You just made the GP's point, which is that 300 Mbps is plenty fast, even for tomorrow's streaming needs.
Gig fiber is interesting for media streaming, sure, but what about applications that actually need that kind of bandwidth. Off-site nightly backups, anyone? How about sharing your LUG's collection of Linux ISO's or public domain classic films with your local club without having to wait for some stupid choked file-sharing site middle man? Distributed thin client computing where the terminal servers aren't even on site? The "20 Mbps is fast enough for HDTV" argument is so tired. Can we start thinking 21st century now?
Talk about non-sequitur. Youtube takes forever because it's Youtube. It has nothing to do with the speed of your last mile, and everything to do with the fact that Google is the starving student artist of the tech community.
That depends entirely on the compression though, doesn't it? For comparison, Netflix's SuperHD 1080p uses in the neighbourhood of 5-6 Mbps, while a bluray encoding of the same content at the same resolution might consume eight times the bandwidth, and is still compressed (just less so). Multiply those figures by four to estimate what a 4k stream might use.
And I agree that 300 Mbps isn't dogmeat. It's plenty for most people today, but at the same time, I (most geeks, I'm sure) would use it if I had it, and more.
Debian was my first and only distro until Ubuntu hit approximately 6.04. It was then that I felt Ubuntu offered a smooth enough experience to justify the "bloat" (funny how perspectives change) that came with the switch.
Having used mostly Ubuntu on my servers for the past seven years, there has been the odd time that I needed to squeeze Linux onto a small flash, and it was Debian to the rescue. Debian is great, but when you're used to Ubuntu it does feel unfamiliar in the way it handles some things.
A second thing that has me still preferring Ubuntu on servers is the quicker uptake of new features. SSD TRIM is a big one, as I started migrating all of my systems to SSD in 2008, and TRIM required the newest kernels. Yeah, I could have compiled my own kernels in Debian, but as any Debian user knows, updates are a different world when you step outside the Garden of Eden that is apt-get. Ubuntu made getting such new features a piece of cake and in a timely manner.
And lastly, there are advantages to being mainstream. There are tonnes of cool products being developed for Linux these days, and generally speaking, Ubuntu and RedHat/CentOS are the first distros to get support. Steam is one example. LTSP is another project that you're going to get way better developer support on if you're running Ubuntu. A counter example is VoIP software, including FreeSwitch and a bazillion Asterisk distros, which tend to be much better documented on CentOS.
This name is offensive to anybody who takes offense to it. My brother drowned, and should Linus choose to call a future release "Drowned Rat", I don't think I will lose a single minute of sleep over it, or think any differently of the product.
This time, my heart just plain stopped. I was dead.
Possible, but quite unlikely. If the EMS dudes shocked you back to life as you say, then you were likely experiencing ventricular fibrillation. Had your heart fully stopped, there would have been no shock, as defibrillation is not indicated for asystole.
If we follow the VGA standard, and if I'm reading this graphic correctly, it will either be the SVLT or the WVLT, depending on which aspect ratio they choose.
I once had a PM laugh that I could describe something complicated using only monkeys and bananas as the metaphor -- but everyone in the room followed what I was saying
Bananas and monkeys have long been the mainstay of those would entertain the Prime Minister.
The more serious objections to Facebook are not that it's useless or pointless, but that it is a handy tool for various governments and corporations to exploit and/or violate your privacy. Facebook is the Free Candy of this generation.
Card believes that those he disagrees with, homosexuals, should be incarcerated and stripped of their rights.
That's the first I've heard of this. I thought he was in favour of governments and laws that preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Advocating for the incarceration or curtailing of rights of a whole demographic is a totally different animal, and one that I've not before seen attributed to Card.
What you advocate for is censorship. Freedom is speech and express are fundamental rights.
I am advocating censorship. There's is and has been a lot of bad censorship in the world, but to ban it wholesale would be foolish. Freedom of speech is a guaranteed right in the USA, but not everywhere. I assume that's what you mean by fundamental. But even fundamental rights have limits, and these limits usually occur at the boundary of safety and public health.
I don't believe for a yoctosecond that looking at porn (in this case, pictures of drawn children) will somehow make someone more likely to rape.
You're fixated on rape. I'm talking about sexual dysfunction and deviant behaviour, which have always been associated with the decline of civilisations. To open the door to child pornography (even the animated sort) is to consent to the poisoning of one's own society. There are worse things than metered and responsible censorship.
And this 'safety is more important than freedom' mentality is how we lose our freedoms.
Some freedoms are more important than others, and some safety mechanisms are more effective than others. The TSA (and arguably most or all real consequences of the Patriot Act) is a sham, and it's disingenuous to lump together baby formula and baby porn as being even remotely comparable on the danger scale.
