You probably did, but metabolism comes into effect too. My metabolism is pretty standard. Most dietary calorie calculators work well for me, but my uncle for example has a metabolism through the roof. He eats like someone who's in sore need of a trip to a fat farm - and he's around 135 lbs. He just can't keep on any weight. That doesn't mean that his dietary choices aren't catching up with him though. Even at that low weight, he had a (non-fatal) heartattack at age 34. That was about 10 years ago and he's adjust his diet some, but still isn't the wisest of eaters. Still can't keep on weight either.
There is too much competition for the wired ISPs to impose caps.
I think you have it backwards. There's not enough competition so they ARE imposing caps. Just because the number of companies is somewhat high doesn't imply competition. The majority of them are selling in markets where they are the only choice. If you lived elsewhere you might have a different company, but in your currently location there is none.
Since most people don't consider literally moving residences to change ISP's to be a reasonable action, we're stuck in a situation where you either accept the terms of the available ISP or you go back to dial-up (and heck, I'm wondering how many dial-up ISP's are even left now - I'm certain that they are slowly going away).
How often do you download files smaller than 10 mb in 2011 ? Let's look at my download folder for the past week or so
Part of his point was that on those large files the source server wasn't transferring fast enough to saturate your connection. It doesn't matter of your download speed is a terabyte per second - if the server sending the file can only muster 15Mbps then that's what you're downloading at.
As he said, some servers might be able to burst send a small 10mb file at a faster rate, but at that size it really doesn't matter that much whether the transfer takes 8 seconds vs 4 seconds.
It also doesn't take anywhere near that kind of bandwidth to stream video.
About the only way a home user is going to saturate these huge pipes they're selling is by downloading from lots of sources at once. That typically implies P2P.
I really don't see the wisdom in this. Those data transfer speeds appeal most directly to a segment of their customer base what aren't going to be able to actually use it. Since we're on Slashdot, the inevitable car analogy is that they're basically selling race cars to people and the showing them the fine print that says they can never drive over 60. Even worse, the bandwidth can't even be shown off as a status symbol like a rarely driven race car could.
Honestly, if they want to cap, it's got to something a little more sane. On average a month has 720 hours in it. You can hit this cap in 5 hours. That means that your monthly average usage of your available bandwidth cannot exceed 0.7%. That is downright PATHETIC. 10 - 15% utilization would be far more palatable.
That comment sums the current situation up about as much as I could hope to. Not being able to customize Gnome 2 was fine for me because it worked in a sane way the way I expected it to. Change that without giving me the option to tweak it means I'm going looking for something else - bitching and moaning the whole way:).
As I mentioned in another post, I'm likely going to XFCE after this. I always have used it on minimalist installs anyways.
Communication isn't "talking" though. Lots of animals can communicate - a pre-defined verbal code however is something else entirely. Also, there are plenty of documented cases where an infant was separated from human contact and never learned to talk. Here's the kicker: research of these individuals has shown that for the most part, if you don't learn to to speak before aged 5 or 6, it's a skill that simply cannot be developed. The most that these people could ever master was a few broken words.
Yet another visionary wanting to do something different just for the sake being different. It's become popular lately to claim that particular industries or areas are doing it "all wrong", because naturally, if their whole process is "wrong", and you know the "right" way, then you're a genius right?
In reality, some things haven't changed in a long time because we've figured out something that works well. Every time I hear one of these "revolutionary" interface ideas they work well for the couple of examples that their creators can cite, but typically fall flat when you try to then adapt it to the entire world of computing.
As has been said since the dawn of internet time, copyright infringement is NOT theft. They are different both in reality and more importantly, in the legal system. You can't use situations describing theft to explain your points regarding copyright infringement.
Most of the states that comprise the south (even if you leave out Florida) are still coastal states (as long as we're allowed to count the Gulf Coast too). In reality too most of the the South has FAIRLY close access to either Florida or DC, so distance isn't much of a problem.
Huh? Yes it was a troll post, and Challenger did blow up over the Atlantic after takeoff, but Columbia disintegrated on reentry and threw debris over a lot of the central US, including Texas.
Poor taste yes, but his info wasn't really "wrong".
Um. This is more like...well, something completely unlike that.
Indeed. This is more like the guy who is being picked on for sleeping with a fat gal that their tormentor's last piece of loving wasn't exactly petite either.
Yep, I've noticed a drop in the trend, though they're not completely gone. That said, almost all of them that still do it don't mess with the fastforward button anymore, so you can skip them.
