A lawyer has no more right to be sloppy than a surgeon does.
For most surgery, I would agree. But there are certain types of surgery where I believe sloppy work can be instrumental towards helping society to correct an unnecessary infatuation with vanity.
Of course, the "victims" in these cases tend to perpetuate the sue-and-get-rich methodology that has led the RIAA business plan for the last 5 or 6 years.
My argument has a tacit inplication that "users" don't care about the extra freedoms granted by MIT/BSD. Here is my original quote:
The GPL is the most User friendly license.
Thus "most user friendly license" could have been amended "most friendly license for users who are not going to further develop the software and then convert their enhancements to a Proprietary license for their own financial betterment".
Also, BSD software that has been improved and re-released as Proprietary is not "user friendly" because it enables the business practice of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Improvements to BSD software that are not re-released under a free license do not benefit users.
Thus, I stand by my assertion that GPL is the most "user" friendly license and will let the question of what the most "developer" friendly license is be a debate for another discussion.
And as far as the Windows BSD code that I was discussing, there is a tremendous write-up from one of the Microsoft employees at the time when they were developing the network stack here.
I'm going to get modded down to oblivion for saying this, but
In the highly unlikely case that the author ever see this response to his post (fucking Anonymous Coward), I would say that the quoted line was the dagger in your otherwise logical discussion contribution. I wish you had posted links to the PAS guidelines, but I can look those up to validate your claim.
Trust me... your opinion is welcome on Slashdot, but it has more weight when you don't imply the rest of us use groupthink or other bias. Also, being Anonymous won't ever help any contrarian argument.
And you assumed that I was talking about people who cared about monetizing the development of a software product. That was addressed in my second paragraph.
Hell, I think Windows still has some BSD code in it.
The GPL is the most User friendly license. It screams "Use this however you like". For mature software, this is a major boon for users. Thus, the outcry is because anything that is not GPL has a tendency to be guaranteed to be less user-friendly to any potential GPL competitor once a mature GPL competitor is available.
The outcry from developers is much less understandable, since GPL software is much more difficult to monetize than proprietary software and developers need to be able to earn a living from their craft.
But yeah, if you are a user who needs software and there is a mature GPL version of something that does what you need... you will almost always be better off going for the GPL option. It is cheaper than proprietary software, and safer then pirated software.
The submitter spelled the name of the site wrong. The Slashdot editor didn't catch the mistake.
How is pointing that out Off-Topic? At the very least, it should be Funny or Over-rated (since spelling corrections usually fall into one of these two camps.
Tag article: slsahdot, and continue with the relevant conversation.:)
(note: I fully support ODF... and to date I have not found any features that ODF/OpenOffice lacks which Microsoft Office provides)
That said, I think it is naive to assume that OOXML and ODF each specify an overlapping set of features, and I think it would benefit the overall quality of Office Productivity software to itemize the features in OOXML that are lacking in ODF and do an evaluation on whether they would provide a benefit if they were added.
Similarly, an evaluation of the features in ODF that are duplicated in OOXML would be good, so that they can be stricken from OOXML and reduce the chances of having "competing standards" or unnecessary duplication.
If they really want an OOXML "Ceasefire", then they should offer a compromise with the opponents of OOXML.
Namely: revoke the standard and allow it to continue to be reworked.
I doubt anti-OOXML activists would take issue with letting OOXML be re-evaluated a year or two fromnow. We would even let the ISO get away with NOT re-evaluating its processes that allowed brand-spanking new member countries to vote with as much power as long standing members.
In the meantime, Microsoft (and whoever else is interested) can address the technical issues with OOXML and revise the specification so that it meets the communities requirements for openness.
At the same time, I think it is accurate to say that there are "features" that customers require in OOXML that are not in any approved ISO standards (for instance, I believe OOXML has collaboration features, whereas ODF does not). Thus, the anti-OOXML community might attempt to code an "Open" standard which addresses those features. Call it the "ODF Extension" and empower it to combined with the original ODF standard to give an identical set of features as are specified in OOXML. If this were achieved and OOXML truly would not bring any added value to the Office/Productivity software standard, then it could officially be flushed down the toilet.
That said, there cannot be a "Ceasefire" as long as OOXML is still recognized as a Standard...
traditional charts, evaluations, etc. don't really matter in this case: yahoo is basically priceless for Microsoft.
