Someone downloading gigs of porn at a time from a P2P server hasn't overloaded the internet, but a 15 second streaming video from Youtube will? If porn hasn't overloaded the internet, and caused it to collapse in on itself, nothing will.*
A server may fry, and a kitten may get hit by a car, but that's about it.
Unfortunately, this is Florida, and I fear the conservative crowd is far larger than any other. My experience has been, as long as the conservative candidate continues to speak like this, re-election will occurr.
Here is the response, minus a closing paragraph not relating to the body:
Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I appreciate the time you took to contact my office on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Introduced by Congressman Joe Barton (R - TX), H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity , Promotion , and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE), amends the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and contains several provisions that will lower cable prices, increase competition, and provide safeguards for consumers. However, there have been many misleading conceptions about the COPE Act written in the media , and I wanted to take the time to shed some light on the mistruths some liberal groups are spreading.
H.R. 5252 establishes the option of a national franchise for cable companies, which is a substitute for the current system of locally negotiated contracts. Under the bill, a cable company could apply to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a national franchise and then offer its services to consumers regardless of geographic location. Such a system is more efficient than the current one, as a cable company would not have to negotiate with numerous local jurisdictions, slow ing deployment of cable service and increas ing prices for the consumer. Local governments will still however receive franchise fees just as they do today. Moreover, by creating national franchises, more cable companies will be in direct competition with one another.
As we move forward in the telecommunications era, companies are offering more services than just basic cable. Cable and telecom companies alike now offer broadband service, voice over IP (VOIP), and other digital services. Under COPE, no company can force consumers to buy VOIP or broadband service as a precondition for buying other services from the company.
However, the most often misunderstood section of H.R. 5252 is the "network neutrality" provision, which is the principle that a consumer has equal access to all sites. The bill directs the administrator of the FCC not to make any rule or law that would establish Internet network neutrality. However, the term "network neutrality" is misleading.
The problem is that over the next couple of years, large Internet sites are planning to offer high-definition video services, which will use large amounts of bandwidth and clog the pipelines of the Internet. Telephone and cable companies want to be able to charge for such large amounts of bandwidth; otherwise, they will have to pass the costs on to the consumer. These Internet sites obviously oppose such a move, as it forces them to pay for using increased bandwidth. Accordingly, these same Internet sites are aggressively lobbying Congress, and liberal special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner guaranteed access to Internet services. Coupled with these special interest groups, Internet website lobbyists are distorting the picture by calling pay-for-performance fees a punishment to small business websites, using the term "network neutrality" as the hands off approach, when in fact their changes would be the first major government regulation of the Internet. Moreover, the changes that telephone and cable companies would like to implement consist of large amounts of bandwidth that a typical small business website would be extremely unlikely to use.
America is the most industrialized nation in the world, but is ranked 16 th in broadband deployment. Many contend this is due to the lack of competition among carriers that resulted from a Federal Communications Commission decision during the Clinton Administration. This decision required carriers to open their lines to all broadband deployment and prohibited carriers from negotiating and enforcing contracts. Essentially, this ill-advised decision removed competit
"They're groups of people, first and foremost. And each individual in that group lives by his/her own moral values. Being a group of people they also operate collectively by a set of moral values. They've chosen money as being more important than free Chinese citizens."
Yes they are groups of people; groups of people who want to make money. The managing group of people which wants to make money hires others to work for them, but not necessarily give them any sort of reasonable input for guiding the company in a business or moral capacity. If the employees are not comfortable with the direction their employers take the company, or a lack of "ethical action" being taken to liberate a nation that the managing group only wants to have access to to make more money, the employee can often go elsewhere, even to a place where he can speak out against such business practices.
A business should make money and worry about it's own employees. Most won't even do the latter. And while I highly doubt any business wants the responsibility of leading a cultural revolution, I severely doubt any business that does has the clout or finances to do so.
For the record, I am by no means supporting the actions of the Chinese government.
But Yahoo!, along with Google and MSN, are business, first and foremost. None of these are meant to be champions of the people. All of these business want to do business in China, and currently the only way for them to do so is to abide by the laws established in China. Are those laws necessarily fair to the people? No. Is it the responsibility of Yahoo!, Google or MSN to bring about a revolution in China? No. A business is supposed to make money.
However, there is some nudging to be made. Google alerts the user when results are being ommitted. Nothing peaks one's interest more than "There's something here they don't want you to see".
"It is too hard to tell right now whether blue ray or HD-DVD will win."