It always puzzled me why they'd put ads that were really only viable for 6 months on a medium that will last decades. I put in an old VHS a few weeks back (can't even remember which film it was now) and it was advertising the "Upcoming Film" "Earth Girls Are Easy" staring Gina Davis and Jeff Goldblum . . . (for those that don't know, that film came out in 1988, and it sucked). What kind of idiocy creates a situation where I'm watching ads for a 23 year old movie?
Building the ship might be possible. That same ship running for tens of thousands of years? Not yet. It's hard these days to keep anything running more than 30-40 years, and that's with an infinite supply of replacement parts. Having a ship run for thousands of years, even with a crew constantly repairing it, is unlikely to work with the durability of current technology. Maybe in the future, but not now. Realistically we should be looking at the close by stuff: Mars, asteroids, and the moons of the gas giants. The technology we develop getting there will greatly help any future endeavors.
Anyone who thought those items were even slightly possible drank waaay too deeply from the ultra-liberal kool-aide.
Delusional...
Anyone who thinks them impossible has become to brainwashed by the political tendency (by both parties) to keep saying something until people believe it.
Actually, my Commodore 64 does still work - or did at least the last time I powered it up (about 2 years ago).
I also have an IBM Model M as well (got it from a thrift store for $4 about 10 years ago), but it sits in the closet. I do have an updated version of it made by Unicomp though that is basically a USB Model M with the more updated 104 key layout.
I've also got 2 additional unused mechanical switch keyboards as well - one by Smith Corona and an iOne Scorpius.
I think that unless it comes with a seperate numpad, this is going to fall flat on its face. The tactile response of the keyboard may be nice (assuming they use individual switches for each key), but the lack of keys will make it close to useless.
The market for this thing is nostalgic people interested in a retro looking computer. Adding a numeric keypad (which the original C64 did not have) would probably negatively impact the machine in that market segment.
It looks interesting for what it is.
Funny story: once upon a time as a Commodore 64 equipped kid I had no concept that a keyboard wasn't a whole computer. I remember being in a store (I believe it was a Service Merchandise, if anyone remembers those) and seeing what I now know was a standalone keyboard for an IBM computer. Price tag was $35, and I thought that was unbelievable for a computer (remember - to my mind back then keyboard = computer). I begged my mom to buy that for me. Thankfully, she didn't. I'd have been mighty disappointed to get home and discover that that keyboard was useless to me:).
Gnome is fine for the average user or the power user that happens to agree with the choices they make. It's like a parent setting an 11:00 curfew on a kid who's always home by 10:00 anyways. The lack of flexibility isn't an issue.
The problem comes in when you shift to something completely different (and in our analogy, about like the parent then bringing the curfew up to 9:00).
When your philosophy is "our way or the highway" you have to EXPECT a huge backlash when you do dramatic shifts like gnome-shell. All the percentage of your users who were using your system simply because they liked how it was setup and didn't need to change it are going to complain.
*Whispers* gnome-panel and Metacity on GNOME3 - it's the apparently invisible elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring.
All well and good, but if it gets deprecated or twisted around a lot to work with newer interfaces, then gnome-panel isn't a good long term option.
I think Linux right now (and to some degree computers in general) are suffering from a "need to be different". The current Gnome interface is FINE. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. That isn't an area that really needs work right now. Instead of messing around there, work on video codec support. Fix the absolutely atrocious media player syncing in Banshee. Get an open source flash clone working since Adobe seems to refuse to do it right (current one works but full screen video still stutters constantly). Work on the X11/Compiz systems to smooth out the effects so that the overall experience feels a bit more polished. Set it up so that kernel modules don't have to be recompiled against a new source tree every time.
Overall I think there is a feeling right now that changes just need to be more visible, when in reality, most of what needs to be done on Linux is simple backend work.
I was relying on an online nutrition database for the value (I had actually thought it 150 off the top of my head) - I typically only drink diet sodas so I didn't have an actual can on hand;).
3/4c or 10 tsp (a little under 1/4c), the point is still there.
Huh? You mean to tell me that when a number is stated for the purposes of shock value, and then in actuality is to more than THREE TIMES the actual number, "The point is still there"?
No consider than most people seem to be chugging 1 liter bottles now a days, not cans.
1 liters are VERY rare. I still mostly see cans more than anything these days, but people drinking bottles seem to mostly be drinking either 20 oz or 0.5 liter bottles, NOT 1 liters. Of course by your math 0.5 may be the same thing as 1 anyways. . . .
