can boast that kind of pull.
So.. when are you going to pop all those golden parachutes from the recent credit bubble? Have you brought those AIG execs to justice yet? Reversed the BP oil spill? Look, if all you need is another bloke like me to write some letters just let me know, but I want a timeline on when this is happening. (and of course, any failure to meet that timeline would be viewed as Lying, and therefor Evil on your part. ;3 )
Back in reality, no direct political action you have ever taken in your life has ever had any influence on any CEO of any corporation ever, nor could you so much as spit in the political wind regarding the network neutrality debate, so quit fronting.
You have a voice in the ether as the rest of us do, while not political action what we say here sometimes gets heard and measured as a sample of public opinion, but your voice is spreading FUD (intentional or not) that the people actually getting things done don't have our support. Your call for nothing less than the impossible and spit on any practical attempts at change. This is why the rest of our voices are asking you to pipe the hell down.
Google: We're gonna pave this road!
Google: Status report, today we're paving the first mile.
spun: What? The first mile of the road is not The Road, so you're lying. We all know you'll never pave the rest and you've sold out. Look, if you can't pave the whole damned road in one day then I don't want it paved. I'll do it myself and you're just in the way. Now, where's the mixing bowl with my asphalt in it?
Verizon does not have veto powers over proposed US laws.
I'm sorry, what planet are you living on? Verizon absofuckinglutely has the power to negatively influence legislation, and within it's baliwick pretty much pass or kill any bill it wants. Have you never heard of lobbying? Corrupt political officials? Your planet must not have those.
All lobbying aside though, if I were Verizon and had no scruples, I'd save some $$$ by just letting the congresscritters know that "a yes vote on this bill means I find an excuse to cut off the FiOS to your house". We'd end up with a negative "yes" vote that would confuse mathematicians for generations to come.
Google could loudly fight and lose on purpose, dooming us all, but they would rather get something done with a strong option to finish the battle later, and also pen a profitable deal with Verizon.
Damn those typos, but I know what you mean. Where does Google get off trying to do business with other companies? You'd think they were trying to improve service to people instead of sacrificing all of their political leverage prior to using it.
This discussion aside, I think it would be hilarious to play a game of Go against you. You'd lose almost immediately by trying to encircle the entire board one stone at a time, and then complain that the game is broken because that isn't a winning strategy.
mod parent -1 batshit insane.
Google is not a wireless carrier. No part of this proposal calls for discharging firearms at wireless networks. Wireless networks are not land. Poster complains about FUD but ends his post foaming FUD at the mouth.
It's almost getting to where comparisons to the 2009 credit bubble are the new Godwin. :P
How spun reads the MYTH section:
"MYTH: Google is eliminating network neutrality over wireless from this proposal"
If that's how you're reading it, then that statement is accurate: but that's not how the statement is written. Here's how we read the text:
"MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless from ever being achievable"
Nothing in the FACT section confirms that myth, and I am reasonably certain that is how Google intended that line to be read.
"No, we're not deep sixing wireless net neutrality, we're just choosing not to fight that battle today. We've determined that if we bite off too much in this proposal, it will fail. Failed proposals help nobody."
Except maybe dishonest people who really want the proposal to get overloaded so that it will fail. 8I
Math sounds awkward to me, because I was brought up with Maths.
You should ask the Americans what marks they are getting in Physic class, then. :3
You can get that right now from Cable.
No, you mean you can get that from cable. With a bandwidth cap. I live in a place approximately as rural as Australia, and ten miles from the nearest cable coverage.
Due to advances in technology, the cost of that quality fiber and switches will probably be 1/1000th as much in 2020.
That will always be true, and that quality of fiber and switches will also be meaningless 10 years from now. At least, it will be so long as it costs one thousand times less, since it's actually pretty reasonable after price drops earlier this year.
Also you presume everyone needs 1 Gbit/s..
How do you arrive at that conclusion from the statement "personally be happy to get 0.03GB/sec"? All we're saying is, if you can get the gear in the ground for 43 million that's a great deal and a better idea than Tony Abbot's dumb proposal. 100Mbit? Gigabit? Sure why not. Anything to get the bottleneck away from my welcome mat.
