"This Home Server pill may cause electoral dysfunction. If your electoral dysfunction lasts until November 8, you will survive as long as electoral dysfunction from other medications affects your competitor deeper and harder.
Symptoms may include coughing, sniffing, regurgitation of green phlegm into your water glass, ignored pneumonia, calling others "deplorable", insulting pageant contestants and veterans, urge to build walls, and rapid change of subject when the topic of emails is brought up.
Notice: the Bernie Pill and Rubio Pill are no longer available. We apologize for the reduced choice, which is the result of the recent Affordable-Hubris-Care legislation, and not our attempt to blatantly rip off consumers for profit by merging with our competition.
Note the Gary Johnson Pill is still available, but it's a placebo. Although, some have found placebos more effective than real candidates because they are not smart enough to meddle on the globe. Have a nice day."
Side note Re Sig: "We believe that Internet Explorer is a really good browser" - Steve Jobs, 1997'
In 1997 it was, compared to the other offerings of the time. It was roughly equivalent to Netscape in quality and features, and the other browsers were still playing catch-up.
To an untrained uneducated individual, progress is bad...But to "everyone" (as in the average, not every individual), progress is quite beneficial.
A little lesson in human nature here. You seem to be confusing "stuff" with social standing, or perhaps ignoring social standing. A lot of us humans have something called "ego", which is essentially our desire to have a high-level social standing.
Having more stuff will not necessarily compensate for a low social standing. Many would rather be a medieval knight than an unemployed dude with 3 smelly roommates. Life is still safer, more comfortable, and more predictable for the Couch Guy, but a big hit to the ego compared to the knight.
The knight certainly has better mating options (at least with females), and most guys think with their dick.
O said a mild version of that several years ago, and H is usually said to have mostly the same policy stances, although it's a stretch to put the (exaggerated) quote in her mouth. It's kind of ironic, though, since T is the one buddying-up to the ruskies of late.
Most of the current ones don't match their advertised speed anyhow unless you test at say 9 am Wednesday morning.
If speed is ALL you care about, then my suggestion is probably not for you. Like I said, I'd prefer reliability and content choice over (spotty) speed, and suspect most others would agree.
Suppose we kept things as they are and you purchased the best high-speed package available. It may zoom during non-peak hours and you could watch your favorite shows in real-time in HD during these non-peak hours, but during peak hours it would crawl.
If you have relatively slow but consistent speed, then you learn to adjust your routine to buffer content or whatnot so that you don't have to do something different on Wednesday than you do Sunday. And various services would be offered for buffering etc. since many others are in the same boat. Options would appear to work around the down-sides, partly because there are more content services competing.
You want a Maserati that will break down often, but most would rather have a Honda Civic: boring but reliable. (They may want to try the Maserati for fun and glitz, but get tired of it breaking down all the time eventually.)
I'd qualify that. It's pretty obvious that drones can be cheaper and more plentiful than manned jets (MJ), and not subject g-force limits like humans are.
However, the jammed signal issue has to be dealt with. If we don't take advantage of drone abilities, other countries will, and potentially overwhelm us IF we are not able to successfully jam them.
Since battle with new tech is hard to predict, it would be militarily smart to hedge our bets and have both.
It's nice to have a good share of both drones and MJ, but it ain't cheep. I suspect the quantity of MJ's will become stagnant in the air-forces of most countries, while drones increase, and that budgets will be split about 50/50 between drones and MJ's. This means numerically more drones since they are roughly 1/5 the cost of an MJ.
The USA allows natural monopolies as a practicable matter, where alternatives wouldn't make sense due to the capital/resource requirements.
I'm not sure that's true. Make "the last mile" a standardized utility. This would make it far easier for many competitors to enter the market because they wouldn't have to string potentially redundant wires to jillions of homes: they'd only have to hook up to routing nodes, set roughly a mile apart from each other.
You can then change ISP and content providers without anyone having to visit your house: it's all done at the routing nodes. (That part could perhaps even be made remote-controlled so that a truck doesn't even have to visit the nodes.)