Too true. I remember my friend's father, years ago, when he proudly displayed his brand new DiVX player. Then two months later DVD became the standard and he was stuck with hardware quickly becoming unsupported.
I'm not going to bash the PS3 directly. I have not seen it in action, held the new controller, or had any other exposure that mainly occurred through E3.
However, no one can deny that there has been a lot of backlash. First and foremost, the pricepoint. Second, the heated argument that Sony may or may not have received inspiration for their new controller from Nintendo's remote.
The second argument is almost irrelevant. As a Nintendo fan myself, I will gladly say it. Whether the controller was "stolen" or not is a non-issue. Sony either had plans to use this controller beforehand, or they did not. If they did not, it will show in the game play -- extended game play that will most likely occurr after the purchase of a PS3.
Regarding the price, that alone has alienated a number of casual fans, such as myself. I own a PS2, but I never bought one outright. I bought mine used, around 2001, when the price tag was far lower. Price is a major factor for many consumers. Many times, it does not come down to "do I want the system with the hard drive, or the one without...", but rather "do I want the system, or do I want to make my car payment".
Additionally, the PS2 was a good investment in the long run as it had an established game library. When the XBox debuted, most of the games I had an interest in were already released, or being simultaneously released, for the PS2. I did not have to spend the additional $300+ on an Xbox, new controllers, memory cards, etc. Everything I wanted was already available on the PS2, therefore negating my desire (and in fact, need) for an Xbox.
Today, the roles are reversed. The Xbox 360 is available, stock is being supplied to retailers, and the game library is slowly but surely increasing.
I believe, in order to gain sure-footing in the market, the PS3 will need not only quality games, but exclusive ones. If the game is available on a system for $200 less, how is that going to encourage someone to spend that extra $200 to begin with? The XBox 360 may very well showcase the same titles as the PS3, but the 360 has already appeared in today's market, giving it some leverage, whereas many of Nintendo's titles will be exclusive their own console, presumably.
I do not believe that the PS3 will be a "failure". It will sell units. I already know of someone who said, with a shrug, "It's almost like a computer" and seemingly resigned himself to purchasing it. I do not believe that it will be a rampant success by any means.
That's why I love my Gamecube. I love all the four-player games available on it. I can not stress how much fun I've had on a weekend with my friends playing SSBM, passing the controller around, and just generally having a good time.
I will be purchasing a Wii, and the extra controllers, and will be taking it to a friend's house rather immediately.
As did I. There was something I found more visually appealing, but nothing specific that I can elaborate on at the moment. Still, $250 at ThinkGeek is a nice pat on the back. That's a lot of STFU t-shirts.
Makes me glad that I never upgraded my reliable Nokia POS. Monochrome screen, no blue tooth, no browsers, no camera, no nothing. Just a phone, that's all.
The only way I see any revunue being generated is:
a) Free customers have to utilize a special browser that encourages the user to view advertisments. (This would of course be PC only, which is why only 95% of Americans would be offered this access;p)
b) Customers can subscribe to higher speeds or premium packages.
The people running on a minimum broadband connection or dialup will simply be forced to upgrade if they don't want to see their whole WWW experience crawl to a stop (literally)
That's only if the ads will stream automatically, which apparently, they very well may not. Otherwise it'd be like loading any other banner ad.
I learn more by doing and then discovering the effects of what I had done. (Hmmm... fire does that... okay.)
Seriously though, as a relative n00b in the PHP world, I like the visual quickstart guides by Peachpit Press for PHP and Advanced PHP, where there is a practical example of what you might need to use PHP for, in addiion to a disection of the code being used. Both of these books deal with MySQL as well.
While I wasn't exactly scripting my own Nuke system in ten minutes, after some casual reading I was developing some rather unique portal systems that no one else had made available.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that EB was lying to me when I paid $20 to reserve Grand Theft Auto: Animal Crossing?
You forgot that essential line of code:
$works_good != TRUE
"Flock the web 2.0 browser"... okay. I misread that and though Slashdot articles had gotten rather blunt all of a sudden.
Someone downloading gigs of porn at a time from a P2P server hasn't overloaded the internet, but a 15 second streaming video from Youtube will? If porn hasn't overloaded the internet, and caused it to collapse in on itself, nothing will.*
A server may fry, and a kitten may get hit by a car, but that's about it.
*(except price gouging...)
Oh, trust me. Don't open this can of worms. ;)
This patent simply means that Nintendo will absolutely purchase AOL. After Nintendo is purchased by Apple.
