Except that's not actually true. That would be like saying that, I have two trucks because I lent it to a friend for his move. There aren't really two trucks, and if we both tried to use it at the same time, there'd be trouble.
Likewise, there aren't really that many dollars in existence, if there were we'd see massive inflation, those are obligations, some of which will end up in a state of default and most of which will be paid off. However, they won't be paid off simultaneously, doing so would result in a most epic crash of the system.
Not really. It's not a tough thing to solve logistically. You need warehouses and a fleet of refrigerated vehicles. In the past it was tough to do, but if you've already got the supermarkets there, it's not much of a challenge logistically to pick up the groceries and deliver them.
Apart from the cases where they had a clearly inept business plan, I'm not aware of any significant failures. The service works more often than it doesn't if you plan for reasonable expansion, rather than trying to take over the whole country in one step.
No, if you look at the logs, it's clear that the people are either not really part of lulzsecurity or are so low level that it's tantamount to hitting a hired goon when you were after the godfather.
It sounds like they were related, albeit at a low level and easily replaceable. That being said, it does appear that somebody took offense to the apparent leaked dox.
Additionally, it looks like they screwed up some of the previous doxes and had to retract them. Not saying that it means that it's fake or fraudulent, but it does tend to lend some lack of credibility to the site. Although, it looks like an honest mistake rather than a malicious smearing of somebody that's uninvolved.
Indeed, I could, but 400 movies is a fraction of what I have available from the cloud. Which was largely the point, it's kind of silly to load up on that many movies when there are alternatives available. Each extra copy is an extra copy that I have to keep an eye on. It's a lot less of a problem than it used to be, but I still need to know that I have a copy that hasn't been corrupted and which one is still good.
Firefox doesn't use that much RAM under normal conditions. Apart from that bug when you load up a whole page of photos, the use of memory is way below any of the major competitors.
Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but it's usually not Firefox, it usually ends up being a plug in or extension that's using up most of the memory. Under normal circumstances you're not likely to ever use more than 500mb.
No, he was talking about charging more if you want prompt reliable delivery. Meaning that if a service needs to get data over in an isosyncronous way, fine, but pay up. My concern there is that it's hardly the only way that ISPs could rationalize charging different amounts of money for different types of traffic.
Most of the things like Netflix already buffer, so as long as you've got enough bandwidth on average to fill the buffer you should be fine, there's no need to charge more money for that delivery.
Most of the local grocery stores that offer that service do it for a fixed fee or free with a minimum order. Sort of the pizza delivery model. I don't know the pricing structure for all of them, but Albertsons offers two levels of service, home delivery for $10 and pick up for $5, which is actually a pretty good deal, depending upon your situation. You can often times use that time to work or cut costs in other areas, yielding a bit of savings.
For parents in particular being able to pick up the kids an hour earlier would make this a bargain at twice the price.
It's not a luxury service. I know that the albertsons version they charge $10 for delivery or $5 for them to get it ready for pick up, but if you're able to work an hour you've just made back the cost. And that's even at minimum wage.
The idea that this is a luxury is really misleading as it ignores the things that one could be doing with ones time, including finding other ways of saving money which would lead to a net gain for the household over doing it yourself.
The idea didn't fail, the implementation did. The problem with Homegrocer.com/Webvan was that they tried to expand too aggressively. My parents got it a couple times, and it worked well.
The idea itself was really common in the US up until relatively recently when everybody started owning their own cars, grocery stores would offer delivery of any groceries you bought. Even today, I know of several local grocers that offer delivery, albeit for a fee.
Yes, but those caps are based upon actual capacity and use rather than on statistical analysis. Meaning that the caps are there to ensure that in a given month that nobody uses more than that much bandwidth. The problem is that bandwidth is more fluid than that. If a small portion of the people blow it out in a few days because of a few new blockbuster games coming out, that's the same capwise as if the same bandwidth is spread throughout the month. But the implication for network performance during that period would be significantly worse.
Caps don't solve problems like that. And particularly for DSL, they don't make much sense as CDNs are getting closer and closer to that last mile meaning that the impact on the network would be minimal were ISPs to actually provide what the promises they use to make sales indicate they'll provide.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on this. You do realize that the cost of bandwidth has been going down at the wholesale level in recent years, right? And that a huge portion of the traffic is going to things like spam and malware attacks. We've got plenty of bandwidth to go around, and we'd have even less trouble if the ISPs would start using the money they've been given to upgrade their equipment.
If they can't do it for what they've got,then they'd better raise rates and figure out how to do it more efficiently. Backbones aren't the problem they used to be. I take it you haven't noticed it, but there's a whole lot of Content Delivery Networks out there now, such as the one that slashdot uses, which all but eliminates the backbone issue from sites like Netflix. Just place one of those next to the IXPs and you don't even have to worry about that. Hell you can even ship the movies between those places via van and probably get them there more quickly in aggregate.
