Please, let's replace "up to" with "at least" in all advertising then everybody will know where they stand.
If an ISP offers "at least" 5 Mbps connection speeds (for example), that means they commit to providing every user with a 24x7, 365 dys a year 5 Mbps connection between their house and... what? The head end office? Any Internet resource anywhere in the world? what? Such a claim would invite lawsuits.
Technically true, but thanks to ads, Javascript libraries, ads, linked fonts, ads, embedded video, ads, animated GIF versions of videos, ads, etc., web page content has bloated, frequently by more than that factor of 45, since the days of 56k, so the effective speed isn't a whole lot faster.
What utter hogwash - you conflate network connection speed with page render time, which is (as you point out) a function of not only connection speed but page content. Would you make the opposite claim that the pure-text web was "faster" on 14,400 baud modems than the "modern" web with larded-up webpages and "up to 25 Mbps" connection speeds?
It's because they think the average Australian can't understand that offering someone "up to 25 Mbps" connection isn't the same thing as offering them a "guaranteed 25 Mbps" connection.
No, it isn't - it clearly states that "X speed" is the maximum possible, it makes no claim about average or minimum speed.
Legend has it that P.T. Barnum had a sign in his "oddities museum" in NYC that promoted the "Egress" with numerous arrows directing museum-goers to see the "Egress", only to have the customer arrive at a door marked "Egress" that was actually the exit. Who's fault was it when the patrons walked out the exit - Barnum clearly indicated what it was, is it his fault his customers didn't know what an "Egress" was?
. "One constituent says he's being charged for a 25 megabit per second download speed and a five megabit per second upload and he's actually getting less than one tenth of that," said Andrew Wilkie, the Member of Parliament who introduced the bill. "In other words, people are getting worse than dial-up speed when they've been promised a whizz-bang, super-fast connection."
When has dial-up ever been 2.5Mbps or even 0.5Mbps? The best dial-up I was ever aware of was 0.056Mbps, AKA 56Kbps.
Why would a taxi driver rent a taxi for 24h when he legally only can drive it 8h a day?
Because no one rents out taxis by 8hour shifts (who'd choose to rent the third shift?), having the cab 24 hours gives the worker the ability to schedule when they work during the 24 hour period, and what law limits a driver to only 8 hours a day?
If they can't offer a job that pays at least minimum wage, they shouldn't be offering it.
Wow, that's kind of an interesting position. That just about kills the so-called 'gig economy' in one fell swoop... There are lots of people feeding and housing their family on jobs that don't guarantee they '(pay) at least minimum wage', and not all are 'gig' jobs - think commission -based jobs, waitress/waiter jobs, etc.
Interesting to note you blamed the Russians, Comey, Fox News, Alt-rightneo-no's, etc, then only at the end of you comment you toss in the 'ohh yeah, she was a sucktacular candidate that would have lost to any of the 16 candidate Trump beat in the 2016 election.'
Bottom line, bad retail politician, no clear message, a new and unique way to manage her campaign- that's why she lost to a candidate nearly as bad as her.
The superdelegates put her on the ballot, her shoddy campaign cost her the election, but yeah 'Comey, Fox News, Russians, etc.'
It's becoming increasingly common that the summaries contradict the headlines here on slashdot, leading the astute reader to question the function so-called editors serve...
First class passengers can board anytime like, those that choose to board first get to watch every other passenger hump their carry on bags long-time to the back of the plane. The few times I've flown first class i boarded last - what's the rush, my state's reserved and I don't do 'carry on'.
My proposal is that only "carry-on" bags go overhead, anything else can be pulled and put under the seat in front of you.
At 2m tall, I check my bag, and only carry a laptop/messenger bag and cost - I need every inch under the seat in front of me for my feet.
I agree with others that wish airlines would enforce carry-on policies, but I think the airlines let most carry-on rules slide because it reduces complaints about checked baggage fees, the most profitable thing they offer.
Pretty certain that IS a standard, at least in the US. I bought a pelican case that was billed as matching airline standard for size, and lo and behold, it slipped right in no problem.
The problem is people find the standard too small, so they get bags they think will fit overhead, then forced the issue.
I was surprised how easy the pelican case slid in to the overhead compartment, and fit perfectly.
Manafort altered that "Word" document by adding more than $3.5 million in income. He then sent this falsified P&L to Gates and asked that the "Word" document be converted back to a.pdf, which Gates did and returned to Manafort.
Manafort didn't know how to turn a word document into a PDF, not the reverse as the headline claims.
