No, the main reason why we haven't had a WWIII break out is that there are to MAD capable nuclear inventories in the world. One in the US and the other with Russia. If you think you need 10 nukes, then you really need at least 30 nukes as you have to have a few extras so that you can deploy them in various places and you need to have a few spares for times when you need to test or service them.
Going much below 2k for the US and 2k for Russia is a really bad idea as it greatly limits the ways in which they can be deployed globally and restricts the possibility of acting quickly enough to prevent a larger attack.
Freedom of travel is definitely a right, the carriers aren't obligated to extend it to a particular person, but the government doesn't have the right to restrict the movement of individuals within the US without a specific court order.
Security officers aren't typically allowed to leave the building for lunch. Which is why they typically brown bag it for meals on other shifts. Good luck getting a pizza delivered when you don't know if you're going to be free at a particular time to pay for it.
Considering that both Apple and MS have started to resort to rent keeping, it's hardly surprising. Since Apple doesn't innovate, the other option is to patent things that may or may not belong to them and hope that nobody notices.
You mean like when they filed a patent that covered Creative's database UI as used in the Nomad line of MP3 player? They ended up getting their asses handed to them in court because they were trying to claim ownership of something that had already been successfully implemented and patented by somebody else.
That's not really how that works. There's many reasons why an obvious idea doesn't get implemented, the most common one is cost.
Using an accelerometer to figure out orientation is obvious. It requires no technical knowledge at all to conceive of and as such isn't eligible for a patent.
That was my thought, back when I worked security, the night shift was the slimmest shift we had. With the day shift coming in second. The reason being that there was a ton of exercise involved with it, more than with either the day or swing shift.
I don't personally, but it is quite a bit more expensive for me to restore the copy that's stored at crashplan than it is for me to restore the copy that's hosted locally. Having a copy online or offsite doesn't do you much good if the meeting is in an hour and you have to download a multigig file.
If you're looking at the most popular applications for innovation, then you're looking in the wrong direction. The most popular applications are rarely particularly innovative. You do get exceptions like Napster from time to time, but those are few and far between, generally they're just the biggest fish in a new market.
The really innovative stuff is stuff that most folks haven't yet heard of, and it usually comes from OSS or indie developers because there's so much less of a barrier to creating it. Hobbyists and small developers have a lot less to lose if the thing flops than large corporations do. Worst case is that a small developer goes under and has to file for bankruptcy. Not really that big of a deal for a small concern.
I think this is the bigger danger, they're losing about half the revenue that they get from me as a result of this. I won't be making the switch until next month, but I will end up paying $8 a month rather than $16 a month when I switch to a DVD only plan. A net loss of revenue.
My bet is that this is largely a negotiating tactic on their part in dealing with the content providers. It's the only plausible explanation I can find for such willful incompetence in the announcement. I mean, learning about it from a news report before being directly informed, a huge price increase without any sort of improvement. The economy is just not strong enough to justify that sort of brazen disregard for the customer base.
How do you factor in those that don't cancel but just downgrade their service? That's what I'm going to do, they were getting $16 a month from me, now I'm going to drop streaming which will result in them getting $8 a month rather than $16. I doubt I'm alone as the selection of movies available by streaming isn't very good and I doubt that most folks really think that it's as good a deal as the DVD rentals are.
Also, what about the cost in terms of bad feelings? They were sort of able to skate through previous price increases based largely on good will, but if they're going to lie to the customers and force through gigantic price hikes, that's going to get them a lot of bad press.
It is worth noting that Netflix's stock is already starting to see some pressure. It's too soon to see if this is related to the price hike blunder or if investors are going to show any faith in the management, but given the tens of thousands of negative comments on Netflix's facebook page, I'm not so sure this is going to be water under the bridge the way that some folks think it will be.
That might be, but when you compare it to the cost of DVDs it's not really that good of a deal. Plus, it's not really unlimited. In addition to the limitation based upon library size, they're also adding a limitation to the number of devices that can be simultaneously viewing the streams. Then there's the limitations on ones time that tend to discourage watching too many of them in a given month.
If $7.99 is too much for truly unlimited streaming, then they should provide the consumers with an option that is fairly priced. I don't need unlimited streaming, I don't watch that many movies in a given month via streaming. I'd be fine with an option that was for 20 movies out of the entire catalog streamed per month.
Raising prices by up to 2/3 in the middle of a recession is hardly a wise idea.
The sense I have is that the amount of outrage would have been significantly lessened if they had given the customer something for the increase. There were no promises of increased content for streaming, nor were there any subscribers being grandfathered in either. As it stands now, they're asking me to pay an additional $4 a month for my current plan without giving me any reason for accepting it.
I'll be downgrading my plan come the end of August because paying for streaming of content which isn't of interest to me isn't reasonable.