So MSFT should mortgage the entire $250 Billion market cap that they have in today's market and hand it over to the Yahoo! shareholders to do what they want with? That would be a stellar return of 500% for Yahoo shareholders. I think they would approve it.:)
The answer "it is priceless" might work in a Mastercard commercial, but is doesn't work in the stock market.
A 6% stake of the votes is fairly powerful, especially if a certain percentage of the shareholders don't even bother voting.
I do not, however, understand the subtlety that you are trying to suggest that makes this parallel to the electoral college. The popular vote versus the votes cast by the representatives of the state do not (to me) seem to be correlated to the votes cast during shareholders during a hostile takeover.
Better still, it is expected to double in just four years to about $40 billion. Better than a sharp stick in the eye.
So they think they can capture 50% of the $40 Billion revenue per year in 2012 (assuming they can split it with the other major competitor), instead of 20% (if they are fighting against both Google and an independent Yahoo!).
I like it. Your reason gets a gold star. Yahoo! will help MSFT capture revenues of $20 Billion per year of internet advertising revenues instead of $8 Billion per year in only a matter of several years. Subtract out the costs, and owning Yahoo! might generate an extra $30 Billion dollars in 7 years time... which certainly makes them worth at least $40 Billion now.
First I must say I don't understand anything about shares
You missed the point of each chart that I linked to (assuming you even went and looked at them or even tried to infer what they looked like based on the context of the description that I added.
The first chart was showing that Microsoft has not had any significant "growth" since prior to 2003, which suggests that they think acquiring a company like Yahoo would change that.
The second chart was to approximate the short term value of the internet advertising market, which is apparently the reason the MSFT wants to buy Yahoo.
But if you try to compare 5 years datas with 6 months datas and try to infer something from this, I think you're probably incorrect.
I may be wrong about one or both of my reasons to link to these particular charts, but dismissing an opinion without taking the time to understand the context is definitely incorrect -- especially since you admit to knowing nothing about the markets...
The faster MS runs out of cash, the sooner we get to enjoy a world without them.
You haven't seen the SCO trial, have you? An organization can go for YEARS without any money as long as the a-holes running it have enough personal wealth to pilot their sinking ship.
Yahoo! is currently maintaining a $36 Billion dollar market cap. It goes without saying that deciding what an internet company is worth is somewhat shaky ground, but they are profitable by $0.47 per share in the last year and they have a set of managers who are clamoring that they have a lot of new revenue streams that are going to materialize in the next year or two.
So, what is Yahoo! actually worth if Microsoft's offer isn't good enough? $40 Billion? $50 Billion? $60 Billion? $100 Billion?
Can anybody defend their valuation with some finite analysis that goes beyond pulling numbers out of thin air? Furthermore, can somebody figure out how much Microsoft would be willing to pay based on the benefits that merging Yahoo's customers and properties into their own would produce?
If you look at the 5-year chart for MSFT, it is pretty clear that they have done a good job of maintaining the status quo... while the only real marketable success that they have enjoyed during that time has been the introduction of a competitive video game system.
On the other hand, the 6 month chart for Google is suggestive that the future value of internet based ad revenue isn't worth nearly as much as it used to be.
Actually, yellow isn't bad as a background color, as long as it is dulled out and pastel. I have defaults in PuTTY setup that always set BLACK text and a PASTEL yellow, red, blue, or green background that I find to be easy on the eyes.
Sounds like a tax on Cigarettes to me. The state wants money and the product gives a temporary value to the customer, but after a certain amount of time, the product is used up and needs to be re-bought.
In some ways, music and cigarettes are similar because they have the ability to pollute the air (albeit, noise pollution vs. general vileness).
I wonder what the good Congressmen thinks about rebellious artists who give away their songs for free. What is the tax on a free song?
If you're just going to print out and count paper voting receipts anyway, why even bother with an electronic voting machine?
From the post you replied to, "the summary print outs are 'nice' for instant access to the results". Basically, the summary voting gives a sense of instant gratification that let's the voting public know who "won" the election the day after it is held. Computers can aggregate and publish the sum votes of millions of voters at the instant polls close and provide a result that meets the anticipated "instant-gratification" needs expected by the population.
