So long as the caverns stay filled, everything should be fine, but once those caverns begin to drain; and they will, soon; I expect to see a lot of sinkholes in Oklahoma. Untouched (and dry), those caverns were quite stable and capable of holding the load above them.
Just look at the slides in Washington for an example of what happens when you get otherwise stable *dry* rock wet.
How was this off-topic? In the sense of the article, yes, but it was a direct and appropriate response to the comment I was replying to. No worries, plenty of karma to burn here, just wondering if someone wants to clarify for me.
Precisely. Even when I was a minimum- or low-wage worker, I always considered myself lucky to be working full time and considered just how fucked I would be if my hours got cut.
A single young person can support themselves on minimum wage in many but not all US markets.
If they're lucky enough to get full-time work. Since, for the vast majority of employers, that now means health insurance and a bunch of other non-wage expenses, that's going to become even more difficult to find than it has been.
It would be nice if they could at least support a single person, though; true, if you combine 4 of them, you can support a family of 4, but not every expense scales in a linear fashion.
My local store employs a woman in a wheelchair, and two people that appear to have Down's Syndrome. Most of their other employees don't look much brighter. These people get paid $10 per hour because that is what they are worth.
So then, if Grace Hopper were still alive and suffered a spinal injury... I see.
Yeah, I'm building from available options, not just walking the lot and looking at what they think will sell. It's not an option on anything I'm interested in and can afford. Interestingly, it's not even an option on the Genesis (also a bit out of my range), which would be the first car in Hyundai's lineup I'd expect to come standard with one. Not sure where you're from, but what you describe is *not* reality here in the US.
I've smoked too many S-2000s in my stock (as far as engine and drivetrain are concerned) Corolla, my mods extend to creature comforts and luxury features only. One guy was so pissed off at losing the first time that he burned out his clutch trying to keep his engine speed up for torque off the start on our second run.
Perhaps I've just encountered a series of bad drivers in S-2000s; but, if bad drivers are frequent owners of S-2000s, I'm not sure I want to put that label on myself. That said, my PM, who also happens to be one of the best drivers I know, loves them, so I'm torn, honestly.
I'd actually prefer an Eagle Talon TSi, but the ones I can find for sale are either not street legal in California (modded engine, intake, and/or exhaust) or completely beat to shit. So, since I can't find one of those, it's buy new or keep what I've got.
That's a Subaru BRZ on my side of the pond, and it sits just outside what I'm able to afford, once I tack on options to make it comparable (luxury- and style-wise) to my Corolla (which may or may not have some aftermarket creature-comforts installed). I wouldn't mind the increase in horsepower, but it's not worth nearly $30k to me and I've customized the interior of my 'rolla quite a bit. That said, I could sell the 'rolla back to the guy I bought it off of 2.25 years ago for almost twice what I paid him for it and pay off 1/4 of a BRZ with that money...
YES! If only because I'm still driving a 2000 Corolla because it's a manual and I'm only going to replace it with something brand new, or when it breaks; now that I can afford something new, nothing I both like and can afford even has manual as an option. Sad.
Actually, what he's saying isn't too far off from my understanding of reality. I see him playing devil's advocate a lot, but in the end saying that it is beneficial for ISPs. And I can see both sides of it for hybrids (ISP and content provider) like AT&T and Comcast, in that they don't want to make things easier on a competing content provider, even if not doing so damages them more in the long run. On one hand, the ISP side wants it, because it means a better experience for their customers and lower operating costs (less off-network bandwidth, just for starters); on the other hand, the content side will never allow it, because it means fewer TV subscribers. In reality, the ISP side is right and the content side is missing the point, which is that people who don't want to pay them for TV service simply aren't going to, no matter how badly they hamstring their company's ISP wing.
When you look at it form the perspective of the internal struggle within one of these media hybrids, it actually becomes a comical story about David taking a break while Goliath strangles himself to death.
Yeah, I'm lucky enough to have my choice of ISPs where I live now, but I've also lived in places where I had to fight tooth and nail to to any better than dial-up; when DSL finally did become available, the service was crap. Through AT&T, the same provider who had given me rock-solid performance in two other locations before then. What a lovely, fun position we've worked the market into, eh?
Very interesting. I might just have to call him on that next time I talk to him, then. It's also possible that this was the case for this ISP, given that they were the first on board; it may have been stipulated that Netflix would foot the bill in exchange for being allowed to use my ISP as a testbed for the platform. It may also no longer be the case, I haven't spoken with him in nearly 6 months at this point.
It does appear, now, that they only provide the equipment.
That said, what Netflix is actually offering is a way to offer your customers a feature which they do not charge more for, which may not be available through competing ISPs (e.g. I pay Netflix $7.99/mo whether or not I have access to this feature; and if I was with AT&T or Comcast, my other two ISP options where I live, I would not have that feature, SuperHD), as well as a way to greatly reduce the amount of data you have to serve to your customers from external sources, by providing free hardware and access to their CDN, from which you can serve Netflix data to your customers. So, then, even if they don't pay for backhaul, rack space, or power, I'm not sure why any ISP serving any significant number of Netflix subscribers would *not* want to participate; surely, the upkeep on the Netflix equipment costs less than the equipment and transfer required to serve the same data from an external source?
