Comcast is gunning for vertical integration. In order to optimize the benefits from its vertical integration, it has a very strong incentive to prioritize NBC sites and content over other sites and content.
I'm convinced that Comcast's package will include optimized delivery for NBC sites and content, only available to Comcast users. In and of itself not a bad deal, but there is very little difference to the end-user between optimizing delivery of your own stuff and throttling delivery of other people's stuff - except that one is dirt cheap to do, and the other is expensive. In a few years, I'm expecting Comcast to offer sites like it currently offers channels: with different pay tiers and different performance.
Nice troll sig, by the way. I'll reply with a quote from Sagan: " They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Interesting. I'm wondering if it would be possible to use an extreme version of the Ford approach, where they just shut down the fuel injection to some cylinders: don't turn off the engine, but just reduce fuel injection to the point where it normally wouldn't be able to power the car, but just keep it idling.... then again, I'm sure that this would have a heavy impact on overall fuel savings.
Because there is already a way to drastically reduce the cost of car travel: use a diesel. Hybrids don't have the cost advantage there that they have here.
Good grief. Stop displaying your ignorance of economics, American diesel history and European laws.
You couldn't buy a diesel because when Detroit had tried to sell Diesels to Americans in the seventies and eighties, they did it by essentially repurposing gasoline engines. These engines were horrible - noisy, stinky, and with particulates large enough to qualify as dirt. Not to mention prone to breakdown. Combine it with expensive fuel, and there was no reason for anyone to own a diesel car in the US.
The emissions laws, by the way, are more stringent in Europe. The current US standards are equivalent to the EU standards of 1996, and way behind the 2009 EU standards.
That's why the latest diesel engines from Europe blow away any US diesel engine. The only problem is that the European advanced diesel engines are used to running on ultra-low sulfur diesel, which is only mandated for after 2010 in the US.
So really, the only legislative reason for the lack of European diesel engines in the US market is because US fuel is allowed to suck.
That's the beauty of a hybrid drive - it doesn't matter what powers the combustion engine. For all the hybrid system cares, it could be pink unicorns and care bears. I don't understand why there isn't a hybrid diesel on the market.... Probably cost.
No, the major reason is that taxes on diesel are significantly lower than on regular gasoline. In the US, diesel costs more than regular gas - sometimes more than premium. In Europe, diesel is the cheapest fuel available - by a significant margin.
Beats me. Especially in light of the fact that people who are bad at something completely overestimate their skill-level. This data is complete junk. Nevertheless, I fully expect it to be repeated ad nauseam all over the place.
And that's a legitimate assertion to make: mainly because the only thing that could potentially be more complex and less predictable than the weather is human behavior. I'd love to see more data on how much inaction would cost - as of right now, the only thing I know is that it'll cost something.
Absolutely would there be a Rio conference on nuking the glaciers. Why? Because everything we do is a cost/benefit analysis. Sometimes not a rational one, but it still is one.
The question is simple: does it cost more to reduce our CO2 emissions, or does it cost more to just deal with the increase in temperature that is guaranteed to come from an increase in CO2?
Ohh..... I get it! It's the Glenn Beck approach! "Isn't it true that Susie is a whore? Isn't she? Well then you will have no problem proving that she isn't. I'm just asking questions that need to be asked."
Seriously. The amount of personal insinuations that are floating around about this is astounding.
Generally, the way you find old bugs in a new program is by running a regression test. I don't like the "presumably" in their assertion, but at the same time, if you accuse somebody of something, you should back it up with some evidence. Otherwise, you're not credible.
I don't know. Looking at American politics, talk shows and forums, it is the people who support AGCC that are under attack. Meanwhile, any crank with any axe to grind gets plenty of media attention - doesn't matter whether it's about fake birth certificates, healthcare as a harbinger of Gulags or global warming being a hoax.
Shhhh. You're upsetting his carefully crafted fantasy of him being the last bastion of reason in a world of brainwashed morons. A single instance of anything is enough for him to prove decades worth of extrapolation.
As opposed to the contributors at climate-gate.org? You're committing the exact crime you're accusing the CRU people of: to silence people based on nothing but who they are, and put certain other people in charge based on nothing but who they are against.
The reason for that is quite simple:science, just like everything else, is full of politics. Some people manage to do science in spite of it, others don't. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is the data.
Because thats what we are talking about with stopping climate change, terraforming the world to a "perfect" point in time.
I don't know how you can miss your own point.... We haven't terraformed to a perfect point in time, we have adapted our societies, supply chains and living habits to a very specific and very narrow range of climatic conditions. If you doubt that, watch Californians drive when it so much as drizzles. If precipitation gets any more frequent than it is, the disaster that is the first rain of the season will become near permanent, until people know how to drive in rain. Which is going to take a while, and a lot of dead people and insurance money.
