And can I just say, what a nice, simple, well laid out and advert-realistic that website from TFA is?
It looks practically the same as all the other blog-type websites I've ever looked at. But then I use adblock and noscript. Kinda funny how those two can take some many crummy websites and not only remove all the suck, but actually make things look decent.
Yes, there's a fixed cost involved for expanding your network, but it's a FIXED cost.
Its a step function. So charging tiered rates for bandwidth would most closely approximate it. I'm fine with that. The point is to align the ISP's business interests with that of the customer's rather than against them.
Figures that someone with such a high-uid would be ignorant of one of the most spectactular failures in the tech industry. Probably happened before you were even born.
I am a big fan of well thought-out metered service. I think it gives ISPs an incentive to provide better infrastructure because the more bandwidth customers use, the more money the ISP makes. Without metered service, the incentive is reversed - the ISPs want to discourage you from using any bandwidth at all. In any form of business it is better that the customer's interests and their vendor's interests be aligned rather than at odds.
But the proposed pricing here is not an incentive to the ISP, its punitive to the customers. At a marginal cost of over $1/GB that's well over 4x the cost of a blank DVD. Marginal pricing for co-lo bandwidth is in the 5-10 cents per GB range - up to 20x times less. In both cases, that's marginal cost - all the fixed infrastructure costs are already covered in the baseline monthly fees.
So, in a case like this we get all the downsides of metered service with none of the upsides - the costs are so far beyond the scale of what's reasonable that they essentially put the customer's interests at odds with the ISP again. The ISP setting these pricing levels is being short-sighted, they think they will be able to rake in a ton of bucks and at the same time not feel much pressure to upgrade their network capacity.
The actual result will be that customers are so afraid of the excessive fees that they will deliberately limit themselves. Maybe the ISP even thinks that's a good thing but all it really means is lost revenue opportunities. Only a monopoly would think it is a good thing when customers choose to not give them money.
You have obviously never worked in UI design! (though in this area I don't know who/what they would be trying to fool or how they would be trying to fool them/it so your response is probably quite right)
And apparently you have never worked in sentence design.;)
And anyone correcting typos on a web-forum obviously has no girlfriend.
Yeah, a lot of people waiting for i7 price to drop instead of actually buying nice AMD product will surely result in drops of Intel CPU prices, right?
Of course it does. It doesn't matter why someone chooses to not buy a product, it only matters that they make that choice and thus the product doesn't sell. Companies have gone bankrupt because people chose to wait for a better deal.
Why the hell is anyone trying to prove he is innocent? Shouldn't he need to be proven guilty while being presumed to be innocent?
Prove as in demonstrate without a doubt - like being seen by a million people on the jumbotron at a football game at the very same moment the victim was murdered over 200 miles away. That kind of proof it is not. Capiche kneejerk?
That's certainly better than a weatherman but not good enough to convict someone.
Except, the point is to exonerate someone. It doesn't prove he's innocent, but it adds to the weight of the defense's argument.
I think might be quite useful to admit the results and then instruct the jury about how results might be wrong, like if the guy is a pathological liar and is able to believe his own lies then the MRI will probably believe him too. It might cause the jury to think to wonder, if he might be a pathological liar, perhaps he's been able to fool them too.
Re:You signed away this "right" by picking Apple.
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 4, Funny
As a US military veteran, I'm going to ask you one question: Who are you to judge?
Presumably he is a fellow citizen. Just as any citizen has equal right to criticize any other citizen.
Whether or not we support what we're told we are supposed to do, we still do our job. It's our job to love our country and uphold the constitution.
And his point was that by now, most people currently in the service could have either left that job or not signed up for that job in the first place. Given Stop Loss and the standard 8 year obligation, that's probably not quite true - 911 fever was still pretty blinding for a couple of years after the fact.
Just make ISPs common carriers like the phone companies. Then the FCC can enforce the rules it wants.
Not "common carriers" but rather just "telecommunications services" rather than "information services."
Ironically, it was the FCC itself that recategorized ISPs as "information services" and thus opened the door for all of this bullshit in the first place. You would think that since the trouble started with the FCC, they could just change their minds and put things back the way they were so that IP was treated the same as Voice and all the neutrality rules would then apply again.