Now, I think each polling place has an order of magnitude within 1,000 voters... so if the 10-20 workers open up the box with the votes at the close of the polls, it is reasonable for them to spend 2-3 hours doing a double and triple check count before actually "validating" what the machine summary said.
Trouble arises when the a human count differs from another human count or from the machine count. When this happens, obviously the data cannot be immediately validated and "official" results cannot be made available.
However, as long as "vote receipts" that have been checked over by the pair of eyes who cast that vote exist, then I think using a machine to vote is fine.
So - the first advantage of running an election with a computer voting system is instant gratification.
I am sure there are other advantages, too. Because computers have the ability to provide easier-to-use interfaces to complex systems than old-fashion analog machines. Not that voting for an individual office is a complex system... but imagine (god forbid) John McCain dying two days before election day and the complete mess it would be to retool 50,000 voting machines to have some other guy's name in it. In an analog world, that is impossible. In a digital world, the change can be managed from a central server and pushed down to the client machines.
I think the scary part is that the small error is definitive proof that the voting machines are wrong, but that there is no mention of a method in NJ for the poll workers to go back and check out that there really were X number of votes for each candidate.
The thing that is important for the integrity of the election is that there is a verified paper "receipt" that the voter has checked and dropped into a box that can't be tampered with.
Sure, the summary print outs are "nice" for instant access to the results, but there isn't really a good reason not to have a bi-partisan check of the paper records at the end of the day.
After 5 or 6 election cycles are validated with this computer/receipt method, then we could start to put more trust in the machines... but Diebold and their ilk have proven time-and-time again that they cannot design voting machines that stand up to scrutiny of even the simplest checks (like Felten's comparison between total votes and reported number of total voters).
I remember when professional baseball stadiums and professional hockey rinks were not dominated by placards touting the annual advertisers. These were simpler times, during which the teams could pay the salaries of the players with the money from ticket sales, TV revenue, and merchandise.
Now that every team basically whores the spaces in their stadium to the highest bidder, the whole aspect of the games are not as pure. Every stadium has a bank, a telecommunications company, a insurance business, an automobile company, and whichever varieties of soda or beer are offered at the concession stands.
And over time this has become completely acceptable because we (as a society) see nothing wrong with letting big corporations have the financial controls over us to control what we need to see or hear.
I'm sorry - but I vote to stop advertising from entrenching itself into yet another market.
Given the repletion required to type and retype our names and login IDs over the past 5-10 years, our fingers are conditioned to type these patterns quickly and repeatably.
I can type my typical "lastname/firstinitial" login name in about a third of a second. I can type my "firstname.lastname" in about half a second.
Given 5 minutes of practice with my name, you would probably be able to impersonate me - but as long as this system doesn't lock me out from my own account, this is a successful barrier that will make it harder for you to get into my system.
Then again... having a password that is hard to hack and running an operating system that is not easily hackable are stronger barriers that protect me from your infiltrations...
What about the option of borrowing wireless from a neighbor? I am a light browser who would be more than willing to go without Internet at home (with knowledge that I can go to a coffee shoppe if I *really* need something online). However, my neighbor pays for his access and doesn't mind that I utilize the connection a little bit at night or on the weekend. And the price is *much* more reasonable than paying Comcast $30-50 per month for "premium access".
Which -- I think is the entire point. $50 per month is TOO MUCH for somebody who absolutely positively could live without the service... and there is no $10 per month option for somebody who is only interested in downloading 20% of the amount of digital information as the guy who wants to run BitTorrent while he sleeps.
I would gladly give Comcast $10 per month for the amount of home internet use that I do. And if I get a "Error: Usage exceeded" during the 3rd week of the billing cycle -- then I would consider upgrading. But with only the "overpriced" option to choose from, I choose not to subscribe.
And frankly, this suits Comcast just fine, because there are plenty of people who are completely willing to pay for the $50 price point so that they can continue to run their business.
As an example: some people "need" internet so they can work from home 2-3 days per month. If they save 2 hours of commute time by connecting from home - guess what? The $50 connection paid for itself - because their time is probably more valuable to them then the cost and convenience of the connection.
What about a car that has a speedometer which goes up to 75 mph, but really alternates between 120 mph for 2 minutes and 30 mph for 8 minutes throughout your trip, so that the effective MAX speed is 48 mph?
Highway travel (analogous with video streaming/downloading) would be downright impossible because the minimum speed would be insufficient for that route.