My laptop only has a 320gb HDD, my netbook only has 4gb of disk space, my computer has over 3tb at the moment. If I'm not sure what files I'll want in the future on those other machines, there's limited options as to how to handle that. The cloud being one option.
Which is why the UK is known for creating all these cloud based services? I must have missed the memo, but nearly all the ones I can think of are from the US. Admittedly, I hear about more of the ones from here because of sample biasing, but I doubt very much that it's that far from the truth.
That's a really bad precedent to set. If we start charging more for certain content than for other types of content, what precisely is there to prevent it from spreading to other areas where the ISPs are able to rationalize the decision? A better solution would be for ISPs to start fulfilling their promises rather than using savings to beef up executive compensation.
That will be more complicated. Hotmail was fungible it was completely interoperable with other providers so the main pain was getting people to use the new address.
Skype is a little more complicated because you can't just drop in any replacement you want, and really if you're wanting a replacement, you probably want more than to just replace the client with something else, there are some downsides to the protocol as well.
That's a dictionary, as in it tracks the use of the word, if you could convince enough people to start referring to the Sun as Howard, eventually the dictionary would have to add the definition of the sun to the list under Howard. But, it doesn't mean that it's actually a reflection of reality.
Same goes here, there's a lot of people who use the term child in that respect, but it's not a child, it's at best an unborn child, so it's about as much a child as a zombie is a man.The proper terms involve egg, zygote and fetus depending upon the specific point in the process.
If the money from the caps were going to beef up the infrastructure, I don't think people would mind as much. Knowing that the caps are there because the company oversold capacity and that the money isn't going to remedy the situation is what makes it particularly maddening.
Hasn't happened yet, and probably won't happen any time soon. They've got their monopoly and politicians are in general too clueless to do anything about it. Plus, anybody that does try to do something about it gets shouted down as a socialist or meddling in business. What's worse is its typically the same hicks that have the most to gain by fixing the system that shout the loudest.
The ISPs pay for bandwidth in a similar fashion, it's just the consumers who pay for all they can use. The problem is that they've been overselling capacity to pay for larger yachts for the CEO rather than investing in their infrastructure. And because most of the country is covered in monopolies and duopolies, and if you're especially lucky an oligopoly, there's little to no way of voting with your wallet. I'm with Qwest primarily because they don't cap their bandwidth, and apart from gaming they do a fine job. I just wish they would actually provide the bandwidth that I'm paying for.
Around here I could get Hughes, Clear, Comcast or a cellular based connection, and I think that's about it. All of the options I know of except for the neighbors and Qwest involve caps and in most cases also slower speeds than the pathetic 5mbps that Qwest offers.
A surprising number of people can hit their cap in a matter of a few days with some of the newer faster speed connections. A 5gb cap isn't so bad for a cell phone if you're only able to connect at EDGE speeds, but with LTE and some of the other more current options, you can hit that cap really quickly.
For most people 250gb is more than they're likely to ever need. I know that I didn't used to hit that kind of data transfer in the past. However, now that I've switched to crashplan, I do occasionally exceed that amount. Fortunately, Qwest doesn't have caps, as crappy as they are in other respects, I don't have to worry about being limited by anything other than the usual oversold bandwidth.
If you've been to their fora, it looks highly improbable that they lost many fanbois, but they did likely lose a lot of folks who were less fanatical in devotion to their product. It wouldn't have been as much of an issue had they not already pissed a lot of us off with their petty vandalism and general assholishness with regards to the platform.
I've also heard that MS has gotten their QA problems largely solved with the 360 and Nintendo is planning to release something which looks more competitive in the graphics department in the foreseeable future.
Not if they're done right. My new Thinkpad has a chiclet keyboard, and I'm not having any trouble at all with typos, beyond the normal ones associated from learning a slightly different keyboard layout. You don't get as much travel as you would with a traditional keyboard, but I've got plenty of distance in which to change my mind about pressing a key if I want to.
Overall, it's a really nice piece of hardware, I just need to figure out a suitable way of blocking out the web cam when I'm not using it. I would go with tape, but I actually want to use it regularly, I just don't want it pointed at me where somebody could use it without my permission. And disable the internal microphone completely for similar reasons.
They're based on the reality that the ISP oversold their capacity and are trying to make it so that you can't actually use the capacity that you paid for. To an extent I'd rather have caps than deal with oversold capacity, but I'd rather rather have the FCC tell ISPs that they can't fraudulently claim to provide more capcity than they're capable of. "Up to" isn't a legitimate claim unless there are significant periods of time during the month when you hit that rate. As it is, I rarely hit even 3mbps on my 5mpbs connection.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that's not actually true. That would be like saying that, I have two trucks because I lent it to a friend for his move. There aren't really two trucks, and if we both tried to use it at the same time, there'd be trouble.
