Subject says it all: if they are able to sell the system at a profit then they will be wildly successful. Why? Because the machine has excellent specifications for the price (love that footprint) and if it is at all reliable then it's going to be a moneymaker.
LOLWUT? Compared to equivalently priced consoles, this machine is lacking.
If you mean as a generic linux PC, maybe you're onto something... except you can get better hardware for the same price. As you mention, it has a nice footprint, but in all other respects it's inferior hardware for the price.
"Neo-cons" is a more specific subset of modern American conservatives... they differ from traditional conservatives in other ways than just social issues (such as a very aggressive militaristic foreign policy stance).
Coming from an ultra-conservative background myself, I still find the whole notion of Internet regulation and censorship to be a bit laughable. [snip] If we're really interested in an open and free (libre) society
Here's the thing... the definition of conservative in the US has been twisted to mean "socially authoritarian". As such, the conservatives in the US are not interested in an open and free society.
I wish there was a term for fiscal/political conservatives who are socially liberal (liberal as-in-libre)... the closest I can think of is 'Goldwater conservative'. It would be even better if that was the standard definition of conservative, and the social authoritarians had a distinctive label.
It really would make it easier for me to define where I lie on the political spectra, and to figure out how my views relate to others who may identify themselves as conservatives.
Re:great game - doesn't deserve to be called zork
on
Legends of Zork Goes Live
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Did you forget your head in your ass?
Why yes, yes I did.
And the worst part of it is that I had to shove my monitor up there too in order to read your post.
I have pictured it... and I question whether we'll see absurd growth. I still doubt we'll see a majority of people getting hi-def video over the internet for their primary viewing, not when it's available much cheaper from push services like cable TV. DVRs have solved the timeshifting problem with push services.
Sure, it's convenient to have universal video-on-demand via IP, but I don't anticipate that to be the norm for at least another 20 years[1].
[1] Uh-oh. Now of course it will happen in 2011, and I'll be eating my words. 640k ought to be enough...
No, they don't want to lose them (and their cash). They want them to pay them more money per month.
And in order to do so, they'd need to have a bigger pipe, which costs a buttload of money to put in. So instead they get the biggest users to switch ISPs, and continue to rampantly oversell their existing bandwidth, resulting in higher margins.
If they are selling 50 gigs for $50 to baseline users, they'd have to sell additional bandwidth at something like 50 gigs for $45 in order to maintain their margins just on a cash basis (not sure what their overhead per client is, but it's gotta be small for a large ISP). The problem is that because they've oversold their bandwidth, a user who uses 200 gigs a month may prevent them from being able to serve at least 3 other baseline users, probably more like 10... which means that their other revenue sources (based on unique users) drop -- things like cross-selling phone and TV service.
In the end, they'd probably need to charge MORE for the same amount of capacity to high-volume users as long as their bandwidth remains limited and oversold.
In order to make keeping those high-volume users around worthwhile, they'd have to expand their infrastructure first... and goodness knows most ISPs aren't exactly willing to foot the bill on that.
Please note I did not mention throttling, as a tiered pricing plan would obviate the need for it. Rather than throttle high-volume users, they should just be charged more to compensate for the cost of building out more infrastructure.
Rates should be something like $X + $Y*Z, where $X is a base rate to cover overhead and usage up to a realistic cap (say, $30 for 40 gigs or so), and additional charges of Y per Z units (say, $10 per each 20 gigs above the initial cap). The actual numbers would be different, of course. If done correctly, the high-volume usage (plus some % of the regular base fee) would pay for the cost of adding bandwidth, so that bandwidth could be added as needed (and would be paid for!), and no one would have to suffer reduced speeds.
I wish the editors would stop putting each and every one of these on the front page.
So do your part. Log in and mod them down on the firehose.
I don't know if it's possible to filter the frontpage by keyword (it should be even if it's not:) ) as well as by section.
At any rate, you are quite welcome to simply not bother reading the stories and comments about autism or Asperger's... unless you also have OCD and NEED to read every slashdot story or comment.
Now, if they can come out with it and have a decent plan (and ToS...aka...no xGB/month crap^H^H^H^Hcap) to boot, everything will be great.
Why, so normal users can subsidize high-volume users?
Realistic caps or tiers are a good thing -- if they cap usage below a useful amount for 90% of the users, that's a different story. There have got to be ways we can reduce the number of packets in the air and in the tubes without impacting the services we use, and only if there is some kind of metered usage will we increase the efficiency of internet services.
3) Coming to work in casual clothes - the more casual the better - think underwear and curry stained shirt
Sure, your productivity may improve -- but what abot everyone else in the office who is too busy cleaning vomit out of their keyboards to get work done?
If taking a cigarette break, coffee break or gossip break is allowed, I cannot see any difference in internet break or game break.
