I guess I don't see a particularly good distinction between Bit Torrent and Netflix. If I want to throttle one or the other I should do that. My ISP shouldn't be determining how I'm allowed to use the bandwidth I paid for.
I have a 1Mb down pipe at my house. I have my P2P client throttled down to 25KB/s which I think is quite reasonable (1/5 of my theoretical maximum rate rate). There are often times that I can't even do basic web browsing because my ISP has throttled my bandwidth. I've done some minimal work to make sure I wasn't saturating my home router and such. It's the pipe. Pause my P2P client and about 5 minutes later I get back to my normal bandwidth amount.
Depends. You should see an undulating curve as people "log on" over time. If there's a sharp point on the bandwidth curve then it's generally a good indicator that something artificial is happening.
ISPs throttling torrent traffic is detrimental to their business. It also happens to be important to a lot of tech savvy users. This is a shot off the bow to the ISPs who have been largely denying they do this stuff.
If the ISP didn't negotiate a profitable peering agreement I don't see how that's Google or Facebook's fault. Google pays its ISP, the consumer pays their ISP. What we're talking about is the middle-men wanting to charge Youtube or whatever more than their already negotiated per byte peering agreement. Silly.
The problem is that the LCD/LED (backlit) screens on laptops are VERY hard on the eyes compared to e-ink solutions. For occasional short reading you're fine, but if you're planning on actually doing any reading, I'd recommend a device specifically suited for it.
Our money is backed completely by faith in the U.S. government. Its value is based on the belief that the federal reserve will artificially limit its supply.
If you add the cost of war and interest on debt due to war to secure access to oil the price of gas is about $8-10/gal. That's a calculation by some guy who wrote a book I don't care to find at the moment. The point being, even if that figure is off there's a LOT of ancillary costs to getting access to oil that would largely be alleviated with alternative energy solutions.
Not disagreeing with you but you do have to count the conversion losses. So if the energy starts in AC and needs to end in AC you're going through two transformers. My google-fu shows the conversion efficiency is about 65%, which may or may not be correct. Anyways, it's still a viable option in conjunction with nuclear imho.
I agree with you completely. Someone above posted a picture of the "vandalism" though, they added a sign to their booth that said "Anon.. in it for the Lulz" or something to that affect. From the looks of it, nothing was destroyed.
Additionally, it appears Anonymous at least believes they're fighting for freedom of speech and open democracy wrt the wikileaks stuff. It's not the first time Americans have threatened to kill people for those rights.
Wait, you think it was non-violent speeches that put an end to the actions of those folks in the brown shirts and white sheets? I hate to break it to you but all justice begins with force. We have a reasonably fair court system in this country because we fought for it violently. Egypt is attempting something similar right now. And the comment about hiding their faces? Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? Yeah, they wore Indian costumes. Anonymous may or may not be a bunch of schmucks, but at least in the case of supporting wikileaks they ARE on the side of freedom of speech and open democracy which hopefully we can all agree is a good idea. We might differ on degrees and Anonymous may be the on the fringe radical side that we don't really like all that much, but they ARE on team *good*.
I wouldn't worry about it. The people who believe him religiously are generally poor and uneducated. They might be obnoxious but they're not dangerous. Some people need to be angry all the time. Let them get their groove on.
Most people don't know Beck started his career as a stand-up comedian. Watching him, his approach/delivery style, etc. makes more sense when you consider his foundation. I don't mean that he's talking about funny things anymore, but he's got the build-up and the "punchline" delivery style on his show. It works for him. More power to him for filling a market.
While I agree with that in principle I have a LOT more problems with Flash (probably poor job of the browser handling it) than I do with any native HTML/javascript. I've never had an HTML heavy site hang or crash.
Wikileaks doesn't compete with journalists. Wikileaks is a primary source, it's the long version. Journalism is what takes all that huge information and summarizes it into digestible bits that make it into news articles or on TV. The fact of the matter is that without journalists spreading the news for whatever tidbits journalists think are "sellable" no one in the general populace would have ever even heard of wikileaks.
Adjusted for inflation the price of games has gone down over the decades. The costs of making games hasn't gone down dramatically in spite of new technology. As technology grows we need more/better graphic artists and high definition music/video content in the games. This still costs a lot of labor. The reason games start at $60 is because some are willing to pay that price. As time goes by the price is dropped and "everyone else" comes along and buys the game. It's the best of both worlds for the business and the consumer. The consumers willing to pay to be "first" get some emotional reward for being the first person they know to get it, and the game producer maximizes profit. These are really basic business concepts.
I disagree the gaming companies are getting lazy. They're just maximizing profits. There probably isn't a significant difference in profit margin between console and PC games. But PC games require a lot more work if they're going to push higher quality graphics. Money spent that isn't made up in dramatically higher volume of PC games. Gamers are going to game no matter what. If the PC version doesn't satisfy, they will buy the PS3 version or whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly don't like to be in NOLA in the middle of summer with no AC...why even stay to do that?
I believe the word is poverty.
I guess I don't see a particularly good distinction between Bit Torrent and Netflix. If I want to throttle one or the other I should do that. My ISP shouldn't be determining how I'm allowed to use the bandwidth I paid for.