Clearly, I don't know all of the details, so if I've left anything out or gotten anything wrong here, please correct me. I don't see where they're forcing anyone to do anything, here; it's not cost-effective for them to serve SuperHD content over Cogent, so they cam up with another way to do that, for ISPs who wish to make the feature available for their customers.
The net neutrality issues effectively have nothing to to with Open connect or SuperHD, though; AT&T is bitching about the amount of traffic coming over Cogent's links and trying to get Netflix to foot the bill for some of it, since most of it is theirs anyway and Cogent isn't playing ball. That is, plain and simple, not to right way to go about it. Cogent, not Netflix, is AT&T's customer, and Cogent is who should be paying AT if that's not happening, that's between Cogent and AT&T, not AT&T and Netflix. If Cogent needs more money from Netflix in order to pay the higher rates AT&T is seeking, then that is between Cogent and Netflix, not Netflix and AT&T.
There are two separate issues at play here, and it is important to keep them separate.
I never said there was no cost, I said there was no cost to the peer, the party who is not Netflix, that Netflix foots the bill for it, or, to put it another way, that Netflix pays and AT&T (or whichever peer) does not. My ISP peers with Netflix in this manner; I've had many a conversation with the CEO of my ISP, who, of course, was directly involved in setting up this peering. In fact, my ISP was literally the first ISP to jump on board for this. According to my, in my opinion very reliable, source, Netflix pays for the rack space, the power, the backhaul, and the interconnect between their equipment and ISP equipment, including paying for rack space and power for ISP equipment and, in cases where the ISP does not have appropriate equipment in place already, is willing to pay for part of that, as well. In the case of my ISP, they've been growing rapidly for the past few years, so they actually had equipment in place already, but if they did not, Netflix would have covered it.
Seems pretty reasonable to me. Also seems like that article is putting a spin on what Hastings said.
Slashdot Mirror
So long as the caverns stay filled, everything should be fine, but once those caverns begin to drain; and they will, soon; I expect to see a lot of sinkholes in Oklahoma. Untouched (and dry), those caverns were quite stable and capable of holding the load above them.
Just look at the slides in Washington for an example of what happens when you get otherwise stable *dry* rock wet.
How was this off-topic? In the sense of the article, yes, but it was a direct and appropriate response to the comment I was replying to. No worries, plenty of karma to burn here, just wondering if someone wants to clarify for me.
Did you know that before you clicked? Learn to clickbait, that's how.
Why not 7.2, stereo subwoofers (yes, that's a thing). They do 9.1 now, as well.
Dry rock doesn't slide or collapse. Wet rock does. I'll let you put that together.
Precisely. Even when I was a minimum- or low-wage worker, I always considered myself lucky to be working full time and considered just how fucked I would be if my hours got cut.
A single young person can support themselves on minimum wage in many but not all US markets.
If they're lucky enough to get full-time work. Since, for the vast majority of employers, that now means health insurance and a bunch of other non-wage expenses, that's going to become even more difficult to find than it has been.
What about supporting themselves? It can be done in most places in the US on $10/hr, but not if you're working part-time.
It would be nice if they could at least support a single person, though; true, if you combine 4 of them, you can support a family of 4, but not every expense scales in a linear fashion.
My local store employs a woman in a wheelchair, and two people that appear to have Down's Syndrome. Most of their other employees don't look much brighter. These people get paid $10 per hour because that is what they are worth.
So then, if Grace Hopper were still alive and suffered a spinal injury... I see.
Yeah, I'm building from available options, not just walking the lot and looking at what they think will sell. It's not an option on anything I'm interested in and can afford. Interestingly, it's not even an option on the Genesis (also a bit out of my range), which would be the first car in Hyundai's lineup I'd expect to come standard with one. Not sure where you're from, but what you describe is *not* reality here in the US.
I've smoked too many S-2000s in my stock (as far as engine and drivetrain are concerned) Corolla, my mods extend to creature comforts and luxury features only. One guy was so pissed off at losing the first time that he burned out his clutch trying to keep his engine speed up for torque off the start on our second run.
Perhaps I've just encountered a series of bad drivers in S-2000s; but, if bad drivers are frequent owners of S-2000s, I'm not sure I want to put that label on myself. That said, my PM, who also happens to be one of the best drivers I know, loves them, so I'm torn, honestly.
I'd actually prefer an Eagle Talon TSi, but the ones I can find for sale are either not street legal in California (modded engine, intake, and/or exhaust) or completely beat to shit. So, since I can't find one of those, it's buy new or keep what I've got.