Slashdot Mirror
For most surgery, I would agree. But there are certain types of surgery where I believe sloppy work can be instrumental towards helping society to correct an unnecessary infatuation with vanity.
Of course, the "victims" in these cases tend to perpetuate the sue-and-get-rich methodology that has led the RIAA business plan for the last 5 or 6 years.
My argument has a tacit inplication that "users" don't care about the extra freedoms granted by MIT/BSD. Here is my original quote:
The GPL is the most User friendly license.Thus "most user friendly license" could have been amended "most friendly license for users who are not going to further develop the software and then convert their enhancements to a Proprietary license for their own financial betterment".
Also, BSD software that has been improved and re-released as Proprietary is not "user friendly" because it enables the business practice of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Improvements to BSD software that are not re-released under a free license do not benefit users.
Thus, I stand by my assertion that GPL is the most "user" friendly license and will let the question of what the most "developer" friendly license is be a debate for another discussion.
And as far as the Windows BSD code that I was discussing, there is a tremendous write-up from one of the Microsoft employees at the time when they were developing the network stack here.
In the highly unlikely case that the author ever see this response to his post (fucking Anonymous Coward), I would say that the quoted line was the dagger in your otherwise logical discussion contribution. I wish you had posted links to the PAS guidelines, but I can look those up to validate your claim.
Trust me... your opinion is welcome on Slashdot, but it has more weight when you don't imply the rest of us use groupthink or other bias. Also, being Anonymous won't ever help any contrarian argument.
And you assumed that I was talking about people who cared about monetizing the development of a software product. That was addressed in my second paragraph.
Hell, I think Windows still has some BSD code in it.
The GPL is the most User friendly license. It screams "Use this however you like". For mature software, this is a major boon for users. Thus, the outcry is because anything that is not GPL has a tendency to be guaranteed to be less user-friendly to any potential GPL competitor once a mature GPL competitor is available.
The outcry from developers is much less understandable, since GPL software is much more difficult to monetize than proprietary software and developers need to be able to earn a living from their craft.
But yeah, if you are a user who needs software and there is a mature GPL version of something that does what you need... you will almost always be better off going for the GPL option. It is cheaper than proprietary software, and safer then pirated software.
The submitter spelled the name of the site wrong. The Slashdot editor didn't catch the mistake.
How is pointing that out Off-Topic? At the very least, it should be Funny or Over-rated (since spelling corrections usually fall into one of these two camps.
Tag article: slsahdot, and continue with the relevant conversation. :)
That's right. Voting and sex. For everything else, a computer a guaranteed to provide an improvement in speed, quality, or reproducibility.
(note: I fully support ODF... and to date I have not found any features that ODF/OpenOffice lacks which Microsoft Office provides)
That said, I think it is naive to assume that OOXML and ODF each specify an overlapping set of features, and I think it would benefit the overall quality of Office Productivity software to itemize the features in OOXML that are lacking in ODF and do an evaluation on whether they would provide a benefit if they were added.
Similarly, an evaluation of the features in ODF that are duplicated in OOXML would be good, so that they can be stricken from OOXML and reduce the chances of having "competing standards" or unnecessary duplication.
If they really want an OOXML "Ceasefire", then they should offer a compromise with the opponents of OOXML.
Namely: revoke the standard and allow it to continue to be reworked.
I doubt anti-OOXML activists would take issue with letting OOXML be re-evaluated a year or two fromnow. We would even let the ISO get away with NOT re-evaluating its processes that allowed brand-spanking new member countries to vote with as much power as long standing members.
In the meantime, Microsoft (and whoever else is interested) can address the technical issues with OOXML and revise the specification so that it meets the communities requirements for openness.
At the same time, I think it is accurate to say that there are "features" that customers require in OOXML that are not in any approved ISO standards (for instance, I believe OOXML has collaboration features, whereas ODF does not). Thus, the anti-OOXML community might attempt to code an "Open" standard which addresses those features. Call it the "ODF Extension" and empower it to combined with the original ODF standard to give an identical set of features as are specified in OOXML. If this were achieved and OOXML truly would not bring any added value to the Office/Productivity software standard, then it could officially be flushed down the toilet.
That said, there cannot be a "Ceasefire" as long as OOXML is still recognized as a Standard...