I'd be perfectly happy dumping the discs for streaming, but right now the options for streaming suck. It's got only a small fraction of the selection that they do with the discs and the selection changes regularly.
On top of that, they're limiting the number of simultaneous streams which they hadn't previously done. So if you want to cover your whole household you might end up having to pay more.
The real arrogance here isn't the price hike it's the pretending like it isn't a massive price hike and failing to give the customer anything for it. I'll be dropping back to 2 DVDs at a time with no streaming the way I did originally. I like streaming, but $8 a month is way too much considering the lack of selection. And don't forget the lack of any sort of bundling discount for folks that want both options. Which really most people need because the two services are really incomplete without each other.
Here's a hint, backups + refurbished hardware = disaster. If you care enough about your data to back it up, then it ought to mean enough to you to pay for quality media. It doesn't do you a damn bit of good to backup if the backup is on unreliable media.
A better idea would be using one of these with crashplan. Basically make that the onsite backup and do the offsite backup somewhere else. I personally do something similar with my computers so that if I need to restore a large file, I can do it locally. Pretty much the only case in which I'm going to need to do a remote restore is if something happens to the local backup.
It's a pump and dump scam and it's mostly a matter of the number of suckers out there that still don't realize that it's just a scam. It will eventually tank, the only question is when.
They can drive in the streets here only if they adhere to the same regulations that apply to cars. And they can drive on the sidewalks only if they obey the same regulations that apply to pedestrian traffic.
So, no they're not allowed to be on the street if they aren't going to keep up with traffic. And they're especially not allowed to do it if they're going up hill at a speed similar to a pedestrian. Obstructing traffic is a no no.
That's not true, if you wish to drive significantly below the speed limit then you're required to have traffic control devices. I remember seeing a convoy of vintage vehicles being driven on the highway a few years ago and they had a pilot truck and one following because of the hazard.
The only times you're allowed to drive significantly under the speed limit are when conditions don't allow for driving the limit or there aren't any other cars.
I think you mean, thank you for subsidizing my way of life and ensuring that I can get phone service through the various taxes that you pay because I choose to live an unsustainable lifestyle in the middle of nowhere.
$79 is a good deal. Considering that I'm paying $55 a month and I live in the middle of a city within a few miles of an IXP. So, getting any sort of broadband for only $79 in the middle of nowhere is quite a good deal indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the main reason why we haven't had a WWIII break out is that there are to MAD capable nuclear inventories in the world. One in the US and the other with Russia. If you think you need 10 nukes, then you really need at least 30 nukes as you have to have a few extras so that you can deploy them in various places and you need to have a few spares for times when you need to test or service them.
Going much below 2k for the US and 2k for Russia is a really bad idea as it greatly limits the ways in which they can be deployed globally and restricts the possibility of acting quickly enough to prevent a larger attack.
Freedom of travel is definitely a right, the carriers aren't obligated to extend it to a particular person, but the government doesn't have the right to restrict the movement of individuals within the US without a specific court order.
To be honest, I'd be more happy if they'd finish implementing their ideas. It's been how long now and Jetpack still isn't ready for prime time?
Security officers aren't typically allowed to leave the building for lunch. Which is why they typically brown bag it for meals on other shifts. Good luck getting a pizza delivered when you don't know if you're going to be free at a particular time to pay for it.
Considering that both Apple and MS have started to resort to rent keeping, it's hardly surprising. Since Apple doesn't innovate, the other option is to patent things that may or may not belong to them and hope that nobody notices.
You mean like when they filed a patent that covered Creative's database UI as used in the Nomad line of MP3 player? They ended up getting their asses handed to them in court because they were trying to claim ownership of something that had already been successfully implemented and patented by somebody else.
That's not really how that works. There's many reasons why an obvious idea doesn't get implemented, the most common one is cost.
Using an accelerometer to figure out orientation is obvious. It requires no technical knowledge at all to conceive of and as such isn't eligible for a patent.
That was my thought, back when I worked security, the night shift was the slimmest shift we had. With the day shift coming in second. The reason being that there was a ton of exercise involved with it, more than with either the day or swing shift.
I don't personally, but it is quite a bit more expensive for me to restore the copy that's stored at crashplan than it is for me to restore the copy that's hosted locally. Having a copy online or offsite doesn't do you much good if the meeting is in an hour and you have to download a multigig file.
Larry's ego?
If you're looking at the most popular applications for innovation, then you're looking in the wrong direction. The most popular applications are rarely particularly innovative. You do get exceptions like Napster from time to time, but those are few and far between, generally they're just the biggest fish in a new market.
The really innovative stuff is stuff that most folks haven't yet heard of, and it usually comes from OSS or indie developers because there's so much less of a barrier to creating it. Hobbyists and small developers have a lot less to lose if the thing flops than large corporations do. Worst case is that a small developer goes under and has to file for bankruptcy. Not really that big of a deal for a small concern.