It is also nonsensical to suggest that people will go out and rape children if they view images of drawn children having sex
It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that when you have a bell curve or any other spectrum of dangerous behaviour, sanctioning any activity that is known or likely to push that bell curve in the direction of more dangerous activity is socially irresponsible. We don't have to prove that "people will go out and rape children" as a result of child porn. It is sufficient to show that child pornography, in whatever form it may take, is a contributing factor to child sexual abuse.
Seriously - Google. It's not that hard for such a simple concept
I'm not sure what you're even asserting here. That I should use Google to research the impetus of child pornography laws in nations that include animation or other non-real representations in the ban? No, I think common sense dictates that there is more than the one reason that you state.
Paedophilia was once commonly accepted as late as the 17-18th centuries
Again, your point is not clear. You're saying that the availability of animated child pornography has no demonstrable link with the social acceptability of the practice of paedophilia? I don't see what that has to do with the idea of conditioning and generalization.
you saying (as equivalent) that reading Mein Kampf will make someone conditioned towards becoming a Nazi
That's a really poor restatement of my point, and pretty much a straw man. I'm saying that training oneself to respond sexually to images that look like children will normally increase one's sexual response to children, and that's a bad thing.
Classical conditioning and generalization are pretty well understood phenomena by now. If you don't think that generalization for sexual stimulus can occur between animations and living persons, then how do you propose people are being stimulated by animations in the first place?
The basis of laws surrounding it is that the production of child porn harms a child
Citation needed. No doubt that's one reason, but what about the effects of conditioning people (or leaving the legal door open for them to condition themselves, if you prefer) to respond sexually to minors? There are some very good reasons not to encourage or allow child pornography which doesn't directly involve children.
So if the constitution was suspended and the leader of the constitutional court appointed leader, does the first action cancel the potency of the second?
Under the circumstances I'm guessing not, but the irony is at least a little bit tasty.
Slashdot Mirror
You just made the GP's point, which is that 300 Mbps is plenty fast, even for tomorrow's streaming needs.
Gig fiber is interesting for media streaming, sure, but what about applications that actually need that kind of bandwidth. Off-site nightly backups, anyone? How about sharing your LUG's collection of Linux ISO's or public domain classic films with your local club without having to wait for some stupid choked file-sharing site middle man? Distributed thin client computing where the terminal servers aren't even on site? The "20 Mbps is fast enough for HDTV" argument is so tired. Can we start thinking 21st century now?
Talk about non-sequitur. Youtube takes forever because it's Youtube. It has nothing to do with the speed of your last mile, and everything to do with the fact that Google is the starving student artist of the tech community.
That depends entirely on the compression though, doesn't it? For comparison, Netflix's SuperHD 1080p uses in the neighbourhood of 5-6 Mbps, while a bluray encoding of the same content at the same resolution might consume eight times the bandwidth, and is still compressed (just less so). Multiply those figures by four to estimate what a 4k stream might use.
And I agree that 300 Mbps isn't dogmeat. It's plenty for most people today, but at the same time, I (most geeks, I'm sure) would use it if I had it, and more.
Debian was my first and only distro until Ubuntu hit approximately 6.04. It was then that I felt Ubuntu offered a smooth enough experience to justify the "bloat" (funny how perspectives change) that came with the switch.
Having used mostly Ubuntu on my servers for the past seven years, there has been the odd time that I needed to squeeze Linux onto a small flash, and it was Debian to the rescue. Debian is great, but when you're used to Ubuntu it does feel unfamiliar in the way it handles some things.
A second thing that has me still preferring Ubuntu on servers is the quicker uptake of new features. SSD TRIM is a big one, as I started migrating all of my systems to SSD in 2008, and TRIM required the newest kernels. Yeah, I could have compiled my own kernels in Debian, but as any Debian user knows, updates are a different world when you step outside the Garden of Eden that is apt-get. Ubuntu made getting such new features a piece of cake and in a timely manner.
And lastly, there are advantages to being mainstream. There are tonnes of cool products being developed for Linux these days, and generally speaking, Ubuntu and RedHat/CentOS are the first distros to get support. Steam is one example. LTSP is another project that you're going to get way better developer support on if you're running Ubuntu. A counter example is VoIP software, including FreeSwitch and a bazillion Asterisk distros, which tend to be much better documented on CentOS.
This name is offensive to anybody who takes offense to it. My brother drowned, and should Linus choose to call a future release "Drowned Rat", I don't think I will lose a single minute of sleep over it, or think any differently of the product.
+1
This time, my heart just plain stopped. I was dead.
Possible, but quite unlikely. If the EMS dudes shocked you back to life as you say, then you were likely experiencing ventricular fibrillation. Had your heart fully stopped, there would have been no shock, as defibrillation is not indicated for asystole.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Do you think that if God talked to you, there would be no evidence of it to be found in your brain?