That's the issue with GCC. I don't give a fart about how the weather will be in a million years, or even 10000. I worry that within my lifetime, the climate will change enough that trillions will have to be spent across the world to re-adapt societies, supply chains and living habits. I'd rather not have to spend that money - or even my share of it.
I think letter frequency actually supports the theory of anagrams. If my recollection is correct, the manuscript's frequency of letters and the frequency of the length of words strongly mimics that of a natural language. This is why many people think that it is neither a random hoax, nor something completely made up. Instead, the suspicion is that there is something real going on - the question is though, whether the language is merely transformed, a secret real language, or whether it's just a regular language applied to a made up world.
Not if you want to do anything effective. Sure, you could pay a local warlord 3 million (1 mill up front, 2 mill after satisfactory job completion), but it's unlikely you'd get anything useful out of it. He might decide the 1 million is enough anyway, and just go on pirating ships. If anything, it'll probably amount to 3 million a week - and at that point, it is indeed cheaper to just weather the occasional loss.
Somalia. Iraq. Afghanistan. Much less nice. Not to mention that there are plenty of polite counter examples where people don't carry guns (Sweden, England, Japan....).
The issue to debate here is whether someone should lose their job over posting a vulgarity on the internet while at work.
I'm seeing this comment a lot. My question is: is everyone really 100% focused on work while at work? As in, they take no more than 2 minutes for their potty break, exactly 60 minutes for their lunch break, and always - and only - discuss work while at work? That no one ever stares off into space, daydreaming of the next vacation? Yes, I've seen managers who thought these things were a fireable offense- but these managers were also universally hated and drove the department into suicide-watch mode.
People goof off. Some more than others. This wasn't much - the equivalent of reading the newspaper on the john, or discussing the Browns ineptitude on Monday morning. I can't see how the discussion went that forced the teacher to resign.
Pussy. There, I said it. Wait, I'll have to explain to my boss that I said Pussy on the internet. Ok, Done. Friends, girlfriends, children - done. I'll be a little embarrassed if I'll have to explain it to my mother - I hope she'd get the joke anyway. Now what?
On a technical level, you're right. Free speech only applies to public places and regulation by the government. As such, the website is not a public place, and local rules apply. What you seem to miss is that someone was forced to resign for making a stupid joke on a newspaper website while at work. If that's not total and complete overkill, I don't know what is.
Slashdot Mirror
Comcast is gunning for vertical integration. In order to optimize the benefits from its vertical integration, it has a very strong incentive to prioritize NBC sites and content over other sites and content.
I'm convinced that Comcast's package will include optimized delivery for NBC sites and content, only available to Comcast users. In and of itself not a bad deal, but there is very little difference to the end-user between optimizing delivery of your own stuff and throttling delivery of other people's stuff - except that one is dirt cheap to do, and the other is expensive. In a few years, I'm expecting Comcast to offer sites like it currently offers channels: with different pay tiers and different performance.
Nice troll sig, by the way. I'll reply with a quote from Sagan: " They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Interesting. I'm wondering if it would be possible to use an extreme version of the Ford approach, where they just shut down the fuel injection to some cylinders: don't turn off the engine, but just reduce fuel injection to the point where it normally wouldn't be able to power the car, but just keep it idling.... then again, I'm sure that this would have a heavy impact on overall fuel savings.
Because there is already a way to drastically reduce the cost of car travel: use a diesel. Hybrids don't have the cost advantage there that they have here.
Good grief. Stop displaying your ignorance of economics, American diesel history and European laws.
You couldn't buy a diesel because when Detroit had tried to sell Diesels to Americans in the seventies and eighties, they did it by essentially repurposing gasoline engines. These engines were horrible - noisy, stinky, and with particulates large enough to qualify as dirt. Not to mention prone to breakdown. Combine it with expensive fuel, and there was no reason for anyone to own a diesel car in the US.
The emissions laws, by the way, are more stringent in Europe. The current US standards are equivalent to the EU standards of 1996, and way behind the 2009 EU standards.
That's why the latest diesel engines from Europe blow away any US diesel engine. The only problem is that the European advanced diesel engines are used to running on ultra-low sulfur diesel, which is only mandated for after 2010 in the US.
So really, the only legislative reason for the lack of European diesel engines in the US market is because US fuel is allowed to suck.
That's the beauty of a hybrid drive - it doesn't matter what powers the combustion engine. For all the hybrid system cares, it could be pink unicorns and care bears. I don't understand why there isn't a hybrid diesel on the market.... Probably cost.
No, the major reason is that taxes on diesel are significantly lower than on regular gasoline. In the US, diesel costs more than regular gas - sometimes more than premium. In Europe, diesel is the cheapest fuel available - by a significant margin.
Beats me. Especially in light of the fact that people who are bad at something completely overestimate their skill-level. This data is complete junk. Nevertheless, I fully expect it to be repeated ad nauseam all over the place.
Source please.
