Well, some lawyer needs to justify his retainer and outrageous salary to Taser International. Remember, there's (almost) nothing stopping you from filing a lawsuit just because you feel like it. And quite often, just filing a lawsuit is just like winning one: all it takes is to make contesting the lawsuit more expensive than just caving in.
The simple fact is that TW is trying to protect their Cable TV business by degrading their internet service.
And this is the real reason. Time Warner knows that anyone who downloads 44 GB a week downloads a whole lot of video and entertainment. And because of the likely cable monopoly that is the area, that is money coming directly out of their pocket. So the only logical proposition for them is to terminate heavy users. No matter how much they pay TWC, they will never pay enough to make up both data costs and lost opportunity costs.
Fer fuck's sake, how deeply bought off are politicians that this is in place? This is a classic case of a vertical monopoly abusing its position. Not to mention that it's compounded by the fact that there is at best a limited oligopoly providing internet access.
The reason this development bothers me is that this is actually the most rational approach for a cable provider. This is the future for cable - or for any provider with an existing content delivery arm.
You're right in that a flashpoint will occur, and it is quite possible that it will be Taiwan. However, I'm far more skeptical than most that the US will commit to a full war against China to prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Taiwan is of no strategic interest to the US - there's no lobby that's similar to the Cuban expat lobby, and there are no strategic resources located there. On the one hand, waging war against China will make the current war against Terror look like child's play. On the other hand, even if the US wins, it will be a temporary reprieve in Taiwan's reintegration into China - which the US isn't even disputing.
Right now, all sides are bluffing about Taiwan. I suspect though that the US will fold before China.
Which means that I don't think there's any way to pull China off of Taiwan.
Wow. I rant quite a bit about the threat that China represents, but you certainly take the paranoid cake.
A few issues with your post:
1. China is not an existential threat. That would indeed be the Muslim extremists. You're simply confusing the intent of terrorists with the capability of China. 2. Nuclear boomers are not the solution, and a volley of missiles from them will not terminate the Chinese leadership. Not to mention that it will also mean the end of the US. Remember MAD? Apparently not. 3. Panama owns the Panama Canal. You're referring to the two ports on the exits/entries of the Canal which have been leased to Hutchinson Whampoa. There's a slight, but significant difference there, especially since the US retains the official right to intervene militarily to protect its access to the channel. 4. The treasuries currently bought by the Chinese are their Achilles hill as much as it is ours. How does it go? If you owe a bank 20k, the bank owns you. If you owe a bank 20 million, you own the bank. The comment by the ministry was the sound of a concerned investor: "Please don't fuck with my money."
I find mostly two types of misconceptions about China: either it's a monolithic group of "Reds", with the best of the Cold War rhetoric attached to it. Or it has a master plan to gain world domination, and is deploying it relentlessly.
Both are wrong. China has as many internal issues as any other country, and is subject to all the economic pressures that affect others. The two things that are true are: 1 China thinks longterm. I'm talking decades, centuries. 2 Land and respect is everything.
China can be an issue, and is aggressively pursuing a strategy that will make it the superpower of the world. But that doesn't mean that the only interaction with them will be through nuclear volleys.
Daily traffic for May 6th,2008 at the Suez Canal: http://www.rafimar.com/homepage/suez-traffic/6-5-08.html You might want to rethink your idea of who benefits the most from the traffic in the area. As for protecting shipping - kinda comes with the territory of having a large navy presence in the area. Not to mention that other countries which have a navy in the area participate as well.
Learn to fill in context: we were talking about who is in charge in the US. Furthermore, US-owned ships had been attacked in the past - just not any that were US-flagged AND US-crewed.
Because the majority of the ships passing through there are doing just that - passing through there. The destination or departure ports are most likely in Europe or even NA and Canada.
I don't know if it is so much as an infection as the realization that this approach works. Everybody has looked at how much success the RIAA has had in lobbying for preservation of their business model. And in turn, everyone wants a cut of the piece.
