Yes, it involved superconductors. I think Endymion is right. I think they were attempting to produce levitation or something.
Back off topic, I saw Primer in early 2008 and was very impressed. I just saw it tonight for the third time. $7,000 budget and better than the majority of multimillion-dollar movies.
I didn't know that. It doesn't surprise me, though, since Intel's chips have been power hogs for several years now (with the exception of the Pentium M).
Well, the present Core i7's have a TDP of 130 watts, while the Phenom II's listed in the article are only 95 watts. Some of the first Phenom II's are 125 watts.
They sell as cost plus over some assigned cost, but the cost of a 1 Mbps residential service is not 1 Mbps. They will assign it some "cost" that would be closer to 100 kbps. They will then mark it up. That's different from the point I was making about selling it as cost plus for the entire bandwidth.
So, instead of taking a fixed markup, say, 80%, over what the bandwidth REALLY costs them, they oversubscribe by (in your example) 10:1 and rake in 800% of what the bandwidth costs them? Sounds like you're making my point for me. Or are we talking about something completely different?
I'm not complaining about speed. I'm talking about being charged LOTS extra for something that has been allowed all along.
Was allowed. Now isn't. The line is clear and high.
You mean to tell me that all of their overleveraging has come back to bite them in the butt and that their response is to make threats instead of fix the problem??? Inconceivable!!! </sarcasm>
Their costs have increased (to cover the cost of the top 1% of users) and so, they are making a new pricing structure to stop subsidizing the top 1% of users. I think the other 99% should be happy. That 1% is over-represented on a tech web site, but go to the local AARP meeting and you'd hear noting but good things about punishing those over-using whipersnappers.
You make an interesting point about the demographics, but consider this: why do the 15-25 mbps customers (Disclaimer: we have 16 mbps), those who are more likely to download MORE, get a larger cap if they're so terribly disruptive? Why do the 60 mbps customers get ZERO cap?
That exposes the real motive of this decision: put pressure on everybody to move up a tier so Charter can increase profits this quarter without actually doing anything. All because they didn't upgrade their networks 10 years ago when they got free handouts from the government to upgrade.
There are only three choices. They sell it and oversubscribe. They sell it and meter it. They sell it for cost plus.
Option 4: all of the above. They ALWAYS sell it for cost plus, or they wouldn't be able to afford selling it at all. They ALWAYS oversubscribe. They are NOW starting to meter it.
When assholes like you whine endlessly about how they paid for "unlimited" and when they do 60 Mbps for 700+ hours straight and didn't get all 60 Mbps for 30 minutes in there at a congested time
You need to read my first comment again, if you read it the first time. I'm not complaining about speed. I'm talking about being charged LOTS extra for something that has been allowed all along. If they wanted to throttle, that would be stupid, too, but at least I wouldn't have to pay for inadvertently crossing an invisible line.
See my above comment, but basically a lot comes from streaming video, and uploading large files both fun- and work-related. In addition, my job will require me to use large streaming Citrix apps in a few days, so it will just go up from there.
Did you download a distro a day? Watch one movie every day at DVD compression?
Glossing over the fact that it doesn't matter because they agreed to sell us the bandwidth to use as we see fit (barring illegal activities, etc.), there are also uploads to factor in. We watch a lot of streaming video, and we're about to watch more. But I also regularly send large files to my friends and coworkers, and my job will soon require that I send them more often (Citrix FTW). What YOU do with YOUR bandwidth may differ.
Speaking of greedy bastards, what about all the loser subscribers that want 100 Mbps of dedicated content for 1/10th what it actually costs the providers to buy it themselves?
I won't stoop to feces-flinging, but I will point out that if ISP's offer to sell a certain thing for a certain price, they are obligated to deliver that thing at that price. If it really costs them so much, then they can't really afford to sell it for so little, can they? Iguessnot. Of course, Charter is in financial trouble, isn't it? Another case of over-leveraging, trying to sell what you don't have.
Enable the net monitor, then click the normally invisible button in the bottom right corner of the net monitor to check data transferred per day, week, or month.
Listen, bud. The agreement we signed didn't say anything about how much we could use per month. We're paying for a dumb pipe of X megabits per second, to use as much as we like. They want to change the terms AFTER the fact. My monitor indicates that in 2008, 9 months out of 12 we exceeded 100GB, and 3 of those months we exceeded 250GB.
They are just greedy money grabbers who took billions from the federal government for upgrades, and kept it instead of upgrading. Should it surprise you that they want to make another money grab now?
Actually, I read a book (I think it was one of the Stainless Steel Rat books) that dealt with this very problem by fitting the traveler with a space suit and parachute, then sending him to coordinates which would allow him to freefall to the desired landing point.
