Having worked in physics research, yes, a simple fusion technology would probably get very good marks and a lot of enthusiasm.
It should also be noted that 'cold fusion' did not work. It was not an issue of scaling, it was an issue of not actually creating a fusion reaction. There are still quite a few die hards around and there was some interesting offshoot work for creating neutron sources for medical work, but as a power source it was abandoned because it never existed in the first place.
Though even with automated testing, we still do not 'know'. Striving for perfection is something worth doing, but believing perfection is possible is not.
I don't know, I have had to listen to a lot of bitching and moaning when a server takes 'too long' to reboot, at least from the people trying to use the service on it. This can esp be an issue when you have to do a rolling reboot of a bunch of servers with interconnected services.
Eh, it does not help that when people are paying attention to serious stuff, what to do about issues (or if something even is an issue) is often hotly contested. As a population we can not even agree what 'good' and 'bad' outcomes are, much less how to arrive at them.
Google Fiber is unlikely to cover all that much actual territory, and it is not going to cut into Comcast's space enough to really change their situation. As for the rest of those, those uses are exactly why the prediction is probably not off, those are things that Comcast wants to stop and this would be a way to hurt those other companies.
Thing is, Comcast is so insanely profitable they have no need to 'recoup their revenue'. They do not have some magic entitlement to such profits, esp when they get them in part by promising service levels they can not actually provide.
Yes, but media companies and telcos have lobbying power well beyond what Microsoft could muster, and the current political climate is hostile to taking on monopolies because 'the market knows best'. There is also a school of thought (I am curious what blogger or author started it, but it seems to have really taken off) that monopolies only exist because of government and thus if you want to prevent monopolies all you have to do is remove regulations.
So yes, these ISPs are acting with monopolistic behavior but got themselves classified out of the rules that would handle their case, but it is unlikely they will actually be charged or broken up.
When I canceled my Comcast subscription due to the cap, the person handling the call explicitly told me there was no legitimate reason for that kind of usage so I must be a pirate. When I tried to politely explain that my Netflix usage exceeded that, I was again told there was not legitimate reason for the kind of usage.
More like 'You only want our ISP service and not cable TV? Well, not only are we going to charge the company that you do get your videos from, but we are going to charge you extra for delivering them. Oh hey, notice how much cheaper OUR video service is, are you sure you don't want it instead?'
That tends to be one of the problems with a lot of the conspiracy theory and alternative tech people, they take a nugget of something real and stretch it to illogical extremes.
Which is probably one of the reasons so few people used it. Their target audience was already ok with their normal 'post where you are' application, but this probably went a bit too far even for that 'privacy is wrong' crowd.
If these companies can not handle regulation, then others will step in.
While people often talk about 'free markets' and 'regulations' like they are opposites, they really are not on the same scale. If a company can not adjust to regulation, then it probably can not adjust to shifts in market demand, supply chain changes, or price fluctuations.
If these big ISPs can not adapt, then they will die.
While swiping a credit card has risks associated with it, the transaction is generally backed up by one's issuing bank, thus if someone does screw you over, you have essentially a line of insurance to protect you. Most of the time you can get the full amount back.
Well, their idea was that buying and selling should be more 'social', so it was not just 'pay by phone', it was your phone announces to the store that you are in it and you tell the cashier who you are, they compare you to a photo, and deduct the money. The designer waxed poetically about bringing personal connections back to transactions, which means they probably think well of expensive boutique stores where you pay a premium for 'authenticity' or such.
Thus the benefit was never really economic or even connivence other then trying to build a technological version of walking into a place where the owner knows you by face and can charge your tab.
Meh, I have found all those tests really show is how often they have heard that particular problem or how well they remember that particular pattern. Thus it is more or less a roll of the dice.
Slashdot Mirror
Having worked in physics research, yes, a simple fusion technology would probably get very good marks and a lot of enthusiasm.
It should also be noted that 'cold fusion' did not work. It was not an issue of scaling, it was an issue of not actually creating a fusion reaction. There are still quite a few die hards around and there was some interesting offshoot work for creating neutron sources for medical work, but as a power source it was abandoned because it never existed in the first place.
