How about split it off and run it solo... That said, have you considered that DT might be interested in having T-Mobile purchased for the terms AT&T offered and is willing to make statements in support of the transaction?
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you must but, I'm getting the idea that there might be some interest in the US not relying upon Russia for crew transport... Russia's space tech might be a bit on the old side, but it has never been known to be unreliable. Now inside of a few short months they've been experiencing some pretty serious problems after going for so very long without any.
We are separating unlimited DVDs by mail and unlimited streaming into two separate plans to better reflect the costs of each. Now our members have a choice: a streaming only plan, a DVD only plan, or both.
Your current $17.99 a month membership for unlimited streaming and unlimited DVDs (including Blu-ray access) will be split into 2 distinct plans:
Plan 1: Unlimited Streaming (no DVDs) for $7.99 a month
Plan 2: Unlimited DVDs (including Blu-ray), 2 out at-a-time (no streaming)
for $14.99 a month
Your price for getting both of these plans will be $22.98 a month ($7.99 + $14.99). You don't need to do anything to continue your memberships for both unlimited streaming and unlimited DVDs.
These prices will start for charges on or after September 1, 2011.
You can easily change or cancel your unlimited streaming plan, unlimited DVD plan, or both, by going to the Plan Change page in Your Account.
We realize you have many choices for home entertainment, and we thank you for your business. As always, if you have questions, please feel free to call us at 1-888-357-1516.
–The Netflix Team
I really don't see how this is patronizing.
"We are separating unlimited DVDs by mail and unlimited streaming into two separate plans to better reflect the costs of each"
It sounds like they're being up front about needing to charge more appropriate amounts for each of the respective kinds of service. Yes it costs a bit more if you liked to do both streaming and discs but they're nothing close to the insulting costs of cable, movie theaters, etc..
As to their streaming service everyone keeps griping about I think it's largely a gripe focused on the lack of "just of the of the theater" releases. That's not Netflix' fault that's the studios, the same studios that are holding back distribution of discs for 90 days after they're released. The only way for Netflix to offer more timely releases would be if they paid the studios more which in turn means charging you more. If you want a "just out" movie go piss $6 on a cable "on-demand" or drive around town trying to find a brick-and-mortar. If you aren't hung up on getting the latest movies Netflix' streaming offering is actually really quite good. I've never seen such an impressive selection of anime, or 1980/90's movies, documentaries, and niche films. Even the stuff from this last decade is rounded out quite nicely with more selections of good things to watch that you'd never have have time to watch them all.
Forgive me if I'm ignorant, I normally do not deal with metric tons and I was using NASA's article as source.
70 metric tons (mT) and will be evolvable to 130 mT
If this is not correct perhaps you should educate NASA and while you're at it let me in on how to properly express 70 metric tons using the abbreviated form.
You didn't read what I said quite right or perhaps I didn't communicate quite clearly enough. I said "vac-tubes to transistor style stuff" as in you can expect newer technology in the same idea as a transistor being newer tech than a vac-tube. I didn't mean to suggest the Saturn V had vac-tubes. I really don't know what I'd expect to find in a Saturn V other than I know vac-tubes were already largely replaced by transistors by then.
Not exactly. The Saturn V and the SLS are rather different. Aside from what should be obviously different--switching from vac-tubes to transistor style stuff--one of the interesting features of the SLS is that unlike the Saturn V it is mission configurable. It is possible to select a set of mission appropriate stages rather than being stuck with one heavy lift configuration. With respect to fuel at least this will make things considerably cheaper. If you aren't lifting 130 mT to Mars but rather 50 mT to LEO you would assemble a considerably smaller (fuel wise) stack.
