Not really, I'm making an entirely different point. White and asian males are the majority of the pool of qualified candidates in this field so, of course, they'll make up the majority of workforce in this field. We don't need to fix white and asian males making up the majority of this workforce; what we need to fix is the lack of interest in this field on the part of women and people of other races. And we need to do that by making the field more attractive to them, not by attempting to force them into it (no quicker way to make them lose interest) or promising them a high paying job even if they're not as qualified as other candidates they displace. The former is is just as discriminatory, in just as negative of a way, and against the same people we keep hearing are being discriminated against in the first place, which makes it a horrible solution. The latter causes the overall talent of the workforce to decline as more qualified candidates are overlooked because "diversity".
Do I want to see tech become more diverse? Of course I do! The issue, at least as I see it, is that the only applicants I even had in my last round of hiring were white and asian males, which makes it kind of hard to hire anyone else.
Forcing women and people of color into this field is no worse a solution than forcing white and asian males out of this field, and it's a pretty awful solution. That is to say, in case you missed it, both are awful solutions.
The reality is, if few women and few people of color have interest in tech work, there will be few women and few people of color in tech. Period.
We can look for ways to get them legitimately interested in the field but, much like with a horse and water, you can only lead them. We, as a society, need to be exploring why there is such a disparity in interest in certain fields and, if there is a legitimate cause other than "I'm just not interested", perhaps we can address that. That might have a chance of making the talent pool more closely match the general population in terms of race, gender, orientation, age, and background; or it may not, as a diverse group of people may simply not be interested in the work, preferring other fields for whatever reason. However, it's the only legitimate and nondiscriminatory thing we, as a society, can push for to "correct" this "problem" -- and if it doesn't correct the problem, then there wasn't one to begin with.
If I were to exclude white and asian males from my hiring process, quite simply I would not have been able to hire anyone. That's not a problem, that's just what the talent pool looks like. Bitch about diversity when someone doesn't get an interview because they're black or female or gay or 87, not when they didn't apply for the job in the first fucking place.
No, most of us are really fine with Apple offering a low-end option, but when they neuter the high-end (pro) models to the functional level of the low-end, that's when we start sharpening our axes. Not everyone needs a high-end workstation or a machine with a ton of ports and, fine, for them Apple sells the MacBook and MacBook Air; but some of us do and that's what the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro used to provide. Now they're just more expensive and slightly larger versions of the Mac Mini and MacBook, functionally the same thing with a different look and a higher price tag, so we're complaining. About all of it. Because Apple has made it all the same.
Because we've seen that what Apple does to the non-pro lines comes to the pro lines in the next release cycle and we're sick of it.
Maybe it's because many of us currently use Apple's products in our day-to-day lives and want to continue doing so, but we see them actively making their products unsuitible for our needs? You ever stop and think that we're not bitching because we hate the thing but, rather, because we love the thing and hate what is being done to it?
amazon marketplace sellers are doing the same dirty bait & switch crap ebay sellers have been famous for in the past
There, fixed that for you. Mind you, Amazon allows it, which is just as bad; but let's not pretend that Amazon is the one selling the counterfeit goods and those poor marketplace sellers are the victims here.
Amazon's lips are firmly glued to my posterior. It's really hard to not take advantage when half the time they don't want the smaller items sent back, but I don't because I like the no-hassle returns and refunds I currently enjoy and would rather not screw that up.
Hell, a couple times they've refunded and replaced an order in response to my contacting them about a shipping issue, only to have the original shipment arrive the next day (and before they shipped the replacement). Both times, I contacted them to let them know I got the original shipments and there was no need to send replacements. Both times they insisted and suggested that I sell or gift the duplicate items.
And I've not once had to drive 20 minutes and stand in line for an hour to return something, only to be denied because the receipt was illegible (because they don't maintain their receipt printers and it wasn't legible when printed). That's why brick and mortar stores are fucked; the entire experience is better online. That and the UPS guy carries the 28lb bag of cat litter up the stairs for me, sparing my already-injured back; I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates that benefit.