See my reply to the accusation that I was comparing Microsoft directly to Google here.
I am sorry that I didn't more clearly distinguish that I was attempting an analysis of two unrelated charts.
So MSFT should mortgage the entire $250 Billion market cap that they have in today's market and hand it over to the Yahoo! shareholders to do what they want with? That would be a stellar return of 500% for Yahoo shareholders. I think they would approve it. :)
The answer "it is priceless" might work in a Mastercard commercial, but is doesn't work in the stock market.
A 6% stake of the votes is fairly powerful, especially if a certain percentage of the shareholders don't even bother voting.
I do not, however, understand the subtlety that you are trying to suggest that makes this parallel to the electoral college. The popular vote versus the votes cast by the representatives of the state do not (to me) seem to be correlated to the votes cast during shareholders during a hostile takeover.
So they think they can capture 50% of the $40 Billion revenue per year in 2012 (assuming they can split it with the other major competitor), instead of 20% (if they are fighting against both Google and an independent Yahoo!).
I like it. Your reason gets a gold star. Yahoo! will help MSFT capture revenues of $20 Billion per year of internet advertising revenues instead of $8 Billion per year in only a matter of several years. Subtract out the costs, and owning Yahoo! might generate an extra $30 Billion dollars in 7 years time... which certainly makes them worth at least $40 Billion now.
You missed the point of each chart that I linked to (assuming you even went and looked at them or even tried to infer what they looked like based on the context of the description that I added.
The first chart was showing that Microsoft has not had any significant "growth" since prior to 2003, which suggests that they think acquiring a company like Yahoo would change that.
The second chart was to approximate the short term value of the internet advertising market, which is apparently the reason the MSFT wants to buy Yahoo.
But if you try to compare 5 years datas with 6 months datas and try to infer something from this, I think you're probably incorrect.I may be wrong about one or both of my reasons to link to these particular charts, but dismissing an opinion without taking the time to understand the context is definitely incorrect -- especially since you admit to knowing nothing about the markets...
Legg Mason is an investment firm that owns a 6% stake of Yahoo.
This is actually 83,843,501 votes AGAINST the current MSFT offer.
You haven't seen the SCO trial, have you? An organization can go for YEARS without any money as long as the a-holes running it have enough personal wealth to pilot their sinking ship.
Yahoo! is currently maintaining a $36 Billion dollar market cap. It goes without saying that deciding what an internet company is worth is somewhat shaky ground, but they are profitable by $0.47 per share in the last year and they have a set of managers who are clamoring that they have a lot of new revenue streams that are going to materialize in the next year or two.
So, what is Yahoo! actually worth if Microsoft's offer isn't good enough? $40 Billion? $50 Billion? $60 Billion? $100 Billion?
Can anybody defend their valuation with some finite analysis that goes beyond pulling numbers out of thin air? Furthermore, can somebody figure out how much Microsoft would be willing to pay based on the benefits that merging Yahoo's customers and properties into their own would produce?
If you look at the 5-year chart for MSFT, it is pretty clear that they have done a good job of maintaining the status quo... while the only real marketable success that they have enjoyed during that time has been the introduction of a competitive video game system.
On the other hand, the 6 month chart for Google is suggestive that the future value of internet based ad revenue isn't worth nearly as much as it used to be.
So, what gives?
Actually, yellow isn't bad as a background color, as long as it is dulled out and pastel. I have defaults in PuTTY setup that always set BLACK text and a PASTEL yellow, red, blue, or green background that I find to be easy on the eyes.
Sounds like a tax on Cigarettes to me. The state wants money and the product gives a temporary value to the customer, but after a certain amount of time, the product is used up and needs to be re-bought.
In some ways, music and cigarettes are similar because they have the ability to pollute the air (albeit, noise pollution vs. general vileness).
I wonder what the good Congressmen thinks about rebellious artists who give away their songs for free. What is the tax on a free song?
From the post you replied to, "the summary print outs are 'nice' for instant access to the results". Basically, the summary voting gives a sense of instant gratification that let's the voting public know who "won" the election the day after it is held. Computers can aggregate and publish the sum votes of millions of voters at the instant polls close and provide a result that meets the anticipated "instant-gratification" needs expected by the population.