And by your logic, there is nothing wrong with my (current) signature: "I support Barack Obama, but not his mission."
Woooooooooooosh!
Do you know him? What other characteristics besides 'his mission' does he have that you do support? None? Then you don't support him. The military, just like a gun, can serve multiple purposes. It is entirely reasonable to be in favor of less than 100% of those purposes.
Or, they turn around and blame the professor (and the school) for failing to teach them. And ask for their money back. If the school can demonstrate, that they have not attended the classes, they can defend themselves.
Yeah, because the 1 out of a million students who actually does that really makes all the monetary and social costs totally worth it.
And both of us have to thank the Democratic Party for this wonderfully creative and innovative weaselese, that started it all: "We support the troops, but not their mission."
I support the right to bear arms, even to the point of people carrying fully automatic weapons, but I do not support homicide. By your logic I'm a weasel too.
Bacon made his remark in a different context but I think it's germane in that privacy is legislated and enforced, and not naturally occurring.
Huh? Privacy is the natural state - especially when it comes to the government which only exists because of legislation. If there were no legislation, there would be no government and thus no loss of privacy to said government.
Frankly, even equally worrisome is that Matlab doesn't appear to take advantage of GPGPU yet. The concept has been around for over half a decade, and I'd have expected the MAtrix LABoratory to jump on the bandwagon quicker than most. It's a game changer in their core competency, after all.
I haven't looked at MATLAB+GPGPU recently, but back in the olden days before CUDA and OpenCL there were a handful of 3rd party matlab extensions that made use of GPGPU. Nothing official, but still plenty functional in their limited areas of implementation. The company's laziness with respect to GPGPU is no surprise (see my other rant in this story's discussion) and the fact that others have put together limited GPU-based extensions has probably further reduced the pressure for them to do anything in that area.
I'm not a MATLAB user, just someone who has had to troubleshoot problems with it for a variety of clients.
A while back, more than a few years now, MATLAB on HPUX was limited to about 1GB of memory. Any MATLAB code that needed more memory than that was shit out of luck - even on a 64-bit machine with 64GB of RAM. This was partly due to MATLAB only being available as a 32-bit binary for HPUX and partly due to MATLAB having been compiled and linked in the most naive way possible. After diagnosing the problem with a client's MATLAB code (they had a lab full of $2M computers and couldn't run this software that only needed a couple of GB of data), I wrote a short explanation of the compile and link flags necessary to enable any process to access at least 2GB of RAM with practically no impact and 3GB with only minimal impact. In either case, no code changes necessary whatsoever.
MATLAB's customer support group responded with a categorical denial that it was even possible to do - that HPUX architecturally limited all 32-bit processes to 1GB of addressable memory. While a customer-specific test release would have been the ideal response, I was really only expecting them to open a feature request and get the next release built the right way. But they wouldn't even give my client that (despite them having an expensive support contract) - just a flat out denial of reality instead. The solution for my client was ultimately to rewrite their software in C and link it with the right flags to get access to 3GB of memory.
So, given just how strong their disinterest was in even trying to make their software work for big boys doing scientific computing, I'm not surprised to hear that all these years later they still haven't even bothered to implement native 64-bit math. They are entrenched and there just isn't enough competition to make them lift a finger.
What's not commonly known and likely the reason I've always been moderated negatively is that many "gays" do not have different brain chemistry from other males which likely means for many "gays" it absolutely is a choice.
Or it means that MRIs aren't the be-all and end-all of measuring a person's biochemical make-up.
Wow, that's a slippery slope. So the police can "encourage" third parties to obtain evidence illegally, then use that evidence. For various definitions of "encourage" which will include pay, bribe, threaten, trade, plea-bargain, extort, harass, intimidate, and some I probably haven't thought of.
No, in a case like that the person is considerd to be acting as an agent of the police which make it just as inadmissible as if the cops had done it themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
And can I just say, what a nice, simple, well laid out and advert-realistic that website from TFA is?
It looks practically the same as all the other blog-type websites I've ever looked at.
But then I use adblock and noscript. Kinda funny how those two can take some many crummy websites and not only remove all the suck, but actually make things look decent.
It was Osborne Computer - they were as well known as Apple in their day.
Yes, there's a fixed cost involved for expanding your network, but it's a FIXED cost.