I smoke, have a caffeine addiction, love to gossip, play games, AND surf the internet, you insensitive clod!
I spend just under 20% of my billable time each day on each activity... I work about 20 minutes a day, just enough time to make sure the lackeys are doing my work for me.
The problem with this is that only people who hit the cap are going to be negatively affected enough to switch to a different ISP.
Guess what? Time Warner wants those people to switch, since they are the ones breaking their overselling calculations. The quicker TW can unload the high-volume users, the better it is for TW. That is, of course, unless high-volume users pay additional charges for their excess volume over the cap. Then, those users are profitable again for TW.
Personally, I think tiered pricing by volume is a good idea, since it more fairly distributes the cost of providing service.
Plus, I was able to download some 8 TB of porn before there were caps, so I'm good for a while.
Or superheated a bowl of water until it "blows up" in a steam flash?
All you need is an airtight container and some water, and you can boil the water and then heat the steam to a very high temperature (this is how you light popcorn on fire -- the cellulose opf the popcorn acts an airtight container for tiny amounts of water, which superheat).
No, I'm just completely dissatisfied with what passes for a hero nowadays.
Hero worship of a very flawed hero (so flawed as to be nothing like a hero) is stupid.
You talk up a sneering comedian, and you disregard one of the finest men seen last century.
Oh God, I hope you're not referring to Reagan in that phrase. If you really think Reagan is one of the finest men we saw last century, I see no point in continuing the discussion.
The link references gaseous diffusion, you're right.
Diffusion from a container into the food it contains would likely be much faster, particularly if there are fatty foods in the container (most of the toxins in question are fat-soluble).
You wouldn't need to inhale anything, as ingestion poses much the same problems. Note also that diffusion into a liquid poses much the same relationship to temperature as diffusion in a gas (and above boiling, of course, we are talking about gaseous diffusion).
Consider a plastic container (such as a takeout soup container) containing liquid with a high fat content (like most soups), put into a microwave at high power until boiling. Moment temps at the bottom and sides of the container often exceed 140 C. This gas then percolates through the soup, where it is cooled back down to a liquid. Any toxins in that gas are now either dissolved or suspended in the liquid.
There are plenty of other yeast waste products that depend on the fermentation conditions... including methanol (uh-oh!), various ketones and esters (also potenitally problematic), and, of course, CO2.
Too much CO2 in the blood would result in acidosis as the excess CO2 is oxidized (by H2O) into carbonic acid... and then there would be renal compensation for this, leading to a host of other problems.
The reason the acidosis factor is such a problem is that pacemaker users tend to have limited respiratory capacity (which causes respiratory acidosis) anyway... so this would complicate their health even further.
I'm not sure that the impact of the yeast on plasma acidity would be huge, but it's the first non-EtOH waste product complication that popped into my head... I'm sure there are others.
How is this pre-empting them? All you have done is predict that people will say it, that isn't a counter argument, 'correlation is not causation' may be over-used and formulaic, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.
Preempting isn't about a counter-argument... it means (generally) to do something first to prevent others from doing it. A preemptive strike is meant to keep your oppenent from striking. A preemptive bid in bridge is meant to keep your opponents from making low-level bids to exchange information. A preemptive bid in contract bidding is meant to close the bidding process before the open bidding process even begins (like to forestall an auction).
So, while you are right that his post doesn't preempt people who wish to make the C != C argument... it's not because he doesn't present an argument against them... Theoretically, he DID preempt them, because he brought it up first so all who follow are redundant and should be modded down.
But that's all moot, anyway. He failed because he was slow -- to b silly, you might say he post-empted them... oe of them got it in before he did.
I think a lot of you are seriously overstating Colbert's contribution to society.
And just as many understate it. The Daily Show is the #1 source for political info among a large section of Americans. The Colbert Report isn't far behind.
It's like a gateway drug for young people. First they start watching the Colbert Report. Then they get hooked on the Daily Show. Then they start dabbling with the source, the talking head shows on MSNBC/CNN/etc. Pretty soon, they are waking up early on Sunday mornings to get their fix of talking heads.
High temp increases the rate of release, but it's not a linear relationship.
Consider DEHC release from PVC... the diffusion coefficients [D × 1010 cm2 min1] at 5 and 40 C are 9.1 and 156.0 according to this paper. Seeing as microwaves can easily create temps over 100 C, it's pretty trivial to deduce that though some phthalates are released at room temperature, high temperatures could easily cause much higher concentrations of toxins in your food.
As for vinyl floors, if the area is poorly ventilated, even a slow rate of diffusion could result in toxic contentrations of phthalates.
Why should the ISS be any different? Screw it. It's all a joke, a sick joke, and a nation as feckless and emotional as ours deserves nothing better than a goddamn joke on one of our finer accomplishments.