I have a 1Mb down pipe at my house. I have my P2P client throttled down to 25KB/s which I think is quite reasonable (1/5 of my theoretical maximum rate rate). There are often times that I can't even do basic web browsing because my ISP has throttled my bandwidth. I've done some minimal work to make sure I wasn't saturating my home router and such. It's the pipe. Pause my P2P client and about 5 minutes later I get back to my normal bandwidth amount.
Depends. You should see an undulating curve as people "log on" over time. If there's a sharp point on the bandwidth curve then it's generally a good indicator that something artificial is happening.
It could provide fodder for class actions against ISPs who are not living up to their advertised rates.
ISPs throttling torrent traffic is detrimental to their business. It also happens to be important to a lot of tech savvy users. This is a shot off the bow to the ISPs who have been largely denying they do this stuff.
If the ISP didn't negotiate a profitable peering agreement I don't see how that's Google or Facebook's fault. Google pays its ISP, the consumer pays their ISP. What we're talking about is the middle-men wanting to charge Youtube or whatever more than their already negotiated per byte peering agreement. Silly.
The problem is that the LCD/LED (backlit) screens on laptops are VERY hard on the eyes compared to e-ink solutions. For occasional short reading you're fine, but if you're planning on actually doing any reading, I'd recommend a device specifically suited for it.
Our money is backed completely by faith in the U.S. government. Its value is based on the belief that the federal reserve will artificially limit its supply.
Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.
~Mayer Amschel Rothschild (alleged)
If you add the cost of war and interest on debt due to war to secure access to oil the price of gas is about $8-10/gal. That's a calculation by some guy who wrote a book I don't care to find at the moment. The point being, even if that figure is off there's a LOT of ancillary costs to getting access to oil that would largely be alleviated with alternative energy solutions.
Not disagreeing with you but you do have to count the conversion losses. So if the energy starts in AC and needs to end in AC you're going through two transformers. My google-fu shows the conversion efficiency is about 65%, which may or may not be correct. Anyways, it's still a viable option in conjunction with nuclear imho.
Meh. Give me a call when this supposed increase in efficiency results in a net reduction of costs of our military spending.
Neither of those options line the pockets of "consulting" firms. Ergo, they're non-starters.
I agree with you completely. Someone above posted a picture of the "vandalism" though, they added a sign to their booth that said "Anon.. in it for the Lulz" or something to that affect. From the looks of it, nothing was destroyed.
Additionally, it appears Anonymous at least believes they're fighting for freedom of speech and open democracy wrt the wikileaks stuff. It's not the first time Americans have threatened to kill people for those rights.
Wait, you think it was non-violent speeches that put an end to the actions of those folks in the brown shirts and white sheets? I hate to break it to you but all justice begins with force. We have a reasonably fair court system in this country because we fought for it violently. Egypt is attempting something similar right now. And the comment about hiding their faces? Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? Yeah, they wore Indian costumes. Anonymous may or may not be a bunch of schmucks, but at least in the case of supporting wikileaks they ARE on the side of freedom of speech and open democracy which hopefully we can all agree is a good idea. We might differ on degrees and Anonymous may be the on the fringe radical side that we don't really like all that much, but they ARE on team *good*.
I wouldn't worry about it. The people who believe him religiously are generally poor and uneducated. They might be obnoxious but they're not dangerous. Some people need to be angry all the time. Let them get their groove on.
Most people don't know Beck started his career as a stand-up comedian. Watching him, his approach/delivery style, etc. makes more sense when you consider his foundation. I don't mean that he's talking about funny things anymore, but he's got the build-up and the "punchline" delivery style on his show. It works for him. More power to him for filling a market.
While I agree with that in principle I have a LOT more problems with Flash (probably poor job of the browser handling it) than I do with any native HTML/javascript. I've never had an HTML heavy site hang or crash.
I'm fairly certain he covered all of the profit in item 1.
Wikileaks doesn't compete with journalists. Wikileaks is a primary source, it's the long version. Journalism is what takes all that huge information and summarizes it into digestible bits that make it into news articles or on TV. The fact of the matter is that without journalists spreading the news for whatever tidbits journalists think are "sellable" no one in the general populace would have ever even heard of wikileaks.
Adjusted for inflation the price of games has gone down over the decades. The costs of making games hasn't gone down dramatically in spite of new technology. As technology grows we need more/better graphic artists and high definition music/video content in the games. This still costs a lot of labor. The reason games start at $60 is because some are willing to pay that price. As time goes by the price is dropped and "everyone else" comes along and buys the game. It's the best of both worlds for the business and the consumer. The consumers willing to pay to be "first" get some emotional reward for being the first person they know to get it, and the game producer maximizes profit. These are really basic business concepts.
A $1-2 game on my phone/tablet doesn't compete with the $50 games on wii/xbox/ps3. It competes with the $5-15 games on the wii virtual console.
AJAX.
I disagree the gaming companies are getting lazy. They're just maximizing profits. There probably isn't a significant difference in profit margin between console and PC games. But PC games require a lot more work if they're going to push higher quality graphics. Money spent that isn't made up in dramatically higher volume of PC games. Gamers are going to game no matter what. If the PC version doesn't satisfy, they will buy the PS3 version or whatever.