That's a Subaru BRZ on my side of the pond, and it sits just outside what I'm able to afford, once I tack on options to make it comparable (luxury- and style-wise) to my Corolla (which may or may not have some aftermarket creature-comforts installed). I wouldn't mind the increase in horsepower, but it's not worth nearly $30k to me and I've customized the interior of my 'rolla quite a bit. That said, I could sell the 'rolla back to the guy I bought it off of 2.25 years ago for almost twice what I paid him for it and pay off 1/4 of a BRZ with that money...
YES! If only because I'm still driving a 2000 Corolla because it's a manual and I'm only going to replace it with something brand new, or when it breaks; now that I can afford something new, nothing I both like and can afford even has manual as an option. Sad.
I agree; however, if the studios think people will, then they need to put it out there.
Studios who want to offer their own streaming services.
Yes. Please.
But, then, why don't they just do it?
But then... who optimizes the optimizer?
SuperHD. If you're on an ISP that wishes to provide it (e.g. by peering with Netflix or installing Netflix cache hardware).
Well, that would certainly be ideal.
^-- +1
Actually, what he's saying isn't too far off from my understanding of reality. I see him playing devil's advocate a lot, but in the end saying that it is beneficial for ISPs. And I can see both sides of it for hybrids (ISP and content provider) like AT&T and Comcast, in that they don't want to make things easier on a competing content provider, even if not doing so damages them more in the long run. On one hand, the ISP side wants it, because it means a better experience for their customers and lower operating costs (less off-network bandwidth, just for starters); on the other hand, the content side will never allow it, because it means fewer TV subscribers. In reality, the ISP side is right and the content side is missing the point, which is that people who don't want to pay them for TV service simply aren't going to, no matter how badly they hamstring their company's ISP wing.
When you look at it form the perspective of the internal struggle within one of these media hybrids, it actually becomes a comical story about David taking a break while Goliath strangles himself to death.
Yeah, I'm lucky enough to have my choice of ISPs where I live now, but I've also lived in places where I had to fight tooth and nail to to any better than dial-up; when DSL finally did become available, the service was crap. Through AT&T, the same provider who had given me rock-solid performance in two other locations before then. What a lovely, fun position we've worked the market into, eh?
Very interesting. I might just have to call him on that next time I talk to him, then. It's also possible that this was the case for this ISP, given that they were the first on board; it may have been stipulated that Netflix would foot the bill in exchange for being allowed to use my ISP as a testbed for the platform. It may also no longer be the case, I haven't spoken with him in nearly 6 months at this point.
It does appear, now, that they only provide the equipment.
That said, what Netflix is actually offering is a way to offer your customers a feature which they do not charge more for, which may not be available through competing ISPs (e.g. I pay Netflix $7.99/mo whether or not I have access to this feature; and if I was with AT&T or Comcast, my other two ISP options where I live, I would not have that feature, SuperHD), as well as a way to greatly reduce the amount of data you have to serve to your customers from external sources, by providing free hardware and access to their CDN, from which you can serve Netflix data to your customers. So, then, even if they don't pay for backhaul, rack space, or power, I'm not sure why any ISP serving any significant number of Netflix subscribers would *not* want to participate; surely, the upkeep on the Netflix equipment costs less than the equipment and transfer required to serve the same data from an external source?
Clearly, I don't know all of the details, so if I've left anything out or gotten anything wrong here, please correct me. I don't see where they're forcing anyone to do anything, here; it's not cost-effective for them to serve SuperHD content over Cogent, so they cam up with another way to do that, for ISPs who wish to make the feature available for their customers.
The net neutrality issues effectively have nothing to to with Open connect or SuperHD, though; AT&T is bitching about the amount of traffic coming over Cogent's links and trying to get Netflix to foot the bill for some of it, since most of it is theirs anyway and Cogent isn't playing ball. That is, plain and simple, not to right way to go about it. Cogent, not Netflix, is AT&T's customer, and Cogent is who should be paying AT if that's not happening, that's between Cogent and AT&T, not AT&T and Netflix. If Cogent needs more money from Netflix in order to pay the higher rates AT&T is seeking, then that is between Cogent and Netflix, not Netflix and AT&T.
There are two separate issues at play here, and it is important to keep them separate.
I never said there was no cost, I said there was no cost to the peer, the party who is not Netflix, that Netflix foots the bill for it, or, to put it another way, that Netflix pays and AT&T (or whichever peer) does not. My ISP peers with Netflix in this manner; I've had many a conversation with the CEO of my ISP, who, of course, was directly involved in setting up this peering. In fact, my ISP was literally the first ISP to jump on board for this. According to my, in my opinion very reliable, source, Netflix pays for the rack space, the power, the backhaul, and the interconnect between their equipment and ISP equipment, including paying for rack space and power for ISP equipment and, in cases where the ISP does not have appropriate equipment in place already, is willing to pay for part of that, as well. In the case of my ISP, they've been growing rapidly for the past few years, so they actually had equipment in place already, but if they did not, Netflix would have covered it.
Seems pretty reasonable to me. Also seems like that article is putting a spin on what Hastings said.