Until I repurposed it, I was using my first generation G4 mac-mini + VLC for this just fine. 16GB SSD, videos stored on a NAS, quite, cheap, works like a charm.
But yeah, that does require going the 'used' route.
Well, the OP seems to be having a problem with it. Media streaming is kinda in an in between point right now, lots of solutions for people who like to tinker, and some good solutions for people who just want to pay for a centrally administered service. The stuff in between however is rather spotty and while every project and company likes to claim how easy and effective their solution is, sorting through the claims and finding one that gets the specific use case done with minimal hassle is non trivial.
Maybe they were given out dated documents from back when DSL providers were required to allow other ISPs on their lines and consumers had a rich selection of choices?
The administration is too weak and fragmented to push simple legislation through, anything they do is going to be heavy on horse trading and bickering.
I would rather be able to choose my ISP from a rich selection of carriers and not have other ISPs (or my own) interfere with my communicating with businesses.
Although within the arts we are already seeing a market collapse of sorts. In the past media was pretty local in nature, you had local writers and local stars, big by local standards but small by global ones. Now we have an increasingly small number of national or global level stars that everyone focuses on. There is less and less room for medium ones.
It would require a massive rethinking of economics, which to date I have not seen any viable models for how this might look. Even if we take the 'well, everyone will just live in luxury with robot slaves' approach, the buying power of the consumer class is pretty much wiped out.
Which is one of the big problems with these shifts. If enough people are out of work or have their income cut enough, it starts eroding the market from the bottom up. All those fancy new computer generated or machine built widgets need people buying them, and if not enough people are buying then you need even fewer people working the middle class jobs, rinse lather repeat.
Given how much anti-education rhetoric combined with fads and agism I see in technology, it seems like tech is worse then most fields about reinventing the past. There seems to be an almost pathological desire to not acknowledge when something is a revisit of an older idea. Maybe too much ego wrapped up in being original?
It looks more like a domain specific language with a propriety tool/library of some type. Anything that can, as they claim, reduce 500 lines of code into 5 lines probably is not terribly general purpose. It looks like it is just a rebranding of event driven programming only done in their own tool rather then a standard language, probably doing a few things automagically and a whole bunch of stuff badly.
And that is why it is unlikely there will be some big (or slow) revolution to go cash based. All the methods of handling your money have advantages, disadvantages, emotional attachments, and probabilities associated with them, with each person or demographic group weighing them differently.
Generally teachers are paid whatever is a bit lower then the average tax payer for their area. Voters get surprisingly upset when teachers make more then they do.
That cuts to one of the hearts of the issue, are we optimizing for the best people getting the best education, or the getting the best education for the largest group of people we can? The two are not mutually exclusive but they do represent two distinct educational philosophies (not to mention economic theories since the former has ties to supply side economics and the later demand side). Thus 'should' is pretty subjective.
Some people are philosophically against inflation in general, there are also those that believe any planning or manipulation by regulators is inherently bad regardless of the outcome. There are all sorts of pop-economic arguments against quantitative easing, but their root tends to be mostly philosophical in nature.
Not the only cause no, but a cause that such configuring could cause. While I guess it is possible someone could configure their car in ultra-safe mode where it would break far quicker then it needs to, I suspect the number of people who go with a 'screw everyone else, i am in a hurry' one would be far more numerous.
And, from the original debates, all the 'well of COURSE we didn't mean XYZ!. It should not be surprising that there was so much argument, for instance, about what a 'real' religion was since those were protected while 'fake' ones were not... or who counted as a 'person' ('men' and 'man' were the stand ins for 'person' because non-males legally were not, and thus THEY were only covered by property laws, not constitutional protections).
As long as we have had a constitution, people have been saying pretty much the same thing. People tend to forget that we have always had problems with the separation of powers and how to implement the constitution.... and in pretty much every decade you get people talking about how in the past it was respected but today it isn't. Crow, you see such arguments even in the 19th century.
Yeah, but even then it was not a blanket protection against things like libel, slander, fraud, etc. If someone suspects their competition of planting false stories about them, they have always had tools to try to look into it. The question will be, how will this get balanced.
*nod* I could see the liability resting on your insurance carrier, then premiums being based off the model of car, version of software, or configuration.
Though I wonder how long it would take before marketers started allowing for customized driving parameters.
One of the major problems with current traffic flows is it only takes a few aggressive drivers who get minor advantages to slow everything down. There are enough people who, when presented with "you can get there in 8 minutes but everyone else will take 12 or everyone including you can take 10 minutes, but for each person who chooses 8 minutes everyone, including them, will take one minute longer' will take the 8 minute option.
So I could, sadly, see a future were we end up with the exact same traffic problems due to people being able to set how selfish they want their auto-car to be, resulting in the same general slowdown selfish human drivers produce.
Well, if exchanges become untrustworthy then people will just use other ones. Kinda like how no one uses paypal anymore because of their known issues with corruption and walking off with people's money without recourse against them. See? The market fixes everything!
Slashdot Mirror
Until I repurposed it, I was using my first generation G4 mac-mini + VLC for this just fine. 16GB SSD, videos stored on a NAS, quite, cheap, works like a charm.
But yeah, that does require going the 'used' route.