Asians are actually pretty prevalent in tech. Depending on location, you'll find them between 1:2 and 2:1 with whites, averaging out to a 1:1 ratio globally as you expand your sample size from a single company to the city, county, state, and country levels. In this field they are not a minority.
If they weren't selling more than 12x the bandwidth they have available, this wouldn't be a problem. I already illustrated how they only need to really be able to supply 11% of what they sell (rather than less than 8.25%), which allows them to oversell by a healthy 9x.
I live very close to the places that grow my food, I buy a lot of it from those places. I know what it's like in those places and they have better internet than I do. It might be different near you, but that's not all rural areas, either.
And if you only have one choice of ISP where you live? What then?
If we had actual competition in the ISP market everywhere in the country, your argument would hold water. We don't, so it really doesn't.
More to the point, when your schools and local community colleges are using Youtube to host their videos, well, you can't very well promise you won't throttle that content, then go on and throttle Youtube, now, can you?
It's almost like you didn't actually read my post because, well, I covered all of this (save for the lack of competition) already.
And the remaining 10% of the private sector is better than the best of the public sector. It actually makes perfect sense when you consider how many more people there are in private roles.
So first it's the majority of users, YouTube, and TiVo; now it's a tiny number of users and terrabytes of ripped movies. Are you coming around to the realization that your position is more defensible under the guise of preventing copyright infringement, or are you moving the goal posts for fun? How about this: say the tiny number of users moving terabytes of movies work remotely editing footage for large studios. Why shouldn't they be allowed to use that small rural ISP that just so happens to be the only one who'll service their residence? Why is your content any more important than anyone else's? It's really not between you and your ISP, it's between you and the users you claim to be holier than, and for all you know I'm one of them, which makes it between you and me.
The issue with an ISP that "has to" protect some users from the bandwidth use of others is that they're selling you something on paper that they can't provide you in reality. Here's an example that might make sense: a gas station sells 100 customers 10 gallons of gas each; but they only really have 500 gallons to give out. Half of their customers don't need a full 10 gallons to fill their tanks; on average, they need 5 gallons, so that half of the customers uses 250 gallons, which seems fine since half the customers have used half the gas, right?
Now the remaining 50 customers all do need the 10 gallons (or more, but they only bought 10 so that's all they can take) they paid for, but there's only enough left to serve 25 of them in full. Is that the fault of any of the customers? Why should any of the customers accept less than they paid for because the gas station sold more gas than they had to sell?
Why should that be any more acceptable from an ISP?
Yes, you're free to accept it from an ISP if you want, but you should have the expectation of falling on the losing side of the fight for bandwidth just as often as you find yourself on the winning side. You should also understand that the issue is the ISP selling something they don't have, and blame the ISP.
Why?
It's actually really simple.
Let's say that ISP manages to avoid all those Youtube and TiVo users and somehow prevents users from transferring terabytes of ripped movies over their service. That doesn't really free up the nonexistent bandwidth they've sold you and every other one of their customers -- because that bandwadth they sold you didn't exist in the first place. Let's say that same ISP caters exclusively to college students (ironically, the biggest users of Youtube and the most likely movie pirates, but I digress), so you can be assured that most video streaming will be the university's own content (we'll ignore that most of this is likely also hosted on Youtube, making the throttling of Youtube somewhat counterproductive to your original argument). Now, since we're back on your original argument, it's only fair that we go back to mine: that ISP has enough bandwidth to provide 128Kbps to each of their customers, but has sold each of them 5Mbps; how many of them can stream a 3500Kbps video stream simultaneously?
Since we haven't determined how many customers the ISP has, a percentage is acceptable.
SPOILER (but don't take my word for it, do the math yourself): 3500 (bitrate of video) / 128 (actual bitrate available to one user without slowing another user down) = 27.34375. That is, one 3500Kbps (the low end of a reasonable bitrate for 720p streaming content and, in fact, much less than Youtube uses) video stream used the true available bandwidth of 27.34375 of that ISP's customers. 100 (%) / 27.34375 (also %) = 3.6571428571% of the ISPs customers can stream a video from their university before there is no bandwidth left for anyone else to use.