I have to admit, if I were a lawyer at a corporation, I'd look very closely at this avenue to make more money for myself and the company. Granted, I'd have to shoot myself afterwards, and this is one of the reasons why I'm not a lawyer. But you have to admit that "Pay me or get sued" has been a wildly successful business strategy, particularly if any IP is involved.
Did you read the links? Individual taxis drove 100,000, 200,000 and even 250,000 miles individually, with no reported battery issues. Not to mention that even the post you replied to didn't talk about fleet-miles.
Spot on. ITIL is not for the faint of heart, and should be applied appropriately. That said, it provides a ton of useful information about how things should be done. Compare that with what you need, use what makes sense, and move on.
And yes, it sounds more like he's moving on from being a code monkey to actually being responsible for the development lifecycle of a piece of software, so development lead stuff is a good place to start.
Start there. There's a ton of stuff online. If you can get your work to spring for certification, great. If it doesn't, no worries. Project Management is easy. Just keep in mind a few things: - You need a project schedule with milestones. Live by it. Make others live by it. - Understand GANTT charts. Don't necessarily use them, but the principles behind are solid. - Google is your friend. The wikipedia article is actually a good start. - Above all, understand that this is a team effort. You won't succeed without others. Time to start honing those social skills.
When few people get hurt during wars, wars will become ubiquitous. Remember what happened when tasers were supposed to fix all the problems that came with gun-equipped cops?
Wars are going to become a quick fix solution to a trigger-happy authority with an army of drones.
They do it because the cell phone companies are making money with it. Utilities use metered because electric load is fairly constant and predictable. Even the use of AC is predictable. With a phone though, I can go a month and use about 60 minutes, and then the next one, I can use up 3000 (yay conference calls). I prefer knowing how much I pay ahead of time to getting wildly differing phone bills.
I think you're papering over the real problem. Download caps can be set in such a way that they aren't an issue even to power users. Restrict caps to peak hours. Throttle all bandwidth after cap has been exceeded. Meter bandwidth after cap has been exceeded. All can be done such that even if I happen to download the latest WoW expansion twice (once for Mac, once for PC), watched a few Netflix streaming movies and tried out Ubuntu, Suse and Redhat in a free for all, I don't get royally shafted in my connection availability or pocket book.
What is concerning here is that Time Warner has a huge incentive to drive people to use cable TV to get their video. In other words, I'll be shocked if their implementation of bandwidth caps, throttling and metering is designed in such a way to optimize user experience. What I do expect is that it is optimized to drive the largest possible amount of people to use cable for video and entertainment, and internet for anything else.
I'm not ok with that. Down that road lies the balkanization of the Internet and madness. Of course, this also makes it painfully obvious that the current customer response is completely besides the point. They shouldn't bitch about tiered pricing, bandwidth caps or anything like that, but about the complete lack of competition in the vast majority of the broadband markets. Sadly, I have zero hope for anything changing in that regard.
This is what I get for posting without caffeine. Your point is exactly what I was trying to say - the latest stance that came from the DOJ on the topic of warrantless wiretaps is worse than whatever came from Bush's DOJ. And since Bush got flak for that, it's only fair Obama gets flak for that too. Ergo, Obama managed to out-Bush Bush in this area.
Here's an interesting discussion on whether Obama's gift to the Queen violated the law: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/first-sale-president-obama-and-queen-england. It's an interesting proposition. If he is in RIAA's pockets, would he not be more concerned about illegal distribution of copyrighted works? There are three possibilities here: - he just sucks at gift-giving, and picked up something he had laying around the house. - he wants to give what is most precious to his donors: intellectual property and entertainment. - he wants to put the spotlight on how absurd it is that his gift to the queen is potentially illegal.
Now, granted, the last point is really grasping at straws, and it is highly unlikely that this was a conscious decision.
But really - what if people start to point out that not only was the gift pretty lame, but it might or might not be illegal? Could the RIAA be forced into making a public statement on whether this stuff is legal or illegal? This could be RIAA's biggest marketing fiasco yet....