Seriously, don't the editors even read the submissions?
That's why I think that the original post "obviously he's being sarcastic." is likely to not be true for a big proportion of potential readers, unable to get the sarcasm without some additional help.
And still, only you, out of the tens of thousands of readers of Slashdot, is holding out the possibility that someone may believe the post wasn't sarcastic, but serious.
BTW, are you getting the irony of me having to explain you what is going on here?
We all noticed you are working very hard to convince us that someone - not you, but someone - might take the comment serious? Imagining someone is more gullible than you, more sexist, more biased than you doesn't make you less gullible, sexist, or less biased.
The "big proportion" you seem to imagine only, apparently, lives in your mind - or are incapable of clicking submit as Anonymous Coward.
You would be surprised about how many people aren't able to properly understand almost any slightly complex idea. Most of them have an internet connection, are quite unaware about their poor understanding skills and, in some cases, "defend" their ridiculous misinterpretations in very aggressive, coward and even obsessive ways.
And yet, only YOU brought it up as even possibly being serious...
They are going to freak out when Trump bans bump stocks.
No, they really aren't - most lawful gun owners are interested in convenient, accurate shooting, not "quickly spraying a room full of bullets" - the purpose of the "bump stock" it the latter, not the former.
The "libtards" tend to be upper income
Question, why is it that California, the Mecca of "Libtards" (your term) has the highest concentration of residents living in poverty? One in five California residents lives in poverty, the highest percentage of any of the fifty states even besting states like Mississippi, Louisiana and West Virginia.
Thank the Democrat's Super Delegate system which all but forced the "Entitled" candidate to win the primaries, denying the Democrat voters their preferred choice in the 2016 Election, Sen. Bernie Sanders. In 2016 the democrats learned the lesson the Republicans mostly learned in 2008 with Sen. McCain (it was his turn, though few Republicans were enthusiastic about him as their candidate), and finally learned in 2012 when the party was divided over the religion of their candidate Gov. Romney - an eminently qualified, successful leader that was openly mocked for correctly identifying "Russia" as the greatest threat to America in the 2012 debates, only to be proven right after the 2016 election.
Hillary ran a new kind of campaign, and in the end her over-confidence had her making what, in hindsight were some poor choices - she focused on fundraisers and massive vote advantage in the final phase of the election in states like California, while ignoring states that she felt confident she would win, only to learn her massive fundraising and popular vote advantage were meaningless when the Electoral Votes were tallied. She went home to walk in the woods, her opponent moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with less money raised and fewer votes cast for him - but those fewer votes were all where they needed to be.
It's the End of Days, queue Mass Hysteria - we'll look back on these days wistfully, with a tear in our eyes for the liberties lost when the FCC stopped it's nearly thousand day watch over a briefly Neutral Net...
Does Trump really believe this latest tax cut won't bankrupt us? Probably not. He has enough experience in business to know what happens when revenues don't match expenditures.
The last time revenues matched expenses was when the Republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich forced President Clinton to agree to welfare reforms after his pizza & BJ party in the Oval Office with a White House intern.
The last administration burned thru $10 Trillion (with a 'T') of new debt over the preceding 8 years, this administration inks a deal that is projected to add $1.5 Trillion to debt over the next ten years and you think *THAT* will "bankrupt us"?
Just because you can imagine that a crime has occurred, doesn't mean you get to breech Executive Privlege and are owed transcripts of communications you only imagine exists.
If the lawyers demanding transcripts of any/all communication between the White House and DOJ had anything stronger than a 'belief' that something illegal 'may' have happened, they might get what they are asking for.
I seem to recall the previous administration refused to share communications between the White House and DOJ regarding the "Fast 'n Furious" gun-running fiasco when Congress asked for it - remember, Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress in that case? I'm sure your outrage then, when people's actual lives were lost, not the prospect of possibly higher cable bills...
But I really, really also don't want a precedent where the President (whether Trump or anyone else) can easily use selective enforcement ofimmigration law for political goals.
n my first attempt I used a metal lockbox lined with tin foil. It wouldn't completely block cell phone signal and it wouldn't completely prevent keyless entry car keys from operating from within lockbox.
What did you think lining a metal box with aluminum foil would do? How much thicker were the sides of the lock box than the foil?
Slashdot Mirror
Please, let's replace "up to" with "at least" in all advertising then everybody will know where they stand.