Though even with automated testing, we still do not 'know'. Striving for perfection is something worth doing, but believing perfection is possible is not.
See this is where the summary should be updated to reflect this.
Well, we already have a hiring and promotion process in corporate culture that favors less qualified people who happen to be men.
Difficult yes, but it would be a solution to issues like this.
I don't know, I have had to listen to a lot of bitching and moaning when a server takes 'too long' to reboot, at least from the people trying to use the service on it. This can esp be an issue when you have to do a rolling reboot of a bunch of servers with interconnected services.
This exactly. And one of them is 'stay at home' who likes running the TV while doing other things.
Eh, it does not help that when people are paying attention to serious stuff, what to do about issues (or if something even is an issue) is often hotly contested. As a population we can not even agree what 'good' and 'bad' outcomes are, much less how to arrive at them.
If it did, then that was a bug. At least in terms of cable box usage (including cloud DVR), those features are not supposed to count towards your cap.
Google Fiber is unlikely to cover all that much actual territory, and it is not going to cut into Comcast's space enough to really change their situation. As for the rest of those, those uses are exactly why the prediction is probably not off, those are things that Comcast wants to stop and this would be a way to hurt those other companies.
Thing is, Comcast is so insanely profitable they have no need to 'recoup their revenue'. They do not have some magic entitlement to such profits, esp when they get them in part by promising service levels they can not actually provide.
Yes, but media companies and telcos have lobbying power well beyond what Microsoft could muster, and the current political climate is hostile to taking on monopolies because 'the market knows best'. There is also a school of thought (I am curious what blogger or author started it, but it seems to have really taken off) that monopolies only exist because of government and thus if you want to prevent monopolies all you have to do is remove regulations.
So yes, these ISPs are acting with monopolistic behavior but got themselves classified out of the rules that would handle their case, but it is unlikely they will actually be charged or broken up.
When I canceled my Comcast subscription due to the cap, the person handling the call explicitly told me there was no legitimate reason for that kind of usage so I must be a pirate. When I tried to politely explain that my Netflix usage exceeded that, I was again told there was not legitimate reason for the kind of usage.
More like 'You only want our ISP service and not cable TV? Well, not only are we going to charge the company that you do get your videos from, but we are going to charge you extra for delivering them. Oh hey, notice how much cheaper OUR video service is, are you sure you don't want it instead?'
Well, NASA never did, but after we invaded iraq to gain back control of the stargate there we can start shifting things to the moon that way.
Humans are incapable of accomplishing anything, but there is plenty of alien tech to make up for our scientific incompetence.
Eh, that would cut into the coke and hooker parties for the marketing staff.
That tends to be one of the problems with a lot of the conspiracy theory and alternative tech people, they take a nugget of something real and stretch it to illogical extremes.
Oh that is easy, they will simply claim that HAARP was never dismantled, it was just moved to a dark site, or the moon.
Which is probably one of the reasons so few people used it. Their target audience was already ok with their normal 'post where you are' application, but this probably went a bit too far even for that 'privacy is wrong' crowd.
If these companies can not handle regulation, then others will step in.
While people often talk about 'free markets' and 'regulations' like they are opposites, they really are not on the same scale. If a company can not adjust to regulation, then it probably can not adjust to shifts in market demand, supply chain changes, or price fluctuations.
If these big ISPs can not adapt, then they will die.
While swiping a credit card has risks associated with it, the transaction is generally backed up by one's issuing bank, thus if someone does screw you over, you have essentially a line of insurance to protect you. Most of the time you can get the full amount back.
Well, their idea was that buying and selling should be more 'social', so it was not just 'pay by phone', it was your phone announces to the store that you are in it and you tell the cashier who you are, they compare you to a photo, and deduct the money. The designer waxed poetically about bringing personal connections back to transactions, which means they probably think well of expensive boutique stores where you pay a premium for 'authenticity' or such.
Thus the benefit was never really economic or even connivence other then trying to build a technological version of walking into a place where the owner knows you by face and can charge your tab.
Will it help?
On the other hand, people usually take pundit's words for something not being a 'good value'.
Meh, I have found all those tests really show is how often they have heard that particular problem or how well they remember that particular pattern. Thus it is more or less a roll of the dice.