With this design they're playing some of interesting political games as only engineers could conceive them. First off they're playing to the politicians by enabling them to build out a vehicle that uses those stupid SRBs however with a twist. The SRBs are intended for "initial" development, and the vehicle will initially lift 70 mT and be evolvable to 130 mT. I'm assuming this to mean they've created a design wherein they have paved a path to drop the SRBs in favor of better technology later (probably LOX/RP-1). They're also strapping on the Orion crew capsule--from their last canceled efforts--to the top (and?)/or a cargo module. Ultimately I get the impression they've got in mind goal to build everything according to how the politicians want it and once that's been achieved, incrementally develop what they really wanted/needed "since we've already invested so much in this system...". It's vexing that we've got another 10 year wait (yes I know they claim 2017 launch), but this will be a rather interesting process to watch play out.
Hey it's better than TSA's record. Let them ask the questions "are you a terrorist?", "do you intend to perform acts against the interests of the United States?", etc. while being monitored by this system. It surely beats the voyeurism, and sexual molestation. If they really have to behave as sexual predators let them, but only on those individuals that have first failed the Q&A session.
I for one would like to say "thank you" to Intel. For once you've chosen not to go evil. Hopefully this "federal funding for state adoption of policy" style of coercion will catch on a bit more with respect to freeing up university research from patent encumbrance. Now if only a similar carrot could be invented and dangled in front of the rest of the corporate world. Tax breaks in proportion to the value of openly published not patented R&D...?
Wireless competition is fierce: prices have declined steadily, output is expanding, technological innovation is occurring at an extraordinary pace, and new providers with innovative business models have successfully entered and expanded.
What the kind of upside down, crazy world do they live in? Whose cellular bill has ever declined but by act of the customer switching to a more restrictive plane. What businesses have "successfully" entered and expanded in the market? I keep seeing fewer and fewer choices. We're now down to Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T and they're trying to take T-Mobile off the list. When Verizon gobbles up Sprint and AT&T am I to believe that's competitive and a benefit to consumers also?
There's also the good fun of these contact lists being created on the spot by means of "first entry". If you entered it in wrong the first time there will be a contact entry made with the wrong address. Any future emails will have a far greater chance of auto-correcting to the incorrect address and all it takes is a person not paying attention to send it off as such.
Actually it might be Window's fault for your preconceptions however it isn't for the email. Properly interpreting a noisy communication of an email address would be the responsibility of the email client application not the OS, for the OS has no business dealing with such high level issues.
I don't think that would help much. Prototyping generally wouldn't be a problem unless it's ridiculously expensive to create a prototype. The problem comes from trolls that let other's commercialize obvious ideas that they happened to patent. Trolls do not make serious commercial offerings of products implementing their patents. Kicking the can a bit further down to say "demonstrate a serious commercial offering" creates a mess of ambiguity as well as penalization of honest companies/individuals that weren't able to make a commercial go of an invention. The fees in any case would doubtlessly not be much of a hindrance to trolls.
Patents are being treated as financial instruments much like stocks, options, etc.. It was inevitable really and there isn't a whole lot that can be done about it except to erode the value of patents since abolishment will certainly never succeed. The most direct path would be to decrease their lifespan. Certainly 20 years today isn't the same as 20 years when patents were first conceived anyway. The velocity of product life-cycles is dramatically faster now than they were in the age of the horse and buggy. Innovation is demanded at a far greater pace but we are still forced to drag the burden of ideas from an archaic age. No one honestly believes that innovation would come to a crashing halt without the protections of patents. Many are coming to believe in quite the opposite. This is especially true in today's global economy where companies are not content with local markets and where patents do nothing to protect a company from competition overseas. Patents have become nothing more than the instrument of local turf wars while the world marches on and companies in patent respecting countries fall behind.
I "think" I'd take the magnet to my head over the present virtual strip search and/or the very not-virtual sexual molestation. I feel like I'm playing a game of Russian roulette when I take my wife on vacation. So far she's in the dark about what the scanners are capable of seeing, however, I dread certain that if she's ever given the rub-down one of us will be going to jail.
Hopefully getting their control channel hammered with SMS noise will induce them to offer some sort of reasonably priced modest-speed data mechanism that isn't a horrible pile of hack...