If you're having those problems, you're an idiot for buying an android phone in the first place.
You're not aware that Apple was party to Carrier IQ and Prism, then? Recent events have taught us that no factory phone firmware is to be trusted.
We should probably just rename the province to "Tarsand". Instant brand recognition!
Carter was left holding the bag when oil prices hit historic highs.
Talk about coming out of left field! As an Albertan, I totally didn't see that comment coming after your opening assertion.
If we follow the VGA standard, and if I'm reading this graphic correctly, it will either be the SVLT or the WVLT, depending on which aspect ratio they choose.
I once had a PM laugh that I could describe something complicated using only monkeys and bananas as the metaphor -- but everyone in the room followed what I was saying
Bananas and monkeys have long been the mainstay of those would entertain the Prime Minister.
The more serious objections to Facebook are not that it's useless or pointless, but that it is a handy tool for various governments and corporations to exploit and/or violate your privacy. Facebook is the Free Candy of this generation.
Because he can't possibly have good reasons for the beliefs that he holds.
The bigot is you.
I don't know that Card speaks out against being gay so much as he's publicly against sanctioning gay marriage.
Card believes that those he disagrees with, homosexuals, should be incarcerated and stripped of their rights.
That's the first I've heard of this. I thought he was in favour of governments and laws that preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Advocating for the incarceration or curtailing of rights of a whole demographic is a totally different animal, and one that I've not before seen attributed to Card.
Dune was a great movie. Maybe I wouldn't feel that way had I read the book first, but the movie is a timeless masterpiece in its own right.
What you advocate for is censorship. Freedom is speech and express are fundamental rights.
I am advocating censorship. There's is and has been a lot of bad censorship in the world, but to ban it wholesale would be foolish. Freedom of speech is a guaranteed right in the USA, but not everywhere. I assume that's what you mean by fundamental. But even fundamental rights have limits, and these limits usually occur at the boundary of safety and public health.
I don't believe for a yoctosecond that looking at porn (in this case, pictures of drawn children) will somehow make someone more likely to rape.
You're fixated on rape. I'm talking about sexual dysfunction and deviant behaviour, which have always been associated with the decline of civilisations. To open the door to child pornography (even the animated sort) is to consent to the poisoning of one's own society. There are worse things than metered and responsible censorship.
And this 'safety is more important than freedom' mentality is how we lose our freedoms.
Some freedoms are more important than others, and some safety mechanisms are more effective than others. The TSA (and arguably most or all real consequences of the Patriot Act) is a sham, and it's disingenuous to lump together baby formula and baby porn as being even remotely comparable on the danger scale.
It is also nonsensical to suggest that people will go out and rape children if they view images of drawn children having sex
It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that when you have a bell curve or any other spectrum of dangerous behaviour, sanctioning any activity that is known or likely to push that bell curve in the direction of more dangerous activity is socially irresponsible. We don't have to prove that "people will go out and rape children" as a result of child porn. It is sufficient to show that child pornography, in whatever form it may take, is a contributing factor to child sexual abuse.
Seriously - Google. It's not that hard for such a simple concept
I'm not sure what you're even asserting here. That I should use Google to research the impetus of child pornography laws in nations that include animation or other non-real representations in the ban? No, I think common sense dictates that there is more than the one reason that you state.
Paedophilia was once commonly accepted as late as the 17-18th centuries
Again, your point is not clear. You're saying that the availability of animated child pornography has no demonstrable link with the social acceptability of the practice of paedophilia? I don't see what that has to do with the idea of conditioning and generalization.
you saying (as equivalent) that reading Mein Kampf will make someone conditioned towards becoming a Nazi
That's a really poor restatement of my point, and pretty much a straw man. I'm saying that training oneself to respond sexually to images that look like children will normally increase one's sexual response to children, and that's a bad thing.
Surely you must realize we have already failed at curbing such conditioning.
I slept in this morning, but chose to get up and go to work anyway. I don't see one failure as justification for letting oneself go completely.
Classical conditioning and generalization are pretty well understood phenomena by now. If you don't think that generalization for sexual stimulus can occur between animations and living persons, then how do you propose people are being stimulated by animations in the first place?
The basis of laws surrounding it is that the production of child porn harms a child
Citation needed. No doubt that's one reason, but what about the effects of conditioning people (or leaving the legal door open for them to condition themselves, if you prefer) to respond sexually to minors? There are some very good reasons not to encourage or allow child pornography which doesn't directly involve children.
So if the constitution was suspended and the leader of the constitutional court appointed leader, does the first action cancel the potency of the second?
Under the circumstances I'm guessing not, but the irony is at least a little bit tasty.