If an ISP offers "at least" 5 Mbps connection speeds (for example), that means they commit to providing every user with a 24x7, 365 dys a year 5 Mbps connection between their house and... what? The head end office? Any Internet resource anywhere in the world? what? Such a claim would invite lawsuits.
Technically true, but thanks to ads, Javascript libraries, ads, linked fonts, ads, embedded video, ads, animated GIF versions of videos, ads, etc., web page content has bloated, frequently by more than that factor of 45, since the days of 56k, so the effective speed isn't a whole lot faster.
What utter hogwash - you conflate network connection speed with page render time, which is (as you point out) a function of not only connection speed but page content. Would you make the opposite claim that the pure-text web was "faster" on 14,400 baud modems than the "modern" web with larded-up webpages and "up to 25 Mbps" connection speeds?
It's because they think the average Australian can't understand that offering someone "up to 25 Mbps" connection isn't the same thing as offering them a "guaranteed 25 Mbps" connection.
"Up to x speed" is intentionally deceptive.
No, it isn't - it clearly states that "X speed" is the maximum possible, it makes no claim about average or minimum speed.
Legend has it that P.T. Barnum had a sign in his "oddities museum" in NYC that promoted the "Egress" with numerous arrows directing museum-goers to see the "Egress", only to have the customer arrive at a door marked "Egress" that was actually the exit. Who's fault was it when the patrons walked out the exit - Barnum clearly indicated what it was, is it his fault his customers didn't know what an "Egress" was?
. "One constituent says he's being charged for a 25 megabit per second download speed and a five megabit per second upload and he's actually getting less than one tenth of that," said Andrew Wilkie, the Member of Parliament who introduced the bill. "In other words, people are getting worse than dial-up speed when they've been promised a whizz-bang, super-fast connection."
When has dial-up ever been 2.5Mbps or even 0.5Mbps? The best dial-up I was ever aware of was 0.056Mbps, AKA 56Kbps.
Why would a taxi driver rent a taxi for 24h when he legally only can drive it 8h a day?
Because no one rents out taxis by 8hour shifts (who'd choose to rent the third shift?),
having the cab 24 hours gives the worker the ability to schedule when they work during the 24 hour period,
and what law limits a driver to only 8 hours a day?
If they can't offer a job that pays at least minimum wage, they shouldn't be offering it.
Wow, that's kind of an interesting position. That just about kills the so-called 'gig economy' in one fell swoop... There are lots of people feeding and housing their family on jobs that don't guarantee they '(pay) at least minimum wage', and not all are 'gig' jobs - think commission -based jobs, waitress/waiter jobs, etc.
Interesting to note you blamed the Russians, Comey, Fox News, Alt-rightneo-no's, etc, then only at the end of you comment you toss in the 'ohh yeah, she was a sucktacular candidate that would have lost to any of the 16 candidate Trump beat in the 2016 election.'
Bottom line, bad retail politician, no clear message, a new and unique way to manage her campaign- that's why she lost to a candidate nearly as bad as her.
The superdelegates put her on the ballot, her shoddy campaign cost her the election, but yeah 'Comey, Fox News, Russians, etc.'
It's becoming increasingly common that the summaries contradict the headlines here on slashdot, leading the astute reader to question the function so-called editors serve...
First class passengers can board anytime like, those that choose to board first get to watch every other passenger hump their carry on bags long-time to the back of the plane. The few times I've flown first class i boarded last - what's the rush, my state's reserved and I don't do 'carry on'.
We can board in a logical order, and still allow adults flying with small children to board first, along with the elderly and folks in wheelchairs...
My proposal is that only "carry-on" bags go overhead, anything else can be pulled and put under the seat in front of you.
At 2m tall, I check my bag, and only carry a laptop/messenger bag and cost - I need every inch under the seat in front of me for my feet.
I agree with others that wish airlines would enforce carry-on policies, but I think the airlines let most carry-on rules slide because it reduces complaints about checked baggage fees, the most profitable thing they offer.
Pretty certain that IS a standard, at least in the US. I bought a pelican case that was billed as matching airline standard for size, and lo and behold, it slipped right in no problem.
The problem is people find the standard too small, so they get bags they think will fit overhead, then forced the issue.
I was surprised how easy the pelican case slid in to the overhead compartment, and fit perfectly.
Manafort altered that "Word" document by adding more than $3.5 million in income. He then sent this falsified P&L to Gates and asked that the "Word" document be converted back to a .pdf, which Gates did and returned to Manafort.
Manafort didn't know how to turn a word document into a PDF, not the reverse as the headline claims.
Seriously, don't the editors even read the submissions?