Its a step function. So charging tiered rates for bandwidth would most closely approximate it. I'm fine with that. The point is to align the ISP's business interests with that of the customer's rather than against them.
Figures that someone with such a high-uid would be ignorant of one of the most spectactular failures in the tech industry.
Probably happened before you were even born.
Stop whinging about $1/GB - we'd kill for that.
No, you would quickly find that your ability to use the additional bandwidth would put right back at the same psychological tipping point.
I am a big fan of well thought-out metered service. I think it gives ISPs an incentive to provide better infrastructure because the more bandwidth customers use, the more money the ISP makes. Without metered service, the incentive is reversed - the ISPs want to discourage you from using any bandwidth at all. In any form of business it is better that the customer's interests and their vendor's interests be aligned rather than at odds.
But the proposed pricing here is not an incentive to the ISP, its punitive to the customers.
At a marginal cost of over $1/GB that's well over 4x the cost of a blank DVD.
Marginal pricing for co-lo bandwidth is in the 5-10 cents per GB range - up to 20x times less.
In both cases, that's marginal cost - all the fixed infrastructure costs are already covered in the baseline monthly fees.
So, in a case like this we get all the downsides of metered service with none of the upsides - the costs are so far beyond the scale of what's reasonable that they essentially put the customer's interests at odds with the ISP again. The ISP setting these pricing levels is being short-sighted, they think they will be able to rake in a ton of bucks and at the same time not feel much pressure to upgrade their network capacity.
The actual result will be that customers are so afraid of the excessive fees that they will deliberately limit themselves. Maybe the ISP even thinks that's a good thing but all it really means is lost revenue opportunities. Only a monopoly would think it is a good thing when customers choose to not give them money.
You have obviously never worked in UI design! (though in this area I don't know who/what they would be trying to fool or how they would be trying to fool them/it so your response is probably quite right)
And apparently you have never worked in sentence design. ;)
And anyone correcting typos on a web-forum obviously has no girlfriend.
I don't know about Germany but in the USA such a study would never pass the IRB at most research universities and labs.
I think you just Godwinned this story.
Yeah, a lot of people waiting for i7 price to drop instead of actually buying nice AMD product will surely result in drops of Intel CPU prices, right?
Of course it does. It doesn't matter why someone chooses to not buy a product, it only matters that they make that choice and thus the product doesn't sell. Companies have gone bankrupt because people chose to wait for a better deal.
So your point was that it doesn't prove he is innocent but adds weight to the defense's argument.
Good, glad it was clear.
My point was that trying to prove innocence is not something that is necessary.
No it wasn't. You aren't the only one who can get all pedantic.
Why the hell is anyone trying to prove he is innocent? Shouldn't he need to be proven guilty while being presumed to be innocent?
Prove as in demonstrate without a doubt - like being seen by a million people on the jumbotron at a football game at the very same moment the victim was murdered over 200 miles away. That kind of proof it is not. Capiche kneejerk?
That's certainly better than a weatherman but not good enough to convict someone.
Except, the point is to exonerate someone. It doesn't prove he's innocent, but it adds to the weight of the defense's argument.
I think might be quite useful to admit the results and then instruct the jury about how results might be wrong, like if the guy is a pathological liar and is able to believe his own lies then the MRI will probably believe him too. It might cause the jury to think to wonder, if he might be a pathological liar, perhaps he's been able to fool them too.
We can call Apple assholes
Appholes is more Appropriate.
As a US military veteran, I'm going to ask you one question: Who are you to judge?
Presumably he is a fellow citizen. Just as any citizen has equal right to criticize any other citizen.
Whether or not we support what we're told we are supposed to do, we still do our job. It's our job to love our country and uphold the constitution.
And his point was that by now, most people currently in the service could have either left that job or not signed up for that job in the first place. Given Stop Loss and the standard 8 year obligation, that's probably not quite true - 911 fever was still pretty blinding for a couple of years after the fact.
Just make ISPs common carriers like the phone companies. Then the FCC can enforce the rules it wants.
Not "common carriers" but rather just "telecommunications services" rather than "information services."
Ironically, it was the FCC itself that recategorized ISPs as "information services" and thus opened the door for all of this bullshit in the first place. You would think that since the trouble started with the FCC, they could just change their minds and put things back the way they were so that IP was treated the same as Voice and all the neutrality rules would then apply again.