No, kicking off the Youtube and TiVo users and getting rid of the pirates doesn't solve that. And just how do you think prioritizing traffic solves it? By your account, all of that traffic, being the s
Exactly. You can almost guarantee that someone in the military would act to protect the 2nd amendment, rather than acting on orders to actively dismantle it and fire on people attempting to protect it. Soldiers against gun ownership are a solid minority.
Well that's a stupid thing for TiVo to do by default, especially given that many of their users are likely to be on metered or bandwidth-limited connections. The only person I know with a TiVo, for example, is on HughesNet with a 30GB monthly cap. He must've turned that feature off, because I haven't heard him bitch about it yet.
That still doesn't answer as to why your content is more important than mine and should be allowed to flow freely while mine should not.
I have my doubts about that. Bandwidth may not be super expensive in bulk, but it's not free either; I can't see any media company willingly paying for unnecessary bandwidth.
You sure it's saving those locally and not just streaming them on-demand? It sure seems as though the streaming services all have something in their terms of service forbidding that.
Sorry for the double reply, but a point slipped past me this first time around. To go records cable broadcasts, it doesn't download shows over the internet. Program guide info, sure, but I doubt that a few KB of guide data is clogging the pipes. You display a severe lack of understanding of the topics being discussed.
Slashdot Mirror
If the theory it wrong, it is incompetent. That doesn't say anything about the person who applied the theory, of course.
You do realize that a 3d game has to render each frame... right?
Not really, I'm making an entirely different point. White and asian males are the majority of the pool of qualified candidates in this field so, of course, they'll make up the majority of workforce in this field. We don't need to fix white and asian males making up the majority of this workforce; what we need to fix is the lack of interest in this field on the part of women and people of other races. And we need to do that by making the field more attractive to them, not by attempting to force them into it (no quicker way to make them lose interest) or promising them a high paying job even if they're not as qualified as other candidates they displace. The former is is just as discriminatory, in just as negative of a way, and against the same people we keep hearing are being discriminated against in the first place, which makes it a horrible solution. The latter causes the overall talent of the workforce to decline as more qualified candidates are overlooked because "diversity".
Do I want to see tech become more diverse? Of course I do! The issue, at least as I see it, is that the only applicants I even had in my last round of hiring were white and asian males, which makes it kind of hard to hire anyone else.
Forcing women and people of color into this field is no worse a solution than forcing white and asian males out of this field, and it's a pretty awful solution. That is to say, in case you missed it, both are awful solutions.
The reality is, if few women and few people of color have interest in tech work, there will be few women and few people of color in tech. Period.
We can look for ways to get them legitimately interested in the field but, much like with a horse and water, you can only lead them. We, as a society, need to be exploring why there is such a disparity in interest in certain fields and, if there is a legitimate cause other than "I'm just not interested", perhaps we can address that. That might have a chance of making the talent pool more closely match the general population in terms of race, gender, orientation, age, and background; or it may not, as a diverse group of people may simply not be interested in the work, preferring other fields for whatever reason. However, it's the only legitimate and nondiscriminatory thing we, as a society, can push for to "correct" this "problem" -- and if it doesn't correct the problem, then there wasn't one to begin with.
If I were to exclude white and asian males from my hiring process, quite simply I would not have been able to hire anyone. That's not a problem, that's just what the talent pool looks like. Bitch about diversity when someone doesn't get an interview because they're black or female or gay or 87, not when they didn't apply for the job in the first fucking place.
No, most of us are really fine with Apple offering a low-end option, but when they neuter the high-end (pro) models to the functional level of the low-end, that's when we start sharpening our axes. Not everyone needs a high-end workstation or a machine with a ton of ports and, fine, for them Apple sells the MacBook and MacBook Air; but some of us do and that's what the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro used to provide. Now they're just more expensive and slightly larger versions of the Mac Mini and MacBook, functionally the same thing with a different look and a higher price tag, so we're complaining. About all of it. Because Apple has made it all the same.