I mention it because I cannot recall seeing any other sci-fi work which even mentions such a problem.
I did the same thing with the same results when I was 3 or 4, except no keys were needed (stick shift FTW). I had no concept that it was wrong at the time, but of course I found out later that it was indeed wrong. This has very little or nothing to do with neurological conditions (for most people) and very much to do with the maturity of the child involved.
But even so, children must be taught right from wrong by their parents or else they will learn it from the media (like GTA) and other strangers (including other children) who teach their own standards.
If that were true, that might explain both GP's bad experience (if he's not trolling) and my (mostly) good experience with Antec PSU's. Do you have a source for that info?
Actually, some friends of mine had a no-name PSU explode, literally. One of the electrolytic caps decided it had had enough. I replaced it with an Antec and no problems for as long as they used it.
Oh, and the Antec PSU in my personal machine died one day, possibly because it was plugged into an 11-year-old surge protector. I got a free replacement (minus shipping), and the replacement is a nicer unit and handles more power.
Say what you will, but their service is nothing to complain about.
Hear, hear! I just did exactly this just to play 2 games after trying in vain to get Portal working under wine and Crossover Games. Same with RealMYST.
Since I installed Fedora 9 on my 3GB RAM and 850 GB RAID5 machine, I have zero swap and no issues so far. I very rarely use anything with huge memory requirements.
I think the best answer to this question is: It depends on how much you use. Especially the largest thing(s) you use.
This may be related to the reason why Samsung SAID it would work but it didn't: you usually need to buy an unlocked phone to do certain things. My unlocked SLVR works fine, and I've uploaded several Java apps to it.
the comparison car that the article was talking about was the McLaren F1 road car, which weighs a poofteenth of any other car with a similar engine. Which is kind of the point, actually. If you just reduce the weight of the car to begin with, you don't need to spend megabucks to figure out how to deal with 1000 horsepower to move a 3 ton brick. Not to mention the difficulties of dissipating 2000 HP worth of heat (it has 10 radiators).
Plus, you get the added convenience of having a tank of fuel last more than 13 minutes at full throttle.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it involved superconductors. I think Endymion is right. I think they were attempting to produce levitation or something.
Back off topic, I saw Primer in early 2008 and was very impressed. I just saw it tonight for the third time. $7,000 budget and better than the majority of multimillion-dollar movies.
Almost 200 comments, and not a single ROFLcopter...
You guys are slipping...
And not a moment too late.
Actually, some are saying it may already be too late to do anything about global [climate change|warming].
Maybe OP meant to say, not a moment too soon?
We don't use the expression "RL", we use "AFK".
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
I didn't know that. It doesn't surprise me, though, since Intel's chips have been power hogs for several years now (with the exception of the Pentium M).
Well, the present Core i7's have a TDP of 130 watts, while the Phenom II's listed in the article are only 95 watts. Some of the first Phenom II's are 125 watts.
They sell as cost plus over some assigned cost, but the cost of a 1 Mbps residential service is not 1 Mbps. They will assign it some "cost" that would be closer to 100 kbps. They will then mark it up. That's different from the point I was making about selling it as cost plus for the entire bandwidth.
So, instead of taking a fixed markup, say, 80%, over what the bandwidth REALLY costs them, they oversubscribe by (in your example) 10:1 and rake in 800% of what the bandwidth costs them? Sounds like you're making my point for me. Or are we talking about something completely different?
I'm not complaining about speed. I'm talking about being charged LOTS extra for something that has been allowed all along.
Was allowed. Now isn't. The line is clear and high.
You mean to tell me that all of their overleveraging has come back to bite them in the butt and that their response is to make threats instead of fix the problem??? Inconceivable!!! </sarcasm>
Their costs have increased (to cover the cost of the top 1% of users) and so, they are making a new pricing structure to stop subsidizing the top 1% of users. I think the other 99% should be happy. That 1% is over-represented on a tech web site, but go to the local AARP meeting and you'd hear noting but good things about punishing those over-using whipersnappers.
You make an interesting point about the demographics, but consider this: why do the 15-25 mbps customers (Disclaimer: we have 16 mbps), those who are more likely to download MORE, get a larger cap if they're so terribly disruptive? Why do the 60 mbps customers get ZERO cap?
That exposes the real motive of this decision: put pressure on everybody to move up a tier so Charter can increase profits this quarter without actually doing anything. All because they didn't upgrade their networks 10 years ago when they got free handouts from the government to upgrade.
There are only three choices. They sell it and oversubscribe. They sell it and meter it. They sell it for cost plus.