The last-mile problem is the current bottleneck to competition. Remove that barrier by shifting it to a utility, and we then get real competition instead of the 2 co-shitty ISP's a typical city has to choose between.
Some may argue that a utility would be slow to add speed improvements, which would typically increase over time based on past patterns. But I'd sacrifice growing speed for reliability and choice. Reliability and choice are something the current oligopolies consistently suck at: they crawl on weekends and force you buy crap you don't want to get what you do want (bundling). Let alone crappy customer service.
Only an out-of-touch idiot like Romney would ever think that Russia is our enemy! -- Hillary Clinton
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Mitt had terrible overseas relations. He visited 10 countries on an election tour, and offended 20 in the process. Enough of these rich-children candidates and presidents.
As example the f-16 was plagued by huge problems with it's fly by wire system early on... and there were also claimed to be a failed project, but then the things were fixed
But fly-by-wire was new tech that takes time to tune. The F-35 is plagued by trying to be too many different kinds of planes. It's not based on one or few revolutionary ideas; it's based on trying to satisfy too many diff requirements via compromises and bloat. You can fix new tech, but you cannot fix a bag of bad design trade-offs.
As background, here's how to avoid the sunk cost fallacy. In accounting one should evaluate the cost/benefits by weighing both choices going forward. Money spent in the past should be ignored in the calculations because that cannot be changed.
Human nature has a tendency to favor options that one has invested a lot of time or money in. But that's often a mistake, kind of like grading on effort instead of merit.
Thus, the question is, if we scrapped the F-35 now, would we get a better military for the same money than if we kept it. The fact that lots has been invested in the past should be ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
"This Home Server pill may cause electoral dysfunction. If your electoral dysfunction lasts until November 8, you will survive as long as electoral dysfunction from other medications affects your competitor deeper and harder.
Symptoms may include coughing, sniffing, regurgitation of green phlegm into your water glass, ignored pneumonia, calling others "deplorable", insulting pageant contestants and veterans, urge to build walls, and rapid change of subject when the topic of emails is brought up.
Notice: the Bernie Pill and Rubio Pill are no longer available. We apologize for the reduced choice, which is the result of the recent Affordable-Hubris-Care legislation, and not our attempt to blatantly rip off consumers for profit by merging with our competition.
Note the Gary Johnson Pill is still available, but it's a placebo. Although, some have found placebos more effective than real candidates because they are not smart enough to meddle on the globe. Have a nice day."
Hillary has already had bunches of cybercrisises.
"The Next President Will Face a Cybercrisis Within -100 Days"
FTFY
Side note Re Sig: "We believe that Internet Explorer is a really good browser" - Steve Jobs, 1997'
In 1997 it was, compared to the other offerings of the time. It was roughly equivalent to Netscape in quality and features, and the other browsers were still playing catch-up.
A little lesson in human nature here. You seem to be confusing "stuff" with social standing, or perhaps ignoring social standing. A lot of us humans have something called "ego", which is essentially our desire to have a high-level social standing.
Having more stuff will not necessarily compensate for a low social standing. Many would rather be a medieval knight than an unemployed dude with 3 smelly roommates. Life is still safer, more comfortable, and more predictable for the Couch Guy, but a big hit to the ego compared to the knight.
The knight certainly has better mating options (at least with females), and most guys think with their dick.
Global Tectonicking will doom us all! Run for the hills!
O said a mild version of that several years ago, and H is usually said to have mostly the same policy stances, although it's a stretch to put the (exaggerated) quote in her mouth. It's kind of ironic, though, since T is the one buddying-up to the ruskies of late.
Most of the current ones don't match their advertised speed anyhow unless you test at say 9 am Wednesday morning.
If speed is ALL you care about, then my suggestion is probably not for you. Like I said, I'd prefer reliability and content choice over (spotty) speed, and suspect most others would agree.
Suppose we kept things as they are and you purchased the best high-speed package available. It may zoom during non-peak hours and you could watch your favorite shows in real-time in HD during these non-peak hours, but during peak hours it would crawl.