Likewise, there aren't really that many dollars in existence, if there were we'd see massive inflation, those are obligations, some of which will end up in a state of default and most of which will be paid off. However, they won't be paid off simultaneously, doing so would result in a most epic crash of the system.
Not really. It's not a tough thing to solve logistically. You need warehouses and a fleet of refrigerated vehicles. In the past it was tough to do, but if you've already got the supermarkets there, it's not much of a challenge logistically to pick up the groceries and deliver them.
Apart from the cases where they had a clearly inept business plan, I'm not aware of any significant failures. The service works more often than it doesn't if you plan for reasonable expansion, rather than trying to take over the whole country in one step.
No, if you look at the logs, it's clear that the people are either not really part of lulzsecurity or are so low level that it's tantamount to hitting a hired goon when you were after the godfather.
It sounds like they were related, albeit at a low level and easily replaceable. That being said, it does appear that somebody took offense to the apparent leaked dox.
Additionally, it looks like they screwed up some of the previous doxes and had to retract them. Not saying that it means that it's fake or fraudulent, but it does tend to lend some lack of credibility to the site. Although, it looks like an honest mistake rather than a malicious smearing of somebody that's uninvolved.
Because, you're Joyce DeWitt.
Indeed, I could, but 400 movies is a fraction of what I have available from the cloud. Which was largely the point, it's kind of silly to load up on that many movies when there are alternatives available. Each extra copy is an extra copy that I have to keep an eye on. It's a lot less of a problem than it used to be, but I still need to know that I have a copy that hasn't been corrupted and which one is still good.
And you really need the charger as the battery life on those things was horrible. Nice unit, but the battery life was terrible.
Firefox doesn't use that much RAM under normal conditions. Apart from that bug when you load up a whole page of photos, the use of memory is way below any of the major competitors.
Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but it's usually not Firefox, it usually ends up being a plug in or extension that's using up most of the memory. Under normal circumstances you're not likely to ever use more than 500mb.
No, he was talking about charging more if you want prompt reliable delivery. Meaning that if a service needs to get data over in an isosyncronous way, fine, but pay up. My concern there is that it's hardly the only way that ISPs could rationalize charging different amounts of money for different types of traffic.
Most of the things like Netflix already buffer, so as long as you've got enough bandwidth on average to fill the buffer you should be fine, there's no need to charge more money for that delivery.
Most of the local grocery stores that offer that service do it for a fixed fee or free with a minimum order. Sort of the pizza delivery model. I don't know the pricing structure for all of them, but Albertsons offers two levels of service, home delivery for $10 and pick up for $5, which is actually a pretty good deal, depending upon your situation. You can often times use that time to work or cut costs in other areas, yielding a bit of savings.
For parents in particular being able to pick up the kids an hour earlier would make this a bargain at twice the price.
It's not a luxury service. I know that the albertsons version they charge $10 for delivery or $5 for them to get it ready for pick up, but if you're able to work an hour you've just made back the cost. And that's even at minimum wage.
The idea that this is a luxury is really misleading as it ignores the things that one could be doing with ones time, including finding other ways of saving money which would lead to a net gain for the household over doing it yourself.
The idea didn't fail, the implementation did. The problem with Homegrocer.com/Webvan was that they tried to expand too aggressively. My parents got it a couple times, and it worked well.
The idea itself was really common in the US up until relatively recently when everybody started owning their own cars, grocery stores would offer delivery of any groceries you bought. Even today, I know of several local grocers that offer delivery, albeit for a fee.
Yes, but those caps are based upon actual capacity and use rather than on statistical analysis. Meaning that the caps are there to ensure that in a given month that nobody uses more than that much bandwidth. The problem is that bandwidth is more fluid than that. If a small portion of the people blow it out in a few days because of a few new blockbuster games coming out, that's the same capwise as if the same bandwidth is spread throughout the month. But the implication for network performance during that period would be significantly worse.
Caps don't solve problems like that. And particularly for DSL, they don't make much sense as CDNs are getting closer and closer to that last mile meaning that the impact on the network would be minimal were ISPs to actually provide what the promises they use to make sales indicate they'll provide.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on this. You do realize that the cost of bandwidth has been going down at the wholesale level in recent years, right? And that a huge portion of the traffic is going to things like spam and malware attacks. We've got plenty of bandwidth to go around, and we'd have even less trouble if the ISPs would start using the money they've been given to upgrade their equipment.
If they can't do it for what they've got,then they'd better raise rates and figure out how to do it more efficiently. Backbones aren't the problem they used to be. I take it you haven't noticed it, but there's a whole lot of Content Delivery Networks out there now, such as the one that slashdot uses, which all but eliminates the backbone issue from sites like Netflix. Just place one of those next to the IXPs and you don't even have to worry about that. Hell you can even ship the movies between those places via van and probably get them there more quickly in aggregate.