Throwback as in "get off my lawn" and yes, I'd consider that negative. If I were to call someone or something a throwback I'd be speaking in a derogatory fashion of something old, unpolished, unrefined from lack of iterative evolutionary steps. A model T might be "interesting" for it's own sake as a throwback, but it certainly cannot measure up to even the cheapest and crappiest of modern passenger cars for safe, reliable, comfortable transportation.
I am not certain what your experience level was when you first started your "dive" but the author appears to be more or less a complete and total newb. He's taken a few classes, probably has a reasonable albeit basic grasp on C++, data structures, etc. but no practical experience with anything, just coursework. You also had someone that apparently mentored you to a certain extent. This suggestion was for "learning" while gratifying oneself with playing with actual code. A few posts down I discuss how to break into a larger project and be a meaningful contributor.
If you want to really help start with QA testing and filing bug reports. Graduate to identifying the bug in code (and reporting your findings). Graduate from that to actually fixing these bugs and submitting the fix. Not only will you be helping the project but in the process you will be making connections and establishing yourself with the development team. Very few groups will give you the time of day if one day you--a total unknown--just happen by and drop a bunch of code in their lap.
The more lines of code the more difficult to get started as a general rule. Just find a small library that provides support for something you have an interest in. Tinker with it.
If they're finally starting to build up then they will probably need to start looking at ways to transport heat out the sides as well as the top of the die. I wonder if they'll be able to reduce the power requirements though by creating shorter "vertical" paths to the next plane instead of making so many longer cross-die journeys.
This stuff has been thoroughly documented in sci-fi books dating back several decades. I think the USPTO just give a free pass to anyone of particular note anymore without even examining the patent application. This crap is getting as ridiculous as trademarks that just slapping a damn "e" or an "i" in front of common nouns all of a sudden makes you special. I wish someone would invent a cure for lawyers.
The whole bloody thing isn't worth considering if they're only offering it on the 8-series. I'm a software engineer, not a CEO. Modulated indeed, I'll just build my own and save myself a mortgage.
These lawsuits look good to the shareholders. They short circuit their critical thinking skills in very much the same way gambling does. Indeed these lawsuits are just that, corporate gambling with potentially massive payouts.
It is neither my responsibility to provide evidence nor my intention to suggest their business would result in "public good." It was the responsibility of the company to provide a case for the public good to the government sponsoring the loan guarantees. It was the government's responsibility to accept or reject that evidence on behalf of the public for whom they represent. If you do not believe the government is rightly deciding what is and is not in the interest of the public good then you may wish to explain your rationale to your government.
Except that computers were never really more than the postulations of university types until their true start began during WWII where they were researched and developed to help break Nazi communications. Computers remained primarily government pet research projects well into the 1960s. The technology wasn't purchased by and for use in the commercial world until several decades after research began. Bill Gate didn't come onto the scene for several decades more, and long after the technology had been matured by companies such as AT&T and IBM.
Ford was a late-comer to the technology with many hobbyists already producing early versions for a few decades. Ford's largest contribution was a rethinking of the manufacturing process which saw a reorganization of how labor was utilized. The automobile in and of itself was an incremental improvement/combination of other technologies including the locomotive, steam power farm equipment, and horse drawn carriage. The modern cotton gin was also an incremental improvement on an idea that had begun back in the 5th century AD.
The evidence you cite does not demonstrate a paradigm shift in technology, rather a paradigm shift resultant from the utilization and further development of existing technologies. The paradigm shifts that I am speaking of relate directly to the technology itself. I'm speaking of completely new ways of doing things. For instance, take electric power. Such a shift would be replacing a coal furnace with nuclear fission. Developing orbital launch capabilities. Developing the technology that eventually evolved into what we now call the Internet. In particular and especially with emphasis on those technologies that do not have a clear business case. These technologies may have no immediate practical application in the everyday world such as was the case originally with computers, or may not have a near term, if any, economic benefit (read profit) at all but have an environmental or societal benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
How about split it off and run it solo... That said, have you considered that DT might be interested in having T-Mobile purchased for the terms AT&T offered and is willing to make statements in support of the transaction?