And nobody eats sugar by the teaspoon, so that's not a very understandable analogy. We've all probably eaten enough marshmallows to give us a general perspective for eating them
What? Do you honestly think there are more people out there eating MARSHMELLOWS on a regular basis than measuring out sugar via teaspoons into a popular morning beverage every day (hint for the stupid: coffee)?
Realistically while a marshmellow might have a lot of sugar in it, it's not "pure sugar", and usually contains other things such and gelatin and is simply not a valid measuring stick as a "type of sugar". If you're measuring "types of sugar" by the cup then just about the only one that makes sense to use is plain old white sugar, which is 720 calories per cup. If you'd prefer though, we could consider corn sugar at around 1000 calories per cup which means that the coke can has an even smaller ratio.
Either way, it's complete and utter nonsense to claim that "every drink of coke" has 3/4's of a cup of sugar. Lying to try and exaggerate your position is never a good tactic.
There are, if you're careful, inexpensive and reasonably healthy alternatives, but how often can you eat beans and rice in a week?
I think this is the main issue. There are ways to eat healthy and cheaply, but they're far less common than cheap "junk" food. It's harder to keep a varied diet.
I also think some people expect too dramatic a change of people. You don't approach someone who is eating themselves to death with the prospect of subsiding off of a ceasar salad with no cheese or bacon and only fat free dressing. That's too dramatic a change for most people and usually not necessary.
Instead of trying to convert them to a vegetarian diet, suggest reasonable and SUBTLE changes that can have an effect over time. Like sodas? Switch to diet. If you drink 3 sodas a day and switch to diet instead you're saving around 450 calories per day. Overtime that should balance out to a difference in final weight of 35-40 pounds right there.
Like a burger? Just get a cheesburger, not a Big Mac. Don't supersize those fries - get the regular one. As a matter of fact if you can, substitute a baked potato (feel free to add some sour cream and butter if you like - remember, we're going for a reasonable reduction in calorie intake not a crash diet). If you want a chicken sandwich, try it grilled instead of fried.
Overall, a lot of people would do well with fairly minor adjustments like the diet sodas and portion control.
Slashdot Mirror
You probably did, but metabolism comes into effect too. My metabolism is pretty standard. Most dietary calorie calculators work well for me, but my uncle for example has a metabolism through the roof. He eats like someone who's in sore need of a trip to a fat farm - and he's around 135 lbs. He just can't keep on any weight. That doesn't mean that his dietary choices aren't catching up with him though. Even at that low weight, he had a (non-fatal) heartattack at age 34. That was about 10 years ago and he's adjust his diet some, but still isn't the wisest of eaters. Still can't keep on weight either.
There is too much competition for the wired ISPs to impose caps.
I think you have it backwards. There's not enough competition so they ARE imposing caps. Just because the number of companies is somewhat high doesn't imply competition. The majority of them are selling in markets where they are the only choice. If you lived elsewhere you might have a different company, but in your currently location there is none.
Since most people don't consider literally moving residences to change ISP's to be a reasonable action, we're stuck in a situation where you either accept the terms of the available ISP or you go back to dial-up (and heck, I'm wondering how many dial-up ISP's are even left now - I'm certain that they are slowly going away).
How often do you download files smaller than 10 mb in 2011 ? Let's look at my download folder for the past week or so
Part of his point was that on those large files the source server wasn't transferring fast enough to saturate your connection. It doesn't matter of your download speed is a terabyte per second - if the server sending the file can only muster 15Mbps then that's what you're downloading at.
As he said, some servers might be able to burst send a small 10mb file at a faster rate, but at that size it really doesn't matter that much whether the transfer takes 8 seconds vs 4 seconds.
It also doesn't take anywhere near that kind of bandwidth to stream video.
About the only way a home user is going to saturate these huge pipes they're selling is by downloading from lots of sources at once. That typically implies P2P.
I really don't see the wisdom in this. Those data transfer speeds appeal most directly to a segment of their customer base what aren't going to be able to actually use it. Since we're on Slashdot, the inevitable car analogy is that they're basically selling race cars to people and the showing them the fine print that says they can never drive over 60. Even worse, the bandwidth can't even be shown off as a status symbol like a rarely driven race car could.
Honestly, if they want to cap, it's got to something a little more sane. On average a month has 720 hours in it. You can hit this cap in 5 hours. That means that your monthly average usage of your available bandwidth cannot exceed 0.7%. That is downright PATHETIC. 10 - 15% utilization would be far more palatable.