Better a joke than stupid hero worship (I'm looking at you, Reagan International Airport). At least a joke name indicates that there is some thought going on.
Seriously, why shouldn't we honor someone who has helped millions of young Americans (1) enter the political discussion and (2) become aware of government folly. Colbert's more important to the zeitgeist than Serenity, that's for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
LOLWUT? Compared to equivalently priced consoles, this machine is lacking.
If you mean as a generic linux PC, maybe you're onto something... except you can get better hardware for the same price. As you mention, it has a nice footprint, but in all other respects it's inferior hardware for the price.
s/Red/Green
LotGD is still alive and kicking if you want to get your retro gaming fix.
"Neo-cons" is a more specific subset of modern American conservatives... they differ from traditional conservatives in other ways than just social issues (such as a very aggressive militaristic foreign policy stance).
Here's the thing... the definition of conservative in the US has been twisted to mean "socially authoritarian". As such, the conservatives in the US are not interested in an open and free society.
I wish there was a term for fiscal/political conservatives who are socially liberal (liberal as-in-libre)... the closest I can think of is 'Goldwater conservative'. It would be even better if that was the standard definition of conservative, and the social authoritarians had a distinctive label.
It really would make it easier for me to define where I lie on the political spectra, and to figure out how my views relate to others who may identify themselves as conservatives.
Why yes, yes I did.
And the worst part of it is that I had to shove my monitor up there too in order to read your post.
Boy, that sure is a lot of SHOUTING and swearing for "peaceful_bill".
:)
Did you forget your Xanax today?
I have pictured it... and I question whether we'll see absurd growth. I still doubt we'll see a majority of people getting hi-def video over the internet for their primary viewing, not when it's available much cheaper from push services like cable TV. DVRs have solved the timeshifting problem with push services.
Sure, it's convenient to have universal video-on-demand via IP, but I don't anticipate that to be the norm for at least another 20 years[1].
[1] Uh-oh. Now of course it will happen in 2011, and I'll be eating my words. 640k ought to be enough...
And in order to do so, they'd need to have a bigger pipe, which costs a buttload of money to put in. So instead they get the biggest users to switch ISPs, and continue to rampantly oversell their existing bandwidth, resulting in higher margins.
If they are selling 50 gigs for $50 to baseline users, they'd have to sell additional bandwidth at something like 50 gigs for $45 in order to maintain their margins just on a cash basis (not sure what their overhead per client is, but it's gotta be small for a large ISP). The problem is that because they've oversold their bandwidth, a user who uses 200 gigs a month may prevent them from being able to serve at least 3 other baseline users, probably more like 10... which means that their other revenue sources (based on unique users) drop -- things like cross-selling phone and TV service.
In the end, they'd probably need to charge MORE for the same amount of capacity to high-volume users as long as their bandwidth remains limited and oversold.
In order to make keeping those high-volume users around worthwhile, they'd have to expand their infrastructure first... and goodness knows most ISPs aren't exactly willing to foot the bill on that.
Please note I did not mention throttling, as a tiered pricing plan would obviate the need for it. Rather than throttle high-volume users, they should just be charged more to compensate for the cost of building out more infrastructure.
Rates should be something like $X + $Y*Z, where $X is a base rate to cover overhead and usage up to a realistic cap (say, $30 for 40 gigs or so), and additional charges of Y per Z units (say, $10 per each 20 gigs above the initial cap). The actual numbers would be different, of course. If done correctly, the high-volume usage (plus some % of the regular base fee) would pay for the cost of adding bandwidth, so that bandwidth could be added as needed (and would be paid for!), and no one would have to suffer reduced speeds.
My math shows 54% more productive (1.09^5).
:)
Not only am I more productive, apparently I am more accurate too
So do your part. Log in and mod them down on the firehose.
:) ) as well as by section.
I don't know if it's possible to filter the frontpage by keyword (it should be even if it's not
At any rate, you are quite welcome to simply not bother reading the stories and comments about autism or Asperger's... unless you also have OCD and NEED to read every slashdot story or comment.
Why, so normal users can subsidize high-volume users?
Realistic caps or tiers are a good thing -- if they cap usage below a useful amount for 90% of the users, that's a different story. There have got to be ways we can reduce the number of packets in the air and in the tubes without impacting the services we use, and only if there is some kind of metered usage will we increase the efficiency of internet services.
Sure, your productivity may improve -- but what abot everyone else in the office who is too busy cleaning vomit out of their keyboards to get work done?
I smoke, have a caffeine addiction, love to gossip, play games, AND surf the internet, you insensitive clod!
I spend just under 20% of my billable time each day on each activity... I work about 20 minutes a day, just enough time to make sure the lackeys are doing my work for me.