My laptop only has a 320gb HDD, my netbook only has 4gb of disk space, my computer has over 3tb at the moment. If I'm not sure what files I'll want in the future on those other machines, there's limited options as to how to handle that. The cloud being one option.
Which is why the UK is known for creating all these cloud based services? I must have missed the memo, but nearly all the ones I can think of are from the US. Admittedly, I hear about more of the ones from here because of sample biasing, but I doubt very much that it's that far from the truth.
That's a really bad precedent to set. If we start charging more for certain content than for other types of content, what precisely is there to prevent it from spreading to other areas where the ISPs are able to rationalize the decision? A better solution would be for ISPs to start fulfilling their promises rather than using savings to beef up executive compensation.
That will be more complicated. Hotmail was fungible it was completely interoperable with other providers so the main pain was getting people to use the new address.
Skype is a little more complicated because you can't just drop in any replacement you want, and really if you're wanting a replacement, you probably want more than to just replace the client with something else, there are some downsides to the protocol as well.
That's a dictionary, as in it tracks the use of the word, if you could convince enough people to start referring to the Sun as Howard, eventually the dictionary would have to add the definition of the sun to the list under Howard. But, it doesn't mean that it's actually a reflection of reality.
Same goes here, there's a lot of people who use the term child in that respect, but it's not a child, it's at best an unborn child, so it's about as much a child as a zombie is a man.The proper terms involve egg, zygote and fetus depending upon the specific point in the process.
If the money from the caps were going to beef up the infrastructure, I don't think people would mind as much. Knowing that the caps are there because the company oversold capacity and that the money isn't going to remedy the situation is what makes it particularly maddening.
Hasn't happened yet, and probably won't happen any time soon. They've got their monopoly and politicians are in general too clueless to do anything about it. Plus, anybody that does try to do something about it gets shouted down as a socialist or meddling in business. What's worse is its typically the same hicks that have the most to gain by fixing the system that shout the loudest.
The ISPs pay for bandwidth in a similar fashion, it's just the consumers who pay for all they can use. The problem is that they've been overselling capacity to pay for larger yachts for the CEO rather than investing in their infrastructure. And because most of the country is covered in monopolies and duopolies, and if you're especially lucky an oligopoly, there's little to no way of voting with your wallet. I'm with Qwest primarily because they don't cap their bandwidth, and apart from gaming they do a fine job. I just wish they would actually provide the bandwidth that I'm paying for.
Around here I could get Hughes, Clear, Comcast or a cellular based connection, and I think that's about it. All of the options I know of except for the neighbors and Qwest involve caps and in most cases also slower speeds than the pathetic 5mbps that Qwest offers.
A surprising number of people can hit their cap in a matter of a few days with some of the newer faster speed connections. A 5gb cap isn't so bad for a cell phone if you're only able to connect at EDGE speeds, but with LTE and some of the other more current options, you can hit that cap really quickly.
For most people 250gb is more than they're likely to ever need. I know that I didn't used to hit that kind of data transfer in the past. However, now that I've switched to crashplan, I do occasionally exceed that amount. Fortunately, Qwest doesn't have caps, as crappy as they are in other respects, I don't have to worry about being limited by anything other than the usual oversold bandwidth.
If you've been to their fora, it looks highly improbable that they lost many fanbois, but they did likely lose a lot of folks who were less fanatical in devotion to their product. It wouldn't have been as much of an issue had they not already pissed a lot of us off with their petty vandalism and general assholishness with regards to the platform.
I've also heard that MS has gotten their QA problems largely solved with the 360 and Nintendo is planning to release something which looks more competitive in the graphics department in the foreseeable future.
Not if they're done right. My new Thinkpad has a chiclet keyboard, and I'm not having any trouble at all with typos, beyond the normal ones associated from learning a slightly different keyboard layout. You don't get as much travel as you would with a traditional keyboard, but I've got plenty of distance in which to change my mind about pressing a key if I want to.
Overall, it's a really nice piece of hardware, I just need to figure out a suitable way of blocking out the web cam when I'm not using it. I would go with tape, but I actually want to use it regularly, I just don't want it pointed at me where somebody could use it without my permission. And disable the internal microphone completely for similar reasons.
They're based on the reality that the ISP oversold their capacity and are trying to make it so that you can't actually use the capacity that you paid for. To an extent I'd rather have caps than deal with oversold capacity, but I'd rather rather have the FCC tell ISPs that they can't fraudulently claim to provide more capcity than they're capable of. "Up to" isn't a legitimate claim unless there are significant periods of time during the month when you hit that rate. As it is, I rarely hit even 3mbps on my 5mpbs connection.