I'm pretty sure there are incredibly talented lawyers out there who haven't made a living off of suing their customers, lying in court, using fraudulent evidence discovery mechanisms and bad evidence. Like, I don't know, some justice clerk or even a slashdot poster.
I've got to admit, this is one of two areas where Obama is worse than Bush. While he hasn't proven he can out-Bush Bush in this particular area (see warrantless wiretaps and Internet security), he's certainly not deviating either from a course of action that will take him there.
Nevermind - looks like I didn't read the sources close enough. I'm still wondering though how the CIA got its hands on pilots for those things. Yes, you can just hire Air Force pilots, but then - why not just let the Air Force do what it's supposed to do... fly planes?
What? Every source out there lists the SR-71 as a single-seater plane, with a few two-seater planes existing for training purposes. The A-12 was the designation for the CIA version, while SR-71 was the official designation of the final plane. Not to mention that I highly doubt that the CIA actually flew those planes. The SR-71 might have been flying recon for the CIA, but I just don't know many test pilots in the CIA.
To some extent, you're damn right. There's a very fine line between taxing to encourage certain behavior, and taxing to punish people you don't like.
Unfortunately, the only way to get around this issue is to abolish taxes completely. Since that's an impossibility (both for bureaucratic and for survival reasons), we're stuck with trying to walk this fine line.
Oh no, I got it. Obama has no control over state and local taxes. However, he should has specified that when he said "...not ANY of your taxes..." He could have said, "...not any of your FEDERAL taxes." or "not any of your INCOME taxes." He didn't. He said, "not ANY of your taxes".
This is a classic case of a straw man. Pretty much everyone understood the context this was in. Except you decide to remove context, ascribe intent to lack of context, and go on your merry flaming ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, some lawyer needs to justify his retainer and outrageous salary to Taser International. Remember, there's (almost) nothing stopping you from filing a lawsuit just because you feel like it. And quite often, just filing a lawsuit is just like winning one: all it takes is to make contesting the lawsuit more expensive than just caving in.
The simple fact is that TW is trying to protect their Cable TV business by degrading their internet service.
And this is the real reason. Time Warner knows that anyone who downloads 44 GB a week downloads a whole lot of video and entertainment. And because of the likely cable monopoly that is the area, that is money coming directly out of their pocket. So the only logical proposition for them is to terminate heavy users. No matter how much they pay TWC, they will never pay enough to make up both data costs and lost opportunity costs.
Fer fuck's sake, how deeply bought off are politicians that this is in place? This is a classic case of a vertical monopoly abusing its position. Not to mention that it's compounded by the fact that there is at best a limited oligopoly providing internet access.
The reason this development bothers me is that this is actually the most rational approach for a cable provider. This is the future for cable - or for any provider with an existing content delivery arm.
You're right in that a flashpoint will occur, and it is quite possible that it will be Taiwan. However, I'm far more skeptical than most that the US will commit to a full war against China to prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Taiwan is of no strategic interest to the US - there's no lobby that's similar to the Cuban expat lobby, and there are no strategic resources located there. On the one hand, waging war against China will make the current war against Terror look like child's play. On the other hand, even if the US wins, it will be a temporary reprieve in Taiwan's reintegration into China - which the US isn't even disputing.
Right now, all sides are bluffing about Taiwan. I suspect though that the US will fold before China.
Which means that I don't think there's any way to pull China off of Taiwan.
Wow. I rant quite a bit about the threat that China represents, but you certainly take the paranoid cake.
A few issues with your post:
1. China is not an existential threat. That would indeed be the Muslim extremists. You're simply confusing the intent of terrorists with the capability of China.
2. Nuclear boomers are not the solution, and a volley of missiles from them will not terminate the Chinese leadership. Not to mention that it will also mean the end of the US. Remember MAD? Apparently not.
3. Panama owns the Panama Canal. You're referring to the two ports on the exits/entries of the Canal which have been leased to Hutchinson Whampoa. There's a slight, but significant difference there, especially since the US retains the official right to intervene militarily to protect its access to the channel.