If you have relatively slow but consistent speed, then you learn to adjust your routine to buffer content or whatnot so that you don't have to do something different on Wednesday than you do Sunday. And various services would be offered for buffering etc. since many others are in the same boat. Options would appear to work around the down-sides, partly because there are more content services competing.
You want a Maserati that will break down often, but most would rather have a Honda Civic: boring but reliable. (They may want to try the Maserati for fun and glitz, but get tired of it breaking down all the time eventually.)
sue me
I'd qualify that. It's pretty obvious that drones can be cheaper and more plentiful than manned jets (MJ), and not subject g-force limits like humans are.
However, the jammed signal issue has to be dealt with. If we don't take advantage of drone abilities, other countries will, and potentially overwhelm us IF we are not able to successfully jam them.
Since battle with new tech is hard to predict, it would be militarily smart to hedge our bets and have both.
It's nice to have a good share of both drones and MJ, but it ain't cheep. I suspect the quantity of MJ's will become stagnant in the air-forces of most countries, while drones increase, and that budgets will be split about 50/50 between drones and MJ's. This means numerically more drones since they are roughly 1/5 the cost of an MJ.
When you're dealing with Jeff Bezos, it's more like Babble-On Five
I'm not sure that's true. Make "the last mile" a standardized utility. This would make it far easier for many competitors to enter the market because they wouldn't have to string potentially redundant wires to jillions of homes: they'd only have to hook up to routing nodes, set roughly a mile apart from each other.
You can then change ISP and content providers without anyone having to visit your house: it's all done at the routing nodes. (That part could perhaps even be made remote-controlled so that a truck doesn't even have to visit the nodes.)
The last-mile problem is the current bottleneck to competition. Remove that barrier by shifting it to a utility, and we then get real competition instead of the 2 co-shitty ISP's a typical city has to choose between.
Some may argue that a utility would be slow to add speed improvements, which would typically increase over time based on past patterns. But I'd sacrifice growing speed for reliability and choice. Reliability and choice are something the current oligopolies consistently suck at: they crawl on weekends and force you buy crap you don't want to get what you do want (bundling). Let alone crappy customer service.
I'm fine with trying that experiment on Mitt also.
Could be. Direct mass consequences may be starting:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
Have Comey look into this immediately!
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Mitt had terrible overseas relations. He visited 10 countries on an election tour, and offended 20 in the process. Enough of these rich-children candidates and presidents.
Have you considered rosettacode.org? It has almost 1,000 little problems and puzzles in multiple programming languages.
It may depend one's State. I've heard different rules.
Given a choice between being unemployed or working a dangerous occupation, many would indeed choose the second.
From a purely biological perspective, males do take risks to get laid. Been that way for about a billion years.
One should weigh R&D costs also; that's part of it. But that's in terms of weighing knowledge and skill, not past expenditures themselves.
But fly-by-wire was new tech that takes time to tune. The F-35 is plagued by trying to be too many different kinds of planes. It's not based on one or few revolutionary ideas; it's based on trying to satisfy too many diff requirements via compromises and bloat. You can fix new tech, but you cannot fix a bag of bad design trade-offs.
As background, here's how to avoid the sunk cost fallacy. In accounting one should evaluate the cost/benefits by weighing both choices going forward. Money spent in the past should be ignored in the calculations because that cannot be changed.
Human nature has a tendency to favor options that one has invested a lot of time or money in. But that's often a mistake, kind of like grading on effort instead of merit.
Thus, the question is, if we scrapped the F-35 now, would we get a better military for the same money than if we kept it. The fact that lots has been invested in the past should be ignored.
Not for those losing their job. Many, if not most, will be unemployed for a while or receive less pay on their next job.
For Pete's sake, first it's H-1B's, and now damned mimes!
Why is the Gimp icon the only one that works?
I told them not to run Microsoft Lander, but nobody would listen. "But everyone else is using it blah blah."
I thought radar was typically used to know how far one is from the ground? Seems a lot more straightforward than detecting thumps and bumps.