That's why I think that the original post "obviously he's being sarcastic." is likely to not be true for a big proportion of potential readers, unable to get the sarcasm without some additional help.
And still, only you, out of the tens of thousands of readers of Slashdot, is holding out the possibility that someone may believe the post wasn't sarcastic, but serious.
BTW, are you getting the irony of me having to explain you what is going on here?
We all noticed you are working very hard to convince us that someone - not you, but someone - might take the comment serious? Imagining someone is more gullible than you, more sexist, more biased than you doesn't make you less gullible, sexist, or less biased.
The "big proportion" you seem to imagine only, apparently, lives in your mind - or are incapable of clicking submit as Anonymous Coward.
You would be surprised about how many people aren't able to properly understand almost any slightly complex idea. Most of them have an internet connection, are quite unaware about their poor understanding skills and, in some cases, "defend" their ridiculous misinterpretations in very aggressive, coward and even obsessive ways.
And yet, only YOU brought it up as even possibly being serious...
They are going to freak out when Trump bans bump stocks.
No, they really aren't - most lawful gun owners are interested in convenient, accurate shooting, not "quickly spraying a room full of bullets" - the purpose of the "bump stock" it the latter, not the former.
The "libtards" tend to be upper income
Question, why is it that California, the Mecca of "Libtards" (your term) has the highest concentration of residents living in poverty? One in five California residents lives in poverty, the highest percentage of any of the fifty states even besting states like Mississippi, Louisiana and West Virginia.
Thank the Democrat's Super Delegate system which all but forced the "Entitled" candidate to win the primaries, denying the Democrat voters their preferred choice in the 2016 Election, Sen. Bernie Sanders. In 2016 the democrats learned the lesson the Republicans mostly learned in 2008 with Sen. McCain (it was his turn, though few Republicans were enthusiastic about him as their candidate), and finally learned in 2012 when the party was divided over the religion of their candidate Gov. Romney - an eminently qualified, successful leader that was openly mocked for correctly identifying "Russia" as the greatest threat to America in the 2012 debates, only to be proven right after the 2016 election.
Hillary ran a new kind of campaign, and in the end her over-confidence had her making what, in hindsight were some poor choices - she focused on fundraisers and massive vote advantage in the final phase of the election in states like California, while ignoring states that she felt confident she would win, only to learn her massive fundraising and popular vote advantage were meaningless when the Electoral Votes were tallied. She went home to walk in the woods, her opponent moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with less money raised and fewer votes cast for him - but those fewer votes were all where they needed to be.
It's the End of Days, queue Mass Hysteria - we'll look back on these days wistfully, with a tear in our eyes for the liberties lost when the FCC stopped it's nearly thousand day watch over a briefly Neutral Net...
Does Trump really believe this latest tax cut won't bankrupt us? Probably not. He has enough experience in business to know what happens when revenues don't match expenditures.
The last time revenues matched expenses was when the Republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich forced President Clinton to agree to welfare reforms after his pizza & BJ party in the Oval Office with a White House intern.
The last administration burned thru $10 Trillion (with a 'T') of new debt over the preceding 8 years, this administration inks a deal that is projected to add $1.5 Trillion to debt over the next ten years and you think *THAT* will "bankrupt us"?
Grow up.
Should I be mad dumbass Trump potentially did something good for a bad reason?
FTFY - there's no evidence of any wrong-doing, just a fantasy some lawyers dreamed up when the merger they wanted to happen didn't...
And have the distinction of being the most-over turned courts in the country!
Just because you can imagine that a crime has occurred, doesn't mean you get to breech Executive Privlege and are owed transcripts of communications you only imagine exists.
If the lawyers demanding transcripts of any/all communication between the White House and DOJ had anything stronger than a 'belief' that something illegal 'may' have happened, they might get what they are asking for.
I seem to recall the previous administration refused to share communications between the White House and DOJ regarding the "Fast 'n Furious" gun-running fiasco when Congress asked for it - remember, Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress in that case? I'm sure your outrage then, when people's actual lives were lost, not the prospect of possibly higher cable bills...
But I really, really also don't want a precedent where the President (whether Trump or anyone else) can easily use selective enforcement ofimmigration law for political goals.
FTFY
n my first attempt I used a metal lockbox lined with tin foil. It wouldn't completely block cell phone signal and it wouldn't completely prevent keyless entry car keys from operating from within lockbox.
What did you think lining a metal box with aluminum foil would do? How much thicker were the sides of the lock box than the foil?