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you must but, I'm getting the idea that there might be some interest in the US not relying upon Russia for crew transport... Russia's space tech might be a bit on the old side, but it has never been known to be unreliable. Now inside of a few short months they've been experiencing some pretty serious problems after going for so very long without any.
Dear xxxx,
We are separating unlimited DVDs by mail and unlimited streaming into two separate plans to better reflect the costs of each. Now our members have a choice: a streaming only plan, a DVD only plan, or both.
Your current $17.99 a month membership for unlimited streaming and unlimited DVDs (including Blu-ray access) will be split into 2 distinct plans:
Plan 1: Unlimited Streaming (no DVDs) for $7.99 a month
Plan 2: Unlimited DVDs (including Blu-ray), 2 out at-a-time (no streaming) for $14.99 a month
Your price for getting both of these plans will be $22.98 a month ($7.99 + $14.99). You don't need to do anything to continue your memberships for both unlimited streaming and unlimited DVDs.
These prices will start for charges on or after September 1, 2011.
You can easily change or cancel your unlimited streaming plan, unlimited DVD plan, or both, by going to the Plan Change page in Your Account.
We realize you have many choices for home entertainment, and we thank you for your business. As always, if you have questions, please feel free to call us at 1-888-357-1516.
–The Netflix Team
I really don't see how this is patronizing.
"We are separating unlimited DVDs by mail and unlimited streaming into two separate plans to better reflect the costs of each"
It sounds like they're being up front about needing to charge more appropriate amounts for each of the respective kinds of service. Yes it costs a bit more if you liked to do both streaming and discs but they're nothing close to the insulting costs of cable, movie theaters, etc..
As to their streaming service everyone keeps griping about I think it's largely a gripe focused on the lack of "just of the of the theater" releases. That's not Netflix' fault that's the studios, the same studios that are holding back distribution of discs for 90 days after they're released. The only way for Netflix to offer more timely releases would be if they paid the studios more which in turn means charging you more. If you want a "just out" movie go piss $6 on a cable "on-demand" or drive around town trying to find a brick-and-mortar. If you aren't hung up on getting the latest movies Netflix' streaming offering is actually really quite good. I've never seen such an impressive selection of anime, or 1980/90's movies, documentaries, and niche films. Even the stuff from this last decade is rounded out quite nicely with more selections of good things to watch that you'd never have have time to watch them all.
Forgive me if I'm ignorant, I normally do not deal with metric tons and I was using NASA's article as source.
70 metric tons (mT) and will be evolvable to 130 mT
If this is not correct perhaps you should educate NASA and while you're at it let me in on how to properly express 70 metric tons using the abbreviated form.
You didn't read what I said quite right or perhaps I didn't communicate quite clearly enough. I said "vac-tubes to transistor style stuff" as in you can expect newer technology in the same idea as a transistor being newer tech than a vac-tube. I didn't mean to suggest the Saturn V had vac-tubes. I really don't know what I'd expect to find in a Saturn V other than I know vac-tubes were already largely replaced by transistors by then.
Not exactly. The Saturn V and the SLS are rather different. Aside from what should be obviously different--switching from vac-tubes to transistor style stuff--one of the interesting features of the SLS is that unlike the Saturn V it is mission configurable. It is possible to select a set of mission appropriate stages rather than being stuck with one heavy lift configuration. With respect to fuel at least this will make things considerably cheaper. If you aren't lifting 130 mT to Mars but rather 50 mT to LEO you would assemble a considerably smaller (fuel wise) stack.
With this design they're playing some of interesting political games as only engineers could conceive them. First off they're playing to the politicians by enabling them to build out a vehicle that uses those stupid SRBs however with a twist. The SRBs are intended for "initial" development, and the vehicle will initially lift 70 mT and be evolvable to 130 mT. I'm assuming this to mean they've created a design wherein they have paved a path to drop the SRBs in favor of better technology later (probably LOX/RP-1). They're also strapping on the Orion crew capsule--from their last canceled efforts--to the top (and?)/or a cargo module. Ultimately I get the impression they've got in mind goal to build everything according to how the politicians want it and once that's been achieved, incrementally develop what they really wanted/needed "since we've already invested so much in this system...". It's vexing that we've got another 10 year wait (yes I know they claim 2017 launch), but this will be a rather interesting process to watch play out.