Unfortunately, this is Florida, and I fear the conservative crowd is far larger than any other. My experience has been, as long as the conservative candidate continues to speak like this, re-election will occurr.
Excellent suggestion, I believe I will do that now. Thank you.
Yep. I'm voting against her next term.
I wrote my congressman.
Here is the response, minus a closing paragraph not relating to the body:
Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I appreciate the
time you took to contact my office on this important issue and welcome
the opportunity to respond.
Introduced by Congressman Joe Barton (R - TX), H.R. 5252, the
Communications Opportunity , Promotion , and Enhancement Act of 2006
(COPE), amends the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and contains several
provisions that will lower cable prices, increase competition, and
provide safeguards for consumers. However, there have been many
misleading conceptions about the COPE Act written in the media , and I
wanted to take the time to shed some light on the mistruths some liberal
groups are spreading.
H.R. 5252 establishes the option of a national franchise for cable
companies, which is a substitute for the current system of locally
negotiated contracts. Under the bill, a cable company could apply to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a national franchise and
then offer its services to consumers regardless of geographic location.
Such a system is more efficient than the current one, as a cable company
would not have to negotiate with numerous local jurisdictions, slow ing
deployment of cable service and increas ing prices for the consumer.
Local governments will still however receive franchise fees just as they
do today. Moreover, by creating national franchises, more cable
companies will be in direct competition with one another.
As we move forward in the telecommunications era, companies are offering
more services than just basic cable. Cable and telecom companies alike
now offer broadband service, voice over IP (VOIP), and other digital
services. Under COPE, no company can force consumers to buy VOIP or
broadband service as a precondition for buying other services from the
company.
However, the most often misunderstood section of H.R. 5252 is the
"network neutrality" provision, which is the principle that a consumer
has equal access to all sites. The bill directs the administrator of the
FCC not to make any rule or law that would establish Internet network
neutrality. However, the term "network neutrality" is misleading.
The problem is that over the next couple of years, large Internet sites
are planning to offer high-definition video services, which will use
large amounts of bandwidth and clog the pipelines of the Internet.
Telephone and cable companies want to be able to charge for such large
amounts of bandwidth; otherwise, they will have to pass the costs on to
the consumer. These Internet sites obviously oppose such a move, as it
forces them to pay for using increased bandwidth. Accordingly, these
same Internet sites are aggressively lobbying Congress, and liberal
special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner
guaranteed access to Internet services. Coupled with these special
interest groups, Internet website lobbyists are distorting the picture
by calling pay-for-performance fees a punishment to small business
websites, using the term "network neutrality" as the hands off approach,
when in fact their changes would be the first major government
regulation of the Internet. Moreover, the changes that telephone and
cable companies would like to implement consist of large amounts of
bandwidth that a typical small business website would be extremely
unlikely to use.
America is the most industrialized nation in the world, but is ranked 16
th in broadband deployment. Many contend this is due to the lack of
competition among carriers that resulted from a Federal Communications
Commission decision during the Clinton Administration. This decision
required carriers to open their lines to all broadband deployment and
prohibited carriers from negotiating and enforcing contracts.
Essentially, this ill-advised decision removed competit
"They're groups of people, first and foremost. And each individual in that group lives by his/her own moral values. Being a group of people they also operate collectively by a set of moral values. They've chosen money as being more important than free Chinese citizens."
Yes they are groups of people; groups of people who want to make money. The managing group of people which wants to make money hires others to work for them, but not necessarily give them any sort of reasonable input for guiding the company in a business or moral capacity. If the employees are not comfortable with the direction their employers take the company, or a lack of "ethical action" being taken to liberate a nation that the managing group only wants to have access to to make more money, the employee can often go elsewhere, even to a place where he can speak out against such business practices.
A business should make money and worry about it's own employees. Most won't even do the latter. And while I highly doubt any business wants the responsibility of leading a cultural revolution, I severely doubt any business that does has the clout or finances to do so.
For the record, I am by no means supporting the actions of the Chinese government.
But Yahoo!, along with Google and MSN, are business, first and foremost. None of these are meant to be champions of the people. All of these business want to do business in China, and currently the only way for them to do so is to abide by the laws established in China. Are those laws necessarily fair to the people? No. Is it the responsibility of Yahoo!, Google or MSN to bring about a revolution in China? No. A business is supposed to make money.
However, there is some nudging to be made. Google alerts the user when results are being ommitted. Nothing peaks one's interest more than "There's something here they don't want you to see".