Well, the OP seems to be having a problem with it. Media streaming is kinda in an in between point right now, lots of solutions for people who like to tinker, and some good solutions for people who just want to pay for a centrally administered service. The stuff in between however is rather spotty and while every project and company likes to claim how easy and effective their solution is, sorting through the claims and finding one that gets the specific use case done with minimal hassle is non trivial.
Pity they end up being pretty much the same thing.
Maybe they were given out dated documents from back when DSL providers were required to allow other ISPs on their lines and consumers had a rich selection of choices?
The administration is too weak and fragmented to push simple legislation through, anything they do is going to be heavy on horse trading and bickering.
I would rather be able to choose my ISP from a rich selection of carriers and not have other ISPs (or my own) interfere with my communicating with businesses.
That is a good question. From what I gather, who counts as a 'Common Carrier' does not require legislative changes, courts and regulators define it.
Although within the arts we are already seeing a market collapse of sorts. In the past media was pretty local in nature, you had local writers and local stars, big by local standards but small by global ones. Now we have an increasingly small number of national or global level stars that everyone focuses on. There is less and less room for medium ones.
It would require a massive rethinking of economics, which to date I have not seen any viable models for how this might look. Even if we take the 'well, everyone will just live in luxury with robot slaves' approach, the buying power of the consumer class is pretty much wiped out.
Which is one of the big problems with these shifts. If enough people are out of work or have their income cut enough, it starts eroding the market from the bottom up. All those fancy new computer generated or machine built widgets need people buying them, and if not enough people are buying then you need even fewer people working the middle class jobs, rinse lather repeat.
Given how much anti-education rhetoric combined with fads and agism I see in technology, it seems like tech is worse then most fields about reinventing the past. There seems to be an almost pathological desire to not acknowledge when something is a revisit of an older idea. Maybe too much ego wrapped up in being original?
It looks more like a domain specific language with a propriety tool/library of some type. Anything that can, as they claim, reduce 500 lines of code into 5 lines probably is not terribly general purpose. It looks like it is just a rebranding of event driven programming only done in their own tool rather then a standard language, probably doing a few things automagically and a whole bunch of stuff badly.
And that is why it is unlikely there will be some big (or slow) revolution to go cash based. All the methods of handling your money have advantages, disadvantages, emotional attachments, and probabilities associated with them, with each person or demographic group weighing them differently.
Generally teachers are paid whatever is a bit lower then the average tax payer for their area. Voters get surprisingly upset when teachers make more then they do.
That cuts to one of the hearts of the issue, are we optimizing for the best people getting the best education, or the getting the best education for the largest group of people we can? The two are not mutually exclusive but they do represent two distinct educational philosophies (not to mention economic theories since the former has ties to supply side economics and the later demand side). Thus 'should' is pretty subjective.
Heh. Welcome to game theory.... smart is actually usually pretty irrational and tends to be punished.
Some people are philosophically against inflation in general, there are also those that believe any planning or manipulation by regulators is inherently bad regardless of the outcome. There are all sorts of pop-economic arguments against quantitative easing, but their root tends to be mostly philosophical in nature.
Not the only cause no, but a cause that such configuring could cause. While I guess it is possible someone could configure their car in ultra-safe mode where it would break far quicker then it needs to, I suspect the number of people who go with a 'screw everyone else, i am in a hurry' one would be far more numerous.
And think how rarely people think of themselves as 'unskilled drivers'.
And, from the original debates, all the 'well of COURSE we didn't mean XYZ!. It should not be surprising that there was so much argument, for instance, about what a 'real' religion was since those were protected while 'fake' ones were not... or who counted as a 'person' ('men' and 'man' were the stand ins for 'person' because non-males legally were not, and thus THEY were only covered by property laws, not constitutional protections).
As long as we have had a constitution, people have been saying pretty much the same thing. People tend to forget that we have always had problems with the separation of powers and how to implement the constitution.... and in pretty much every decade you get people talking about how in the past it was respected but today it isn't. Crow, you see such arguments even in the 19th century.
Yeah, but even then it was not a blanket protection against things like libel, slander, fraud, etc. If someone suspects their competition of planting false stories about them, they have always had tools to try to look into it. The question will be, how will this get balanced.
*nod* I could see the liability resting on your insurance carrier, then premiums being based off the model of car, version of software, or configuration.
Though I wonder how long it would take before marketers started allowing for customized driving parameters.
One of the major problems with current traffic flows is it only takes a few aggressive drivers who get minor advantages to slow everything down. There are enough people who, when presented with "you can get there in 8 minutes but everyone else will take 12 or everyone including you can take 10 minutes, but for each person who chooses 8 minutes everyone, including them, will take one minute longer' will take the 8 minute option.
So I could, sadly, see a future were we end up with the exact same traffic problems due to people being able to set how selfish they want their auto-car to be, resulting in the same general slowdown selfish human drivers produce.
Well, if you change 'as' to 'if' and add 'proportionally' to the end, then yes, economic theory supports this.
Well, if exchanges become untrustworthy then people will just use other ones. Kinda like how no one uses paypal anymore because of their known issues with corruption and walking off with people's money without recourse against them. See? The market fixes everything!