The options for streaming are significantly worse than for DVDs.
I think this is the bigger danger, they're losing about half the revenue that they get from me as a result of this. I won't be making the switch until next month, but I will end up paying $8 a month rather than $16 a month when I switch to a DVD only plan. A net loss of revenue.
My bet is that this is largely a negotiating tactic on their part in dealing with the content providers. It's the only plausible explanation I can find for such willful incompetence in the announcement. I mean, learning about it from a news report before being directly informed, a huge price increase without any sort of improvement. The economy is just not strong enough to justify that sort of brazen disregard for the customer base.
How do you factor in those that don't cancel but just downgrade their service? That's what I'm going to do, they were getting $16 a month from me, now I'm going to drop streaming which will result in them getting $8 a month rather than $16. I doubt I'm alone as the selection of movies available by streaming isn't very good and I doubt that most folks really think that it's as good a deal as the DVD rentals are.
Also, what about the cost in terms of bad feelings? They were sort of able to skate through previous price increases based largely on good will, but if they're going to lie to the customers and force through gigantic price hikes, that's going to get them a lot of bad press.
It is worth noting that Netflix's stock is already starting to see some pressure. It's too soon to see if this is related to the price hike blunder or if investors are going to show any faith in the management, but given the tens of thousands of negative comments on Netflix's facebook page, I'm not so sure this is going to be water under the bridge the way that some folks think it will be.
That might be, but when you compare it to the cost of DVDs it's not really that good of a deal. Plus, it's not really unlimited. In addition to the limitation based upon library size, they're also adding a limitation to the number of devices that can be simultaneously viewing the streams. Then there's the limitations on ones time that tend to discourage watching too many of them in a given month.
If $7.99 is too much for truly unlimited streaming, then they should provide the consumers with an option that is fairly priced. I don't need unlimited streaming, I don't watch that many movies in a given month via streaming. I'd be fine with an option that was for 20 movies out of the entire catalog streamed per month.
Raising prices by up to 2/3 in the middle of a recession is hardly a wise idea.
The sense I have is that the amount of outrage would have been significantly lessened if they had given the customer something for the increase. There were no promises of increased content for streaming, nor were there any subscribers being grandfathered in either. As it stands now, they're asking me to pay an additional $4 a month for my current plan without giving me any reason for accepting it.
I'll be downgrading my plan come the end of August because paying for streaming of content which isn't of interest to me isn't reasonable.
I'd be perfectly happy dumping the discs for streaming, but right now the options for streaming suck. It's got only a small fraction of the selection that they do with the discs and the selection changes regularly.
On top of that, they're limiting the number of simultaneous streams which they hadn't previously done. So if you want to cover your whole household you might end up having to pay more.
The real arrogance here isn't the price hike it's the pretending like it isn't a massive price hike and failing to give the customer anything for it. I'll be dropping back to 2 DVDs at a time with no streaming the way I did originally. I like streaming, but $8 a month is way too much considering the lack of selection. And don't forget the lack of any sort of bundling discount for folks that want both options. Which really most people need because the two services are really incomplete without each other.
Here's a hint, backups + refurbished hardware = disaster. If you care enough about your data to back it up, then it ought to mean enough to you to pay for quality media. It doesn't do you a damn bit of good to backup if the backup is on unreliable media.
A better idea would be using one of these with crashplan. Basically make that the onsite backup and do the offsite backup somewhere else. I personally do something similar with my computers so that if I need to restore a large file, I can do it locally. Pretty much the only case in which I'm going to need to do a remote restore is if something happens to the local backup.
It's a pump and dump scam and it's mostly a matter of the number of suckers out there that still don't realize that it's just a scam. It will eventually tank, the only question is when.
F@H? I need those cycles for pr0n.
They can drive in the streets here only if they adhere to the same regulations that apply to cars. And they can drive on the sidewalks only if they obey the same regulations that apply to pedestrian traffic.
So, no they're not allowed to be on the street if they aren't going to keep up with traffic. And they're especially not allowed to do it if they're going up hill at a speed similar to a pedestrian. Obstructing traffic is a no no.
That's not true, if you wish to drive significantly below the speed limit then you're required to have traffic control devices. I remember seeing a convoy of vintage vehicles being driven on the highway a few years ago and they had a pilot truck and one following because of the hazard.
The only times you're allowed to drive significantly under the speed limit are when conditions don't allow for driving the limit or there aren't any other cars.
I think you mean, thank you for subsidizing my way of life and ensuring that I can get phone service through the various taxes that you pay because I choose to live an unsustainable lifestyle in the middle of nowhere.
$79 is a good deal. Considering that I'm paying $55 a month and I live in the middle of a city within a few miles of an IXP. So, getting any sort of broadband for only $79 in the middle of nowhere is quite a good deal indeed.