And that's a legitimate assertion to make: mainly because the only thing that could potentially be more complex and less predictable than the weather is human behavior. I'd love to see more data on how much inaction would cost - as of right now, the only thing I know is that it'll cost something.
Absolutely would there be a Rio conference on nuking the glaciers. Why? Because everything we do is a cost/benefit analysis. Sometimes not a rational one, but it still is one.
The question is simple: does it cost more to reduce our CO2 emissions, or does it cost more to just deal with the increase in temperature that is guaranteed to come from an increase in CO2?
Ohh..... I get it! It's the Glenn Beck approach! "Isn't it true that Susie is a whore? Isn't she? Well then you will have no problem proving that she isn't. I'm just asking questions that need to be asked."
Seriously. The amount of personal insinuations that are floating around about this is astounding.
Generally, the way you find old bugs in a new program is by running a regression test. I don't like the "presumably" in their assertion, but at the same time, if you accuse somebody of something, you should back it up with some evidence. Otherwise, you're not credible.
grep "fudge|remove|cheat|trick" /download/*
Dunno, seems pretty straight forward.
I don't know. Looking at American politics, talk shows and forums, it is the people who support AGCC that are under attack. Meanwhile, any crank with any axe to grind gets plenty of media attention - doesn't matter whether it's about fake birth certificates, healthcare as a harbinger of Gulags or global warming being a hoax.
Fortunately, there's plenty of more data available. Like, I don't know, NOAAs, NASAs....
Shhhh. You're upsetting his carefully crafted fantasy of him being the last bastion of reason in a world of brainwashed morons. A single instance of anything is enough for him to prove decades worth of extrapolation.
As opposed to the contributors at climate-gate.org? You're committing the exact crime you're accusing the CRU people of: to silence people based on nothing but who they are, and put certain other people in charge based on nothing but who they are against.
Nice.
The reason for that is quite simple:science, just like everything else, is full of politics. Some people manage to do science in spite of it, others don't. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is the data.
And for the umpteen millionth time, what is worrisome is not the fact that it is happening, but the speed at which it is happening.
Because thats what we are talking about with stopping climate change, terraforming the world to a "perfect" point in time.
I don't know how you can miss your own point.... We haven't terraformed to a perfect point in time, we have adapted our societies, supply chains and living habits to a very specific and very narrow range of climatic conditions. If you doubt that, watch Californians drive when it so much as drizzles. If precipitation gets any more frequent than it is, the disaster that is the first rain of the season will become near permanent, until people know how to drive in rain. Which is going to take a while, and a lot of dead people and insurance money.
That's the issue with GCC. I don't give a fart about how the weather will be in a million years, or even 10000. I worry that within my lifetime, the climate will change enough that trillions will have to be spent across the world to re-adapt societies, supply chains and living habits. I'd rather not have to spend that money - or even my share of it.
I think letter frequency actually supports the theory of anagrams. If my recollection is correct, the manuscript's frequency of letters and the frequency of the length of words strongly mimics that of a natural language. This is why many people think that it is neither a random hoax, nor something completely made up. Instead, the suspicion is that there is something real going on - the question is though, whether the language is merely transformed, a secret real language, or whether it's just a regular language applied to a made up world.
Not if you want to do anything effective. Sure, you could pay a local warlord 3 million (1 mill up front, 2 mill after satisfactory job completion), but it's unlikely you'd get anything useful out of it. He might decide the 1 million is enough anyway, and just go on pirating ships. If anything, it'll probably amount to 3 million a week - and at that point, it is indeed cheaper to just weather the occasional loss.
Somalia. Iraq. Afghanistan. Much less nice. Not to mention that there are plenty of polite counter examples where people don't carry guns (Sweden, England, Japan....).
The issue to debate here is whether someone should lose their job over posting a vulgarity on the internet while at work.
I'm seeing this comment a lot. My question is: is everyone really 100% focused on work while at work? As in, they take no more than 2 minutes for their potty break, exactly 60 minutes for their lunch break, and always - and only - discuss work while at work? That no one ever stares off into space, daydreaming of the next vacation? Yes, I've seen managers who thought these things were a fireable offense- but these managers were also universally hated and drove the department into suicide-watch mode.
People goof off. Some more than others. This wasn't much - the equivalent of reading the newspaper on the john, or discussing the Browns ineptitude on Monday morning. I can't see how the discussion went that forced the teacher to resign.
Pussy. There, I said it. Wait, I'll have to explain to my boss that I said Pussy on the internet. Ok, Done. Friends, girlfriends, children - done. I'll be a little embarrassed if I'll have to explain it to my mother - I hope she'd get the joke anyway. Now what?
On a technical level, you're right. Free speech only applies to public places and regulation by the government. As such, the website is not a public place, and local rules apply. What you seem to miss is that someone was forced to resign for making a stupid joke on a newspaper website while at work. If that's not total and complete overkill, I don't know what is.