Now, I think each polling place has an order of magnitude within 1,000 voters... so if the 10-20 workers open up the box with the votes at the close of the polls, it is reasonable for them to spend 2-3 hours doing a double and triple check count before actually "validating" what the machine summary said.
Trouble arises when the a human count differs from another human count or from the machine count. When this happens, obviously the data cannot be immediately validated and "official" results cannot be made available.
However, as long as "vote receipts" that have been checked over by the pair of eyes who cast that vote exist, then I think using a machine to vote is fine.
So - the first advantage of running an election with a computer voting system is instant gratification.
I am sure there are other advantages, too. Because computers have the ability to provide easier-to-use interfaces to complex systems than old-fashion analog machines. Not that voting for an individual office is a complex system... but imagine (god forbid) John McCain dying two days before election day and the complete mess it would be to retool 50,000 voting machines to have some other guy's name in it. In an analog world, that is impossible. In a digital world, the change can be managed from a central server and pushed down to the client machines.
I think the scary part is that the small error is definitive proof that the voting machines are wrong, but that there is no mention of a method in NJ for the poll workers to go back and check out that there really were X number of votes for each candidate.
The thing that is important for the integrity of the election is that there is a verified paper "receipt" that the voter has checked and dropped into a box that can't be tampered with.
Sure, the summary print outs are "nice" for instant access to the results, but there isn't really a good reason not to have a bi-partisan check of the paper records at the end of the day.
After 5 or 6 election cycles are validated with this computer/receipt method, then we could start to put more trust in the machines... but Diebold and their ilk have proven time-and-time again that they cannot design voting machines that stand up to scrutiny of even the simplest checks (like Felten's comparison between total votes and reported number of total voters).
I remember when professional baseball stadiums and professional hockey rinks were not dominated by placards touting the annual advertisers. These were simpler times, during which the teams could pay the salaries of the players with the money from ticket sales, TV revenue, and merchandise.
Now that every team basically whores the spaces in their stadium to the highest bidder, the whole aspect of the games are not as pure. Every stadium has a bank, a telecommunications company, a insurance business, an automobile company, and whichever varieties of soda or beer are offered at the concession stands.
And over time this has become completely acceptable because we (as a society) see nothing wrong with letting big corporations have the financial controls over us to control what we need to see or hear.
I'm sorry - but I vote to stop advertising from entrenching itself into yet another market.
Given the repletion required to type and retype our names and login IDs over the past 5-10 years, our fingers are conditioned to type these patterns quickly and repeatably.
I can type my typical "lastname/firstinitial" login name in about a third of a second. I can type my "firstname.lastname" in about half a second.
Given 5 minutes of practice with my name, you would probably be able to impersonate me - but as long as this system doesn't lock me out from my own account, this is a successful barrier that will make it harder for you to get into my system.
Then again... having a password that is hard to hack and running an operating system that is not easily hackable are stronger barriers that protect me from your infiltrations...
What about the option of borrowing wireless from a neighbor? I am a light browser who would be more than willing to go without Internet at home (with knowledge that I can go to a coffee shoppe if I *really* need something online). However, my neighbor pays for his access and doesn't mind that I utilize the connection a little bit at night or on the weekend. And the price is *much* more reasonable than paying Comcast $30-50 per month for "premium access".
Which -- I think is the entire point. $50 per month is TOO MUCH for somebody who absolutely positively could live without the service... and there is no $10 per month option for somebody who is only interested in downloading 20% of the amount of digital information as the guy who wants to run BitTorrent while he sleeps.
I would gladly give Comcast $10 per month for the amount of home internet use that I do. And if I get a "Error: Usage exceeded" during the 3rd week of the billing cycle -- then I would consider upgrading. But with only the "overpriced" option to choose from, I choose not to subscribe.
And frankly, this suits Comcast just fine, because there are plenty of people who are completely willing to pay for the $50 price point so that they can continue to run their business.
As an example: some people "need" internet so they can work from home 2-3 days per month. If they save 2 hours of commute time by connecting from home - guess what? The $50 connection paid for itself - because their time is probably more valuable to them then the cost and convenience of the connection.
What about a car that has a speedometer which goes up to 75 mph, but really alternates between 120 mph for 2 minutes and 30 mph for 8 minutes throughout your trip, so that the effective MAX speed is 48 mph?
Highway travel (analogous with video streaming/downloading) would be downright impossible because the minimum speed would be insufficient for that route.