Right now NO country has 100% gigabit internet to all its citizens..... not even close to that numbers.
A> if they are planning out a network that won't go live until the future, it would make sense no to limit one's expectations to today's status quo.
B> I think everyone would rather they install gigabit switches and fiber to the home than rely on wireless spectrum, whether or not "100% of the population" is "guaranteed" a gigabit of service.
The only significant cost to having a gigabit network is the last mile lines. The routers can be crap today and still give you terrific speeds (even 30mbps is nothing to sneeze at) and it's cheap to upgrade the routers to handle greater load tomorrow. As long as you've got the lines in the dirt, you are headed in the right direction.
Instead the owner/managers of the company would be directly responsible for the actions of the company
I also think corporations should somehow be exposed to accountability, but I don't think pinning individual humans is the right course of action. Firstly it is not always cut and dried to find out who is really pulling the strings in an organization, so we'd just end up with scapegoating. Hire an idiot as CEO and manipulate the company around him to do terrible things while he thinks he's really in charge, then he takes the fall.
Secondly, in most organizations of any size there is no one human who is pulling all the strings or who can effectively control the entire behemoth. So what happens when whoever is sitting in the accountability seat notices wrongdoing, but lacks the pull to be able to make it stop? You can't blame an engineer for not being able to brake a freight train before it collides with an auto parked over the tracks. Well, I mean you could try, but that's still scapegoating which just injures everyone involved.
We need a cleverer way of making a corporation accountable. They're hard to kill, since they just re-manifest (AT&T?) and since they often hold economies hostage. I don't really know a solution. But it bears more scrutiny.
If you're someone who's under the age of, like, 20, and says his least favorite film in the series is The Empire Strikes Back because it was "The Most Boringest One"? Then I suggest you shut this review off right now. Before I carefully explain how much of a Fucking Idiot you are.
So he showed us the oldest story in the world - a hero, coming of age; evil father; damsel in distress; old wise hermit; mythic force. How original!!
Now I need to explain that I don't think that all movies should be the same, or conform to the same kind of structure, but it works well in certain kind of movies. So unless you're thecoenbrothers-davidlynch-paulthomasanderson-stanleykubrick-alfredhitchcock-larsvontrier-davidcronenberg-gusvansant-quentintarantino-johnwaters-wesanderson-sampeckinpah-terrygilliam-martinscorsese-wernerherzog or Jim Jarmusch, you really shouldn't stray away too far from this kind of formula.
Especially if you're making a movie that's aimed at children that has a cartoon rabbit in it? That steps in the poopy.
If you can exercise supreme discipline and watch the old ones like you have never seen them before you will not find them interesting at all.
Describe this character to your friends like they ain't never seen Star Wars.
Han Solo..
Qui-Gon Jinn..
As for the midichlorians - I though this is a stroke or genius!!
What's wrong with your faaaaaaace? D:
The students blatantly copied somebody else's work. In many circumstances that can get you expelled from school. Why are we supposed to have sympathy for them except that it's "evil corp" vs "innocent students"?
Oh no, oh gods you're right. My.. *sniffle* my compsci teacher taught us Pascal by assigning us to make Tic Tac Toe clones. I .. I never realized the damage this could cause to the inventors of the game.
Those poor inventors of crosses and naughts. They.. They were just trying to feed their familes! *choke*sob*
*ahem*, ok I'm better now. So, you're saying plagiarism, and they should be expelled. Is that right? Fine, quite right, so please demonstrate from whence they cribbed the code for NAMCO's Pac Man.
...
Wait, so you're saying they didn't crib any code, they just did the same thing over again and it's still plagiarism?
Right, that just means you need to be expelled for every book review you've ever turned in since, you know, someone else has reviewed that same book before you.
Next case!
I thought Chad Vader ran the voice overs in #3? :P
It's just done by ghosts.
SqueeeeaaaAAAA WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA!! >:C
How about somebody stifle Gman's super-creativity here with a troll mod? :3