Because we've seen that what Apple does to the non-pro lines comes to the pro lines in the next release cycle and we're sick of it.
Maybe it's because many of us currently use Apple's products in our day-to-day lives and want to continue doing so, but we see them actively making their products unsuitible for our needs? You ever stop and think that we're not bitching because we hate the thing but, rather, because we love the thing and hate what is being done to it?
Most people actually do play video games and, most of the time, they're doing 3d rendering while doing it.
amazon marketplace sellers are doing the same dirty bait & switch crap ebay sellers have been famous for in the past
There, fixed that for you. Mind you, Amazon allows it, which is just as bad; but let's not pretend that Amazon is the one selling the counterfeit goods and those poor marketplace sellers are the victims here.
Amazon's lips are firmly glued to my posterior. It's really hard to not take advantage when half the time they don't want the smaller items sent back, but I don't because I like the no-hassle returns and refunds I currently enjoy and would rather not screw that up.
Hell, a couple times they've refunded and replaced an order in response to my contacting them about a shipping issue, only to have the original shipment arrive the next day (and before they shipped the replacement). Both times, I contacted them to let them know I got the original shipments and there was no need to send replacements. Both times they insisted and suggested that I sell or gift the duplicate items.
And I've not once had to drive 20 minutes and stand in line for an hour to return something, only to be denied because the receipt was illegible (because they don't maintain their receipt printers and it wasn't legible when printed). That's why brick and mortar stores are fucked; the entire experience is better online. That and the UPS guy carries the 28lb bag of cat litter up the stairs for me, sparing my already-injured back; I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates that benefit.
Asians are actually pretty prevalent in tech. Depending on location, you'll find them between 1:2 and 2:1 with whites, averaging out to a 1:1 ratio globally as you expand your sample size from a single company to the city, county, state, and country levels. In this field they are not a minority.
If they weren't selling more than 12x the bandwidth they have available, this wouldn't be a problem. I already illustrated how they only need to really be able to supply 11% of what they sell (rather than less than 8.25%), which allows them to oversell by a healthy 9x.
I live very close to the places that grow my food, I buy a lot of it from those places. I know what it's like in those places and they have better internet than I do. It might be different near you, but that's not all rural areas, either.
I doubt they have. The US military hasn't been good at anything but killing since... well, I'm pretty sure forever.
You might want to re-read my comment, I'm pretty sure we both said basically the same thing.
And if you only have one choice of ISP where you live? What then?
If we had actual competition in the ISP market everywhere in the country, your argument would hold water. We don't, so it really doesn't.
More to the point, when your schools and local community colleges are using Youtube to host their videos, well, you can't very well promise you won't throttle that content, then go on and throttle Youtube, now, can you?
It's almost like you didn't actually read my post because, well, I covered all of this (save for the lack of competition) already.
And the remaining 10% of the private sector is better than the best of the public sector. It actually makes perfect sense when you consider how many more people there are in private roles.
Until your friend pranks you and you jokingly text them "I'm gonna kill you for that" in response and they end up dead a day or two later.
Welcome to a murder 1 charge with pretty damning evidence against you, all because you didn't think privacy was important.
In fact, it is those very situations that our guarantee of privacy from government snooping absent due process is intended to prevent.
they're paying for, and that's what most of us just can't get behind.
should read
0.7% of bandwidth for 1-2% of users represents just 35% of what they're paying for, and that's what most of us just can't get behind.
So first it's the majority of users, YouTube, and TiVo; now it's a tiny number of users and terrabytes of ripped movies. Are you coming around to the realization that your position is more defensible under the guise of preventing copyright infringement, or are you moving the goal posts for fun? How about this: say the tiny number of users moving terabytes of movies work remotely editing footage for large studios. Why shouldn't they be allowed to use that small rural ISP that just so happens to be the only one who'll service their residence? Why is your content any more important than anyone else's? It's really not between you and your ISP, it's between you and the users you claim to be holier than, and for all you know I'm one of them, which makes it between you and me.