That comment sums the current situation up about as much as I could hope to. Not being able to customize Gnome 2 was fine for me because it worked in a sane way the way I expected it to. Change that without giving me the option to tweak it means I'm going looking for something else - bitching and moaning the whole way :).
As I mentioned in another post, I'm likely going to XFCE after this. I always have used it on minimalist installs anyways.
Indeed. KDE isn't looking much better either IMHO. It hasn't felt "right" to me in years (I used it primarily up until the early 3.0 days).
At this point I'm looking at switching to XFCE.
Goatse warning.
Communication isn't "talking" though. Lots of animals can communicate - a pre-defined verbal code however is something else entirely. Also, there are plenty of documented cases where an infant was separated from human contact and never learned to talk. Here's the kicker: research of these individuals has shown that for the most part, if you don't learn to to speak before aged 5 or 6, it's a skill that simply cannot be developed. The most that these people could ever master was a few broken words.
Yet another visionary wanting to do something different just for the sake being different. It's become popular lately to claim that particular industries or areas are doing it "all wrong", because naturally, if their whole process is "wrong", and you know the "right" way, then you're a genius right?
In reality, some things haven't changed in a long time because we've figured out something that works well. Every time I hear one of these "revolutionary" interface ideas they work well for the couple of examples that their creators can cite, but typically fall flat when you try to then adapt it to the entire world of computing.
As has been said since the dawn of internet time, copyright infringement is NOT theft. They are different both in reality and more importantly, in the legal system. You can't use situations describing theft to explain your points regarding copyright infringement.
Most of the states that comprise the south (even if you leave out Florida) are still coastal states (as long as we're allowed to count the Gulf Coast too). In reality too most of the the South has FAIRLY close access to either Florida or DC, so distance isn't much of a problem.
Huh? Yes it was a troll post, and Challenger did blow up over the Atlantic after takeoff, but Columbia disintegrated on reentry and threw debris over a lot of the central US, including Texas.
Poor taste yes, but his info wasn't really "wrong".
Um. This is more like...well, something completely unlike that.
Indeed. This is more like the guy who is being picked on for sleeping with a fat gal that their tormentor's last piece of loving wasn't exactly petite either.
We really need a -1 Tinfoil mod option.
Yep, I've noticed a drop in the trend, though they're not completely gone. That said, almost all of them that still do it don't mess with the fastforward button anymore, so you can skip them.
It always puzzled me why they'd put ads that were really only viable for 6 months on a medium that will last decades. I put in an old VHS a few weeks back (can't even remember which film it was now) and it was advertising the "Upcoming Film" "Earth Girls Are Easy" staring Gina Davis and Jeff Goldblum . . . (for those that don't know, that film came out in 1988, and it sucked). What kind of idiocy creates a situation where I'm watching ads for a 23 year old movie?
Building the ship might be possible. That same ship running for tens of thousands of years? Not yet. It's hard these days to keep anything running more than 30-40 years, and that's with an infinite supply of replacement parts. Having a ship run for thousands of years, even with a crew constantly repairing it, is unlikely to work with the durability of current technology. Maybe in the future, but not now. Realistically we should be looking at the close by stuff: Mars, asteroids, and the moons of the gas giants. The technology we develop getting there will greatly help any future endeavors.
I'm trying to pinpoint just where between the 1980's and 1990's space stopped being "outer" and just became "space".
Anyone who thought those items were even slightly possible drank waaay too deeply from the ultra-liberal kool-aide.
Delusional...
Anyone who thinks them impossible has become to brainwashed by the political tendency (by both parties) to keep saying something until people believe it.
Actually, my Commodore 64 does still work - or did at least the last time I powered it up (about 2 years ago).
I also have an IBM Model M as well (got it from a thrift store for $4 about 10 years ago), but it sits in the closet. I do have an updated version of it made by Unicomp though that is basically a USB Model M with the more updated 104 key layout.
I've also got 2 additional unused mechanical switch keyboards as well - one by Smith Corona and an iOne Scorpius.
I think that unless it comes with a seperate numpad, this is going to fall flat on its face. The tactile response of the keyboard may be nice (assuming they use individual switches for each key), but the lack of keys will make it close to useless.
The market for this thing is nostalgic people interested in a retro looking computer. Adding a numeric keypad (which the original C64 did not have) would probably negatively impact the machine in that market segment.
It looks interesting for what it is.