Hey it's better than TSA's record. Let them ask the questions "are you a terrorist?", "do you intend to perform acts against the interests of the United States?", etc. while being monitored by this system. It surely beats the voyeurism, and sexual molestation. If they really have to behave as sexual predators let them, but only on those individuals that have first failed the Q&A session.
I for one would like to say "thank you" to Intel. For once you've chosen not to go evil. Hopefully this "federal funding for state adoption of policy" style of coercion will catch on a bit more with respect to freeing up university research from patent encumbrance. Now if only a similar carrot could be invented and dangled in front of the rest of the corporate world. Tax breaks in proportion to the value of openly published not patented R&D...?
Wireless competition is fierce: prices have declined steadily, output is expanding, technological innovation is occurring at an extraordinary pace, and new providers with innovative business models have successfully entered and expanded.
What the kind of upside down, crazy world do they live in? Whose cellular bill has ever declined but by act of the customer switching to a more restrictive plane. What businesses have "successfully" entered and expanded in the market? I keep seeing fewer and fewer choices. We're now down to Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T and they're trying to take T-Mobile off the list. When Verizon gobbles up Sprint and AT&T am I to believe that's competitive and a benefit to consumers also?
There's also the good fun of these contact lists being created on the spot by means of "first entry". If you entered it in wrong the first time there will be a contact entry made with the wrong address. Any future emails will have a far greater chance of auto-correcting to the incorrect address and all it takes is a person not paying attention to send it off as such.
Actually it might be Window's fault for your preconceptions however it isn't for the email. Properly interpreting a noisy communication of an email address would be the responsibility of the email client application not the OS, for the OS has no business dealing with such high level issues.
I don't think that would help much. Prototyping generally wouldn't be a problem unless it's ridiculously expensive to create a prototype. The problem comes from trolls that let other's commercialize obvious ideas that they happened to patent. Trolls do not make serious commercial offerings of products implementing their patents. Kicking the can a bit further down to say "demonstrate a serious commercial offering" creates a mess of ambiguity as well as penalization of honest companies/individuals that weren't able to make a commercial go of an invention. The fees in any case would doubtlessly not be much of a hindrance to trolls.
Patents are being treated as financial instruments much like stocks, options, etc.. It was inevitable really and there isn't a whole lot that can be done about it except to erode the value of patents since abolishment will certainly never succeed. The most direct path would be to decrease their lifespan. Certainly 20 years today isn't the same as 20 years when patents were first conceived anyway. The velocity of product life-cycles is dramatically faster now than they were in the age of the horse and buggy. Innovation is demanded at a far greater pace but we are still forced to drag the burden of ideas from an archaic age. No one honestly believes that innovation would come to a crashing halt without the protections of patents. Many are coming to believe in quite the opposite. This is especially true in today's global economy where companies are not content with local markets and where patents do nothing to protect a company from competition overseas. Patents have become nothing more than the instrument of local turf wars while the world marches on and companies in patent respecting countries fall behind.
I "think" I'd take the magnet to my head over the present virtual strip search and/or the very not-virtual sexual molestation. I feel like I'm playing a game of Russian roulette when I take my wife on vacation. So far she's in the dark about what the scanners are capable of seeing, however, I dread certain that if she's ever given the rub-down one of us will be going to jail.
Hopefully getting their control channel hammered with SMS noise will induce them to offer some sort of reasonably priced modest-speed data mechanism that isn't a horrible pile of hack...
You must be new here.