"It is too hard to tell right now whether blue ray or HD-DVD will win."
Too true. I remember my friend's father, years ago, when he proudly displayed his brand new DiVX player. Then two months later DVD became the standard and he was stuck with hardware quickly becoming unsupported.
I'm not going to bash the PS3 directly. I have not seen it in action, held the new controller, or had any other exposure that mainly occurred through E3.
However, no one can deny that there has been a lot of backlash. First and foremost, the pricepoint. Second, the heated argument that Sony may or may not have received inspiration for their new controller from Nintendo's remote.
The second argument is almost irrelevant. As a Nintendo fan myself, I will gladly say it. Whether the controller was "stolen" or not is a non-issue. Sony either had plans to use this controller beforehand, or they did not. If they did not, it will show in the game play -- extended game play that will most likely occurr after the purchase of a PS3.
Regarding the price, that alone has alienated a number of casual fans, such as myself. I own a PS2, but I never bought one outright. I bought mine used, around 2001, when the price tag was far lower. Price is a major factor for many consumers. Many times, it does not come down to "do I want the system with the hard drive, or the one without...", but rather "do I want the system, or do I want to make my car payment".
Additionally, the PS2 was a good investment in the long run as it had an established game library. When the XBox debuted, most of the games I had an interest in were already released, or being simultaneously released, for the PS2. I did not have to spend the additional $300+ on an Xbox, new controllers, memory cards, etc. Everything I wanted was already available on the PS2, therefore negating my desire (and in fact, need) for an Xbox.
Today, the roles are reversed. The Xbox 360 is available, stock is being supplied to retailers, and the game library is slowly but surely increasing.
I believe, in order to gain sure-footing in the market, the PS3 will need not only quality games, but exclusive ones. If the game is available on a system for $200 less, how is that going to encourage someone to spend that extra $200 to begin with? The XBox 360 may very well showcase the same titles as the PS3, but the 360 has already appeared in today's market, giving it some leverage, whereas many of Nintendo's titles will be exclusive their own console, presumably.
I do not believe that the PS3 will be a "failure". It will sell units. I already know of someone who said, with a shrug, "It's almost like a computer" and seemingly resigned himself to purchasing it. I do not believe that it will be a rampant success by any means.
That's why I love my Gamecube. I love all the four-player games available on it. I can not stress how much fun I've had on a weekend with my friends playing SSBM, passing the controller around, and just generally having a good time.
I will be purchasing a Wii, and the extra controllers, and will be taking it to a friend's house rather immediately.
As did I. There was something I found more visually appealing, but nothing specific that I can elaborate on at the moment. Still, $250 at ThinkGeek is a nice pat on the back. That's a lot of STFU t-shirts.
Makes me glad that I never upgraded my reliable Nokia POS. Monochrome screen, no blue tooth, no browsers, no camera, no nothing. Just a phone, that's all.
the iSteppedinDogPoop
In related news, Microsoft has announced the when Vists is eventually released, icons will be called symbols.
Make it easier on everyone who has to provide tech suport for a 70 year old grandmother and just call icons "little picture thingies".
The only way I see any revunue being generated is: ;p)
a) Free customers have to utilize a special browser that encourages the user to view advertisments. (This would of course be PC only, which is why only 95% of Americans would be offered this access
b) Customers can subscribe to higher speeds or premium packages.
The people running on a minimum broadband connection or dialup will simply be forced to upgrade if they don't want to see their whole WWW experience crawl to a stop (literally)
That's only if the ads will stream automatically, which apparently, they very well may not. Otherwise it'd be like loading any other banner ad.
If you are managing your system, you are a sysadmin. Even home users running Windows PCs are sysadmins, only more of them are of the clueless variety.
If you have the administrative password (root/administrator/system operator/whatever else), you _are_ a system administrator.
If you have the authority to be able to fuck things up, you have the responsibility not to. There is no choice.
May I use that for the "WTF is an Admin" chapter?
I learn more by doing and then discovering the effects of what I had done. (Hmmm... fire does that... okay.)
Seriously though, as a relative n00b in the PHP world, I like the visual quickstart guides by Peachpit Press for PHP and Advanced PHP, where there is a practical example of what you might need to use PHP for, in addiion to a disection of the code being used. Both of these books deal with MySQL as well.
While I wasn't exactly scripting my own Nuke system in ten minutes, after some casual reading I was developing some rather unique portal systems that no one else had made available.