4. The treasuries currently bought by the Chinese are their Achilles hill as much as it is ours. How does it go? If you owe a bank 20k, the bank owns you. If you owe a bank 20 million, you own the bank. The comment by the ministry was the sound of a concerned investor: "Please don't fuck with my money."
I find mostly two types of misconceptions about China: either it's a monolithic group of "Reds", with the best of the Cold War rhetoric attached to it. Or it has a master plan to gain world domination, and is deploying it relentlessly.
Both are wrong. China has as many internal issues as any other country, and is subject to all the economic pressures that affect others. The two things that are true are:
1 China thinks longterm. I'm talking decades, centuries.
2 Land and respect is everything.
China can be an issue, and is aggressively pursuing a strategy that will make it the superpower of the world. But that doesn't mean that the only interaction with them will be through nuclear volleys.
Daily traffic for May 6th,2008 at the Suez Canal: http://www.rafimar.com/homepage/suez-traffic/6-5-08.html
You might want to rethink your idea of who benefits the most from the traffic in the area. As for protecting shipping - kinda comes with the territory of having a large navy presence in the area. Not to mention that other countries which have a navy in the area participate as well.
Learn to fill in context: we were talking about who is in charge in the US. Furthermore, US-owned ships had been attacked in the past - just not any that were US-flagged AND US-crewed.
Because the majority of the ships passing through there are doing just that - passing through there. The destination or departure ports are most likely in Europe or even NA and Canada.
Not to mention that Yemen isn't filthy rich.
You mean Bush and Co? Cuz they were the ones who were in charge when Piracy in the Gulf of Aden reached its current level.
No, there's no real point to this post. I just felt like pointing and laughing.
Because for untrained merchant marine people, it is easier to aim a firehose than to shoot to kill.
I don't know if it is so much as an infection as the realization that this approach works. Everybody has looked at how much success the RIAA has had in lobbying for preservation of their business model. And in turn, everyone wants a cut of the piece.
I have to admit, if I were a lawyer at a corporation, I'd look very closely at this avenue to make more money for myself and the company. Granted, I'd have to shoot myself afterwards, and this is one of the reasons why I'm not a lawyer. But you have to admit that "Pay me or get sued" has been a wildly successful business strategy, particularly if any IP is involved.
Did you read the links? Individual taxis drove 100,000, 200,000 and even 250,000 miles individually, with no reported battery issues. Not to mention that even the post you replied to didn't talk about fleet-miles.
Spot on. ITIL is not for the faint of heart, and should be applied appropriately. That said, it provides a ton of useful information about how things should be done. Compare that with what you need, use what makes sense, and move on.
And yes, it sounds more like he's moving on from being a code monkey to actually being responsible for the development lifecycle of a piece of software, so development lead stuff is a good place to start.
Start there. There's a ton of stuff online. If you can get your work to spring for certification, great. If it doesn't, no worries. Project Management is easy. Just keep in mind a few things:
- You need a project schedule with milestones. Live by it. Make others live by it.
- Understand GANTT charts. Don't necessarily use them, but the principles behind are solid.
- Google is your friend. The wikipedia article is actually a good start.
- Above all, understand that this is a team effort. You won't succeed without others. Time to start honing those social skills.
When few people get hurt during wars, wars will become ubiquitous. Remember what happened when tasers were supposed to fix all the problems that came with gun-equipped cops?
Wars are going to become a quick fix solution to a trigger-happy authority with an army of drones.
You're so right. Not to mention that the market is fiercely competitive, and pulls in 6 figures in a week. Whodathunkit?
They do it because the cell phone companies are making money with it. Utilities use metered because electric load is fairly constant and predictable. Even the use of AC is predictable. With a phone though, I can go a month and use about 60 minutes, and then the next one, I can use up 3000 (yay conference calls). I prefer knowing how much I pay ahead of time to getting wildly differing phone bills.