Throwback as in "get off my lawn" and yes, I'd consider that negative. If I were to call someone or something a throwback I'd be speaking in a derogatory fashion of something old, unpolished, unrefined from lack of iterative evolutionary steps. A model T might be "interesting" for it's own sake as a throwback, but it certainly cannot measure up to even the cheapest and crappiest of modern passenger cars for safe, reliable, comfortable transportation.
I am not certain what your experience level was when you first started your "dive" but the author appears to be more or less a complete and total newb. He's taken a few classes, probably has a reasonable albeit basic grasp on C++, data structures, etc. but no practical experience with anything, just coursework. You also had someone that apparently mentored you to a certain extent. This suggestion was for "learning" while gratifying oneself with playing with actual code. A few posts down I discuss how to break into a larger project and be a meaningful contributor.
If you want to really help start with QA testing and filing bug reports. Graduate to identifying the bug in code (and reporting your findings). Graduate from that to actually fixing these bugs and submitting the fix. Not only will you be helping the project but in the process you will be making connections and establishing yourself with the development team. Very few groups will give you the time of day if one day you--a total unknown--just happen by and drop a bunch of code in their lap.
The more lines of code the more difficult to get started as a general rule. Just find a small library that provides support for something you have an interest in. Tinker with it.
If they're finally starting to build up then they will probably need to start looking at ways to transport heat out the sides as well as the top of the die. I wonder if they'll be able to reduce the power requirements though by creating shorter "vertical" paths to the next plane instead of making so many longer cross-die journeys.
Do you now have to pay a nice fee to Bill Gates and his friends?
Yes.
That seems a little unfair to me.
Welcome to intellectual property law and the lawyers that exploit it.
This stuff has been thoroughly documented in sci-fi books dating back several decades. I think the USPTO just give a free pass to anyone of particular note anymore without even examining the patent application. This crap is getting as ridiculous as trademarks that just slapping a damn "e" or an "i" in front of common nouns all of a sudden makes you special. I wish someone would invent a cure for lawyers.
The whole bloody thing isn't worth considering if they're only offering it on the 8-series. I'm a software engineer, not a CEO. Modulated indeed, I'll just build my own and save myself a mortgage.
These lawsuits look good to the shareholders. They short circuit their critical thinking skills in very much the same way gambling does. Indeed these lawsuits are just that, corporate gambling with potentially massive payouts.
It is neither my responsibility to provide evidence nor my intention to suggest their business would result in "public good." It was the responsibility of the company to provide a case for the public good to the government sponsoring the loan guarantees. It was the government's responsibility to accept or reject that evidence on behalf of the public for whom they represent. If you do not believe the government is rightly deciding what is and is not in the interest of the public good then you may wish to explain your rationale to your government.
Except that computers were never really more than the postulations of university types until their true start began during WWII where they were researched and developed to help break Nazi communications. Computers remained primarily government pet research projects well into the 1960s. The technology wasn't purchased by and for use in the commercial world until several decades after research began. Bill Gate didn't come onto the scene for several decades more, and long after the technology had been matured by companies such as AT&T and IBM.
Ford was a late-comer to the technology with many hobbyists already producing early versions for a few decades. Ford's largest contribution was a rethinking of the manufacturing process which saw a reorganization of how labor was utilized. The automobile in and of itself was an incremental improvement/combination of other technologies including the locomotive, steam power farm equipment, and horse drawn carriage. The modern cotton gin was also an incremental improvement on an idea that had begun back in the 5th century AD.
The evidence you cite does not demonstrate a paradigm shift in technology, rather a paradigm shift resultant from the utilization and further development of existing technologies. The paradigm shifts that I am speaking of relate directly to the technology itself. I'm speaking of completely new ways of doing things. For instance, take electric power. Such a shift would be replacing a coal furnace with nuclear fission. Developing orbital launch capabilities. Developing the technology that eventually evolved into what we now call the Internet. In particular and especially with emphasis on those technologies that do not have a clear business case. These technologies may have no immediate practical application in the everyday world such as was the case originally with computers, or may not have a near term, if any, economic benefit (read profit) at all but have an environmental or societal benefit.