Funny story: once upon a time as a Commodore 64 equipped kid I had no concept that a keyboard wasn't a whole computer. I remember being in a store (I believe it was a Service Merchandise, if anyone remembers those) and seeing what I now know was a standalone keyboard for an IBM computer. Price tag was $35, and I thought that was unbelievable for a computer (remember - to my mind back then keyboard = computer). I begged my mom to buy that for me. Thankfully, she didn't. I'd have been mighty disappointed to get home and discover that that keyboard was useless to me :).
Gnome is fine for the average user or the power user that happens to agree with the choices they make. It's like a parent setting an 11:00 curfew on a kid who's always home by 10:00 anyways. The lack of flexibility isn't an issue.
The problem comes in when you shift to something completely different (and in our analogy, about like the parent then bringing the curfew up to 9:00).
When your philosophy is "our way or the highway" you have to EXPECT a huge backlash when you do dramatic shifts like gnome-shell. All the percentage of your users who were using your system simply because they liked how it was setup and didn't need to change it are going to complain.
*Whispers* gnome-panel and Metacity on GNOME3 - it's the apparently invisible elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring.
All well and good, but if it gets deprecated or twisted around a lot to work with newer interfaces, then gnome-panel isn't a good long term option.
I think Linux right now (and to some degree computers in general) are suffering from a "need to be different". The current Gnome interface is FINE. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. That isn't an area that really needs work right now. Instead of messing around there, work on video codec support. Fix the absolutely atrocious media player syncing in Banshee. Get an open source flash clone working since Adobe seems to refuse to do it right (current one works but full screen video still stutters constantly). Work on the X11/Compiz systems to smooth out the effects so that the overall experience feels a bit more polished. Set it up so that kernel modules don't have to be recompiled against a new source tree every time.
Overall I think there is a feeling right now that changes just need to be more visible, when in reality, most of what needs to be done on Linux is simple backend work.
I was relying on an online nutrition database for the value (I had actually thought it 150 off the top of my head) - I typically only drink diet sodas so I didn't have an actual can on hand ;).
3/4c or 10 tsp (a little under 1/4c), the point is still there.
Huh? You mean to tell me that when a number is stated for the purposes of shock value, and then in actuality is to more than THREE TIMES the actual number, "The point is still there"?
No consider than most people seem to be chugging 1 liter bottles now a days, not cans.
1 liters are VERY rare. I still mostly see cans more than anything these days, but people drinking bottles seem to mostly be drinking either 20 oz or 0.5 liter bottles, NOT 1 liters. Of course by your math 0.5 may be the same thing as 1 anyways. . . .
And nobody eats sugar by the teaspoon, so that's not a very understandable analogy. We've all probably eaten enough marshmallows to give us a general perspective for eating them
What? Do you honestly think there are more people out there eating MARSHMELLOWS on a regular basis than measuring out sugar via teaspoons into a popular morning beverage every day (hint for the stupid: coffee)?
Realistically while a marshmellow might have a lot of sugar in it, it's not "pure sugar", and usually contains other things such and gelatin and is simply not a valid measuring stick as a "type of sugar". If you're measuring "types of sugar" by the cup then just about the only one that makes sense to use is plain old white sugar, which is 720 calories per cup. If you'd prefer though, we could consider corn sugar at around 1000 calories per cup which means that the coke can has an even smaller ratio.
Either way, it's complete and utter nonsense to claim that "every drink of coke" has 3/4's of a cup of sugar. Lying to try and exaggerate your position is never a good tactic.
There are, if you're careful, inexpensive and reasonably healthy alternatives, but how often can you eat beans and rice in a week?
I think this is the main issue. There are ways to eat healthy and cheaply, but they're far less common than cheap "junk" food. It's harder to keep a varied diet.
I also think some people expect too dramatic a change of people. You don't approach someone who is eating themselves to death with the prospect of subsiding off of a ceasar salad with no cheese or bacon and only fat free dressing. That's too dramatic a change for most people and usually not necessary.
Instead of trying to convert them to a vegetarian diet, suggest reasonable and SUBTLE changes that can have an effect over time. Like sodas? Switch to diet. If you drink 3 sodas a day and switch to diet instead you're saving around 450 calories per day. Overtime that should balance out to a difference in final weight of 35-40 pounds right there.
Like a burger? Just get a cheesburger, not a Big Mac. Don't supersize those fries - get the regular one. As a matter of fact if you can, substitute a baked potato (feel free to add some sour cream and butter if you like - remember, we're going for a reasonable reduction in calorie intake not a crash diet). If you want a chicken sandwich, try it grilled instead of fried.
Overall, a lot of people would do well with fairly minor adjustments like the diet sodas and portion control.