And by your logic, there is nothing wrong with my (current) signature: "I support Barack Obama, but not his mission."
Woooooooooooosh!
Do you know him? What other characteristics besides 'his mission' does he have that you do support? None? Then you don't support him.
The military, just like a gun, can serve multiple purposes. It is entirely reasonable to be in favor of less than 100% of those purposes.
Or, they turn around and blame the professor (and the school) for failing to teach them. And ask for their money back. If the school can demonstrate, that they have not attended the classes, they can defend themselves.
Yeah, because the 1 out of a million students who actually does that really makes all the monetary and social costs totally worth it.
And both of us have to thank the Democratic Party for this wonderfully creative and innovative weaselese, that started it all: "We support the troops, but not their mission."
I support the right to bear arms, even to the point of people carrying fully automatic weapons, but I do not support homicide. By your logic I'm a weasel too.
Bacon made his remark in a different context but I think it's germane in that privacy is legislated and enforced, and not naturally occurring.
Huh? Privacy is the natural state - especially when it comes to the government which only exists because of legislation. If there were no legislation, there would be no government and thus no loss of privacy to said government.
Frankly, even equally worrisome is that Matlab doesn't appear to take advantage of GPGPU yet. The concept has been around for over half a decade, and I'd have expected the MAtrix LABoratory to jump on the bandwagon quicker than most. It's a game changer in their core competency, after all.
I haven't looked at MATLAB+GPGPU recently, but back in the olden days before CUDA and OpenCL there were a handful of 3rd party matlab extensions that made use of GPGPU. Nothing official, but still plenty functional in their limited areas of implementation. The company's laziness with respect to GPGPU is no surprise (see my other rant in this story's discussion) and the fact that others have put together limited GPU-based extensions has probably further reduced the pressure for them to do anything in that area.
I'm not a MATLAB user, just someone who has had to troubleshoot problems with it for a variety of clients.
A while back, more than a few years now, MATLAB on HPUX was limited to about 1GB of memory. Any MATLAB code that needed more memory than that was shit out of luck - even on a 64-bit machine with 64GB of RAM. This was partly due to MATLAB only being available as a 32-bit binary for HPUX and partly due to MATLAB having been compiled and linked in the most naive way possible. After diagnosing the problem with a client's MATLAB code (they had a lab full of $2M computers and couldn't run this software that only needed a couple of GB of data), I wrote a short explanation of the compile and link flags necessary to enable any process to access at least 2GB of RAM with practically no impact and 3GB with only minimal impact. In either case, no code changes necessary whatsoever.
MATLAB's customer support group responded with a categorical denial that it was even possible to do - that HPUX architecturally limited all 32-bit processes to 1GB of addressable memory. While a customer-specific test release would have been the ideal response, I was really only expecting them to open a feature request and get the next release built the right way. But they wouldn't even give my client that (despite them having an expensive support contract) - just a flat out denial of reality instead. The solution for my client was ultimately to rewrite their software in C and link it with the right flags to get access to 3GB of memory.
So, given just how strong their disinterest was in even trying to make their software work for big boys doing scientific computing, I'm not surprised to hear that all these years later they still haven't even bothered to implement native 64-bit math. They are entrenched and there just isn't enough competition to make them lift a finger.
What's not commonly known and likely the reason I've always been moderated negatively is that many "gays" do not have different brain chemistry from other males which likely means for many "gays" it absolutely is a choice.
Or it means that MRIs aren't the be-all and end-all of measuring a person's biochemical make-up.
Wow, that's a slippery slope. So the police can "encourage" third parties to obtain evidence illegally, then use that evidence. For various definitions of "encourage" which will include pay, bribe, threaten, trade, plea-bargain, extort, harass, intimidate, and some I probably haven't thought of.
No, in a case like that the person is considerd to be acting as an agent of the police which make it just as inadmissible as if the cops had done it themselves.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
Sounds like a very straightforward not-answering-the-question response deserving of ridicule.
And that's why blue-ray is the format these days. And no, there was no porn on it...
Porn has been available on bluray since the first quarter of 2007, over 9 months before HD-DVD imploded in early 2008.