The issue with an ISP that "has to" protect some users from the bandwidth use of others is that they're selling you something on paper that they can't provide you in reality. Here's an example that might make sense: a gas station sells 100 customers 10 gallons of gas each; but they only really have 500 gallons to give out. Half of their customers don't need a full 10 gallons to fill their tanks; on average, they need 5 gallons, so that half of the customers uses 250 gallons, which seems fine since half the customers have used half the gas, right?
Now the remaining 50 customers all do need the 10 gallons (or more, but they only bought 10 so that's all they can take) they paid for, but there's only enough left to serve 25 of them in full. Is that the fault of any of the customers? Why should any of the customers accept less than they paid for because the gas station sold more gas than they had to sell?
Why should that be any more acceptable from an ISP?
Yes, you're free to accept it from an ISP if you want, but you should have the expectation of falling on the losing side of the fight for bandwidth just as often as you find yourself on the winning side. You should also understand that the issue is the ISP selling something they don't have, and blame the ISP.
Why?
It's actually really simple.
Let's say that ISP manages to avoid all those Youtube and TiVo users and somehow prevents users from transferring terabytes of ripped movies over their service. That doesn't really free up the nonexistent bandwidth they've sold you and every other one of their customers -- because that bandwadth they sold you didn't exist in the first place. Let's say that same ISP caters exclusively to college students (ironically, the biggest users of Youtube and the most likely movie pirates, but I digress), so you can be assured that most video streaming will be the university's own content (we'll ignore that most of this is likely also hosted on Youtube, making the throttling of Youtube somewhat counterproductive to your original argument). Now, since we're back on your original argument, it's only fair that we go back to mine: that ISP has enough bandwidth to provide 128Kbps to each of their customers, but has sold each of them 5Mbps; how many of them can stream a 3500Kbps video stream simultaneously?
Since we haven't determined how many customers the ISP has, a percentage is acceptable.
SPOILER (but don't take my word for it, do the math yourself): 3500 (bitrate of video) / 128 (actual bitrate available to one user without slowing another user down) = 27.34375. That is, one 3500Kbps (the low end of a reasonable bitrate for 720p streaming content and, in fact, much less than Youtube uses) video stream used the true available bandwidth of 27.34375 of that ISP's customers. 100 (%) / 27.34375 (also %) = 3.6571428571% of the ISPs customers can stream a video from their university before there is no bandwidth left for anyone else to use.
No, kicking off the Youtube and TiVo users and getting rid of the pirates doesn't solve that. And just how do you think prioritizing traffic solves it? By your account, all of that traffic, being the s
Exactly. You can almost guarantee that someone in the military would act to protect the 2nd amendment, rather than acting on orders to actively dismantle it and fire on people attempting to protect it. Soldiers against gun ownership are a solid minority.
People who don't like (or own) guns probably don't own many tanks. Just sayin'.
Well that's a stupid thing for TiVo to do by default, especially given that many of their users are likely to be on metered or bandwidth-limited connections. The only person I know with a TiVo, for example, is on HughesNet with a 30GB monthly cap. He must've turned that feature off, because I haven't heard him bitch about it yet.
That still doesn't answer as to why your content is more important than mine and should be allowed to flow freely while mine should not.
I have my doubts about that. Bandwidth may not be super expensive in bulk, but it's not free either; I can't see any media company willingly paying for unnecessary bandwidth.
You sure it's saving those locally and not just streaming them on-demand? It sure seems as though the streaming services all have something in their terms of service forbidding that.
This is why I don't post on mobile... "TiVo", not "To go".
Sorry for the double reply, but a point slipped past me this first time around. To go records cable broadcasts, it doesn't download shows over the internet. Program guide info, sure, but I doubt that a few KB of guide data is clogging the pipes. You display a severe lack of understanding of the topics being discussed.
Why is your content any more important than mine?