I think you're papering over the real problem. Download caps can be set in such a way that they aren't an issue even to power users. Restrict caps to peak hours. Throttle all bandwidth after cap has been exceeded. Meter bandwidth after cap has been exceeded. All can be done such that even if I happen to download the latest WoW expansion twice (once for Mac, once for PC), watched a few Netflix streaming movies and tried out Ubuntu, Suse and Redhat in a free for all, I don't get royally shafted in my connection availability or pocket book.
What is concerning here is that Time Warner has a huge incentive to drive people to use cable TV to get their video. In other words, I'll be shocked if their implementation of bandwidth caps, throttling and metering is designed in such a way to optimize user experience. What I do expect is that it is optimized to drive the largest possible amount of people to use cable for video and entertainment, and internet for anything else.
I'm not ok with that. Down that road lies the balkanization of the Internet and madness. Of course, this also makes it painfully obvious that the current customer response is completely besides the point. They shouldn't bitch about tiered pricing, bandwidth caps or anything like that, but about the complete lack of competition in the vast majority of the broadband markets. Sadly, I have zero hope for anything changing in that regard.
This is what I get for posting without caffeine. Your point is exactly what I was trying to say - the latest stance that came from the DOJ on the topic of warrantless wiretaps is worse than whatever came from Bush's DOJ. And since Bush got flak for that, it's only fair Obama gets flak for that too. Ergo, Obama managed to out-Bush Bush in this area.
Here's an interesting discussion on whether Obama's gift to the Queen violated the law: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/first-sale-president-obama-and-queen-england. It's an interesting proposition. If he is in RIAA's pockets, would he not be more concerned about illegal distribution of copyrighted works? There are three possibilities here:
- he just sucks at gift-giving, and picked up something he had laying around the house.
- he wants to give what is most precious to his donors: intellectual property and entertainment.
- he wants to put the spotlight on how absurd it is that his gift to the queen is potentially illegal.
Now, granted, the last point is really grasping at straws, and it is highly unlikely that this was a conscious decision.
But really - what if people start to point out that not only was the gift pretty lame, but it might or might not be illegal? Could the RIAA be forced into making a public statement on whether this stuff is legal or illegal? This could be RIAA's biggest marketing fiasco yet....
I'm pretty sure there are incredibly talented lawyers out there who haven't made a living off of suing their customers, lying in court, using fraudulent evidence discovery mechanisms and bad evidence. Like, I don't know, some justice clerk or even a slashdot poster.
I've got to admit, this is one of two areas where Obama is worse than Bush. While he hasn't proven he can out-Bush Bush in this particular area (see warrantless wiretaps and Internet security), he's certainly not deviating either from a course of action that will take him there.
Nevermind - looks like I didn't read the sources close enough. I'm still wondering though how the CIA got its hands on pilots for those things. Yes, you can just hire Air Force pilots, but then - why not just let the Air Force do what it's supposed to do... fly planes?
What? Every source out there lists the SR-71 as a single-seater plane, with a few two-seater planes existing for training purposes. The A-12 was the designation for the CIA version, while SR-71 was the official designation of the final plane. Not to mention that I highly doubt that the CIA actually flew those planes. The SR-71 might have been flying recon for the CIA, but I just don't know many test pilots in the CIA.
I really think your problem is that you can't read. Exhibit 1: I'm not the original poster. Jackass.
To some extent, you're damn right. There's a very fine line between taxing to encourage certain behavior, and taxing to punish people you don't like.
Unfortunately, the only way to get around this issue is to abolish taxes completely. Since that's an impossibility (both for bureaucratic and for survival reasons), we're stuck with trying to walk this fine line.
Oh no, I got it. Obama has no control over state and local taxes. However, he should has specified that when he said "...not ANY of your taxes..." He could have said, "...not any of your FEDERAL taxes." or "not any of your INCOME taxes." He didn't. He said, "not ANY of your taxes".
This is a classic case of a straw man. Pretty much everyone understood the context this was in. Except you decide to remove context, ascribe intent to lack of context, and go on your merry flaming ways.
Nice try.