Option 4: all of the above. They ALWAYS sell it for cost plus, or they wouldn't be able to afford selling it at all. They ALWAYS oversubscribe. They are NOW starting to meter it.
When assholes like you whine endlessly about how they paid for "unlimited" and when they do 60 Mbps for 700+ hours straight and didn't get all 60 Mbps for 30 minutes in there at a congested time
You need to read my first comment again, if you read it the first time. I'm not complaining about speed. I'm talking about being charged LOTS extra for something that has been allowed all along. If they wanted to throttle, that would be stupid, too, but at least I wouldn't have to pay for inadvertently crossing an invisible line.
See my above comment, but basically a lot comes from streaming video, and uploading large files both fun- and work-related. In addition, my job will require me to use large streaming Citrix apps in a few days, so it will just go up from there.
Did you download a distro a day? Watch one movie every day at DVD compression?
Glossing over the fact that it doesn't matter because they agreed to sell us the bandwidth to use as we see fit (barring illegal activities, etc.), there are also uploads to factor in. We watch a lot of streaming video, and we're about to watch more. But I also regularly send large files to my friends and coworkers, and my job will soon require that I send them more often (Citrix FTW). What YOU do with YOUR bandwidth may differ.
Speaking of greedy bastards, what about all the loser subscribers that want 100 Mbps of dedicated content for 1/10th what it actually costs the providers to buy it themselves?
I won't stoop to feces-flinging, but I will point out that if ISP's offer to sell a certain thing for a certain price, they are obligated to deliver that thing at that price. If it really costs them so much, then they can't really afford to sell it for so little, can they? I guess not. Of course, Charter is in financial trouble, isn't it? Another case of over-leveraging, trying to sell what you don't have.
I use GKrellM, which is a linux program, but it has been ported to windows.
GKrellM for Windows
GKrellM for linux
Enable the net monitor, then click the normally invisible button in the bottom right corner of the net monitor to check data transferred per day, week, or month.
Listen, bud. The agreement we signed didn't say anything about how much we could use per month. We're paying for a dumb pipe of X megabits per second, to use as much as we like. They want to change the terms AFTER the fact. My monitor indicates that in 2008, 9 months out of 12 we exceeded 100GB, and 3 of those months we exceeded 250GB.
They are just greedy money grabbers who took billions from the federal government for upgrades, and kept it instead of upgrading. Should it surprise you that they want to make another money grab now?
Actually, I read a book (I think it was one of the Stainless Steel Rat books) that dealt with this very problem by fitting the traveler with a space suit and parachute, then sending him to coordinates which would allow him to freefall to the desired landing point.
I mention it because I cannot recall seeing any other sci-fi work which even mentions such a problem.
I did the same thing with the same results when I was 3 or 4, except no keys were needed (stick shift FTW). I had no concept that it was wrong at the time, but of course I found out later that it was indeed wrong. This has very little or nothing to do with neurological conditions (for most people) and very much to do with the maturity of the child involved.
But even so, children must be taught right from wrong by their parents or else they will learn it from the media (like GTA) and other strangers (including other children) who teach their own standards.
If that were true, that might explain both GP's bad experience (if he's not trolling) and my (mostly) good experience with Antec PSU's. Do you have a source for that info?
Actually, some friends of mine had a no-name PSU explode, literally. One of the electrolytic caps decided it had had enough. I replaced it with an Antec and no problems for as long as they used it.
Oh, and the Antec PSU in my personal machine died one day, possibly because it was plugged into an 11-year-old surge protector. I got a free replacement (minus shipping), and the replacement is a nicer unit and handles more power.
Say what you will, but their service is nothing to complain about.
What distro, wine version, and gfx card are you using? I'm on Fedora 10 with a GeForce 6600 GT. wine 1.1.7-1.
Hear, hear! I just did exactly this just to play 2 games after trying in vain to get Portal working under wine and Crossover Games. Same with RealMYST.
I wonder if they got the idea from here?
There used to be a Firefox extension for Local Shared Objects, called Objection, and I used it back then, but it's not compatible with Firefox 3.
You know, I've been thinking about that for some time, but I'm not sure where you set that. Do I put that in /etc/fstab?
Since I installed Fedora 9 on my 3GB RAM and 850 GB RAID5 machine, I have zero swap and no issues so far. I very rarely use anything with huge memory requirements. I think the best answer to this question is: It depends on how much you use. Especially the largest thing(s) you use.
This may be related to the reason why Samsung SAID it would work but it didn't: you usually need to buy an unlocked phone to do certain things. My unlocked SLVR works fine, and I've uploaded several Java apps to it.
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
Plus, you get the added convenience of having a tank of fuel last more than 13 minutes at full throttle.