What? Isn't that the American dream?
The problem with this is that only people who hit the cap are going to be negatively affected enough to switch to a different ISP.
Guess what? Time Warner wants those people to switch, since they are the ones breaking their overselling calculations. The quicker TW can unload the high-volume users, the better it is for TW. That is, of course, unless high-volume users pay additional charges for their excess volume over the cap. Then, those users are profitable again for TW.
Personally, I think tiered pricing by volume is a good idea, since it more fairly distributes the cost of providing service.
Plus, I was able to download some 8 TB of porn before there were caps, so I'm good for a while.
Yes, and so do you (if you have a microwave).
Ever light popcorn on fire in a microwave?
Or superheated a bowl of water until it "blows up" in a steam flash?
All you need is an airtight container and some water, and you can boil the water and then heat the steam to a very high temperature (this is how you light popcorn on fire -- the cellulose opf the popcorn acts an airtight container for tiny amounts of water, which superheat).
Hero worship of a very flawed hero (so flawed as to be nothing like a hero) is stupid.
Oh God, I hope you're not referring to Reagan in that phrase. If you really think Reagan is one of the finest men we saw last century, I see no point in continuing the discussion.
The link references gaseous diffusion, you're right.
Diffusion from a container into the food it contains would likely be much faster, particularly if there are fatty foods in the container (most of the toxins in question are fat-soluble).
You wouldn't need to inhale anything, as ingestion poses much the same problems. Note also that diffusion into a liquid poses much the same relationship to temperature as diffusion in a gas (and above boiling, of course, we are talking about gaseous diffusion).
Consider a plastic container (such as a takeout soup container) containing liquid with a high fat content (like most soups), put into a microwave at high power until boiling. Moment temps at the bottom and sides of the container often exceed 140 C. This gas then percolates through the soup, where it is cooled back down to a liquid. Any toxins in that gas are now either dissolved or suspended in the liquid.
s/the/a
There are plenty of other yeast waste products that depend on the fermentation conditions... including methanol (uh-oh!), various ketones and esters (also potenitally problematic), and, of course, CO2.
Too much CO2 in the blood would result in acidosis as the excess CO2 is oxidized (by H2O) into carbonic acid... and then there would be renal compensation for this, leading to a host of other problems.
The reason the acidosis factor is such a problem is that pacemaker users tend to have limited respiratory capacity (which causes respiratory acidosis) anyway... so this would complicate their health even further.
I'm not sure that the impact of the yeast on plasma acidity would be huge, but it's the first non-EtOH waste product complication that popped into my head... I'm sure there are others.
Just for the achievement
The problem is not the quantity, but the quality. There is nothing wrong with 24-hr news coverage if it is in-depth and of good quality.
What we have is LCD news round the clock. It blows, I agree.
Preempting isn't about a counter-argument... it means (generally) to do something first to prevent others from doing it. A preemptive strike is meant to keep your oppenent from striking. A preemptive bid in bridge is meant to keep your opponents from making low-level bids to exchange information. A preemptive bid in contract bidding is meant to close the bidding process before the open bidding process even begins (like to forestall an auction).
So, while you are right that his post doesn't preempt people who wish to make the C != C argument... it's not because he doesn't present an argument against them... Theoretically, he DID preempt them, because he brought it up first so all who follow are redundant and should be modded down.
But that's all moot, anyway. He failed because he was slow -- to b silly, you might say he post-empted them... oe of them got it in before he did.
And just as many understate it. The Daily Show is the #1 source for political info among a large section of Americans. The Colbert Report isn't far behind.
It's like a gateway drug for young people. First they start watching the Colbert Report. Then they get hooked on the Daily Show. Then they start dabbling with the source, the talking head shows on MSNBC/CNN/etc. Pretty soon, they are waking up early on Sunday mornings to get their fix of talking heads.
The sad thing is, I'm only half joking.
High temp increases the rate of release, but it's not a linear relationship.
Consider DEHC release from PVC... the diffusion coefficients [D × 1010 cm2 min1] at 5 and 40 C are 9.1 and 156.0 according to this paper. Seeing as microwaves can easily create temps over 100 C, it's pretty trivial to deduce that though some phthalates are released at room temperature, high temperatures could easily cause much higher concentrations of toxins in your food.
As for vinyl floors, if the area is poorly ventilated, even a slow rate of diffusion could result in toxic contentrations of phthalates.
Better a joke than stupid hero worship (I'm looking at you, Reagan International Airport). At least a joke name indicates that there is some thought going on.
Seriously, why shouldn't we honor someone who has helped millions of young Americans (1) enter the political discussion and (2) become aware of government folly. Colbert's more important to the zeitgeist than Serenity, that's for sure.