I'm sure the people who got into plugging their Kinects into things other than the X-box that it was marketed for will not be stopped by a mere connector. If it's still electrically USB then no doubt they will just cut the end off and attach a real USB plug. Those who still want to use it on the XBox can always attach a USB socket to the connector that they cut off to make an adapter to go back to the XBox.
Some time after we see articles about people doing this all over Hackaday cheap Chinese XBox connector to USB adapters will start showing up on Ebay requiring no cutting.
Be honest, are you really a Computer Scientist? Or are you a Computer Programmer with a Computer Science degree? There is a big difference! Are you working on new computer algorithms on a regular basis? Are you applying computer programming to some sort of scientific research? Or are you just working on one or more business applications.
I have a Computer Science degree myself. Computer Science is definately was geared to prepare one for the first two and you really do need Calculus for that. But... 90 some percent of the jobs out there are just business applications. If you aren't the top of the class in a big name school and/or you don't want to move to one of a few select cities you will almost surely end up writing business applications.
For most programming jobs an Information Systems degree, maybe even just an Associate would probably be more apropriate but a BS in CS looks better on a resume. Sadly, in a competitive job market that's what counts.
Sincerely, A Computer Programmer who once dreamed of being a Computer Scientist and still remembers the difference
PS: I suppose a few percent or so of programmers find a 4th option, game programming. I have no idea what their mathematical needs are. That market looks way too unstable for me to care!
Hmm... this is a good point. I'm not sure though, should they be made to study specific sciences? If so then which one(s)? How will it protect them from believing falacies about the rest? Should everyone learn it all?
It's a pretty big investment of time, energy (and at the university level, money) to make somebody study something they aren't really interested in. Will they really even learn anything? I knew lots of people in school who could cram a bunch of facts into their short-term memories long enough to get an A and afterwards knew almost nothing and understood even less. Those are usually the people with the best grades!
Maybe people would be better served with a logic course. They could learn how to spot bad arguments about any subject sciences and their own specialties included.
Yes but nobody provides a direct connection to the Internet as a whole. If I put a computer on the Internet and start serving content from it then that computer is now part of the Internet. I don't expect Verizon and all the other ISPs to start stringing fiber to my house though! Granted, Cogent is much larger than my personal server and Verizon's customers probably are much more interested in reaching Netflix than they are my content. I can certainly see how not making more direct connections to Cogent might piss off Verizon's customers and thus be a bad business decision. I don't see how it would be a net neutraility issue like say inspecting packets and throttling any that involve Netflix would be. It's just an issue of not investing in expanding their network properly.
Unless.. they are somehow obligated under some sort of agreement to keep the connection between those parts of the internet built up and flowing smoothly. That's more what I was wondering when I asked my original question. Did Verizon somehow take on a responsibility to keep those parts of the Internet well connected? I'm not very clear on the history of how the backbone transitioned from the taxpayer funded Arpanet to the comercial networks that make it up today and what compels the companies that own the backbone links to maintain and grow them beyond keeping their own customers happy.
Sure, but here I guess is where I don't get it. The original 'cloud' was just the old Arpanet backbone right? Commercial and other networks were connected to it, eventually leaving the original pieces in the dust and Arpanet was taken down. Those new connections were made not to benefit the whole though but rather to benefit the companies that built, paid for and maintained them right? What makes Verizon obligated to build more connections to Cogent?
Meters per second is probably far more apropriate for something that is tethered on the end of a short cable but I'm sure many more of us can relate to one of either mph or kph.
Maybe this is a generational gap but I don't get it, why is removing comments from one's own site considered censorship?
Preventing someone from propogating their ideas at all... that is censorship. Preventing them from doing it on your own website/blog/etc... if anything that is free speech!
You have your site to propogate YOUR ideas. Saying you have to accept other's ideas there... that just seems like it tramples your own freedom of expression. Anybody can get their own place to post their propoganda! I think putting somebody down for deleting a comment is like putting a homeowner down for not letting people paint their contrary opinions on the outside of their house.
That being said I will also take what I read with a grain of salt. For example, I wouldn't form an opinion of KDE vs Gnome's popularity by reading the comments on their respective websites! I would look for a neutral third party site for that. It's just common sense!
I think that in many cases 'Fanbois' putting down the competition is fueled by fear. I know in some cases I do it myself!
Here's the thing... we don't all like the same stuff but some things are more popular than others. Most of us are lacking in at least one (if not all three) of time, ability and motivation to take over our favorite projects ourselves. If we perceive that the competition is getting all the users... well.. maybe the developers will start giving up. Maybe the project we like will go away. So... we oppose the competition in any way we can.
For example... I don't like Gnome very much. Most of the reasons are things I could change by customizing it but Gnome isn't even all that easy to customize. You have to (the last I checked, it's been a while) install an extra program that then allows you to edit things in a big jumbled up thing that looks like the Windows registry. (I don't like registries). Plus, for any distro I have tried, Gnome's defaults are almost exactly opposite of what I prefer.
Now... I know that many people do like it that way. They like the default options. They like the simplicity of not having many options staring them in the face. They aren't stopping me from using KDE. But... since Ubuntu chose Gnome it seems like 'everybody' is using it. What if the KDE developers stopped bothering? Then I would eventually HAVE to use Gnome. So.. I enjoy putting Gnome down. Because I REALLY don't want a future where I am stuck with it.
I don't like Mir or Wayland. I know they will lead to better performance for games and such. I know that that is a good thing. I don't have any time for games. I fear it will not support remote display the way I want it to. No doubt somebody will implement a remote compositor for it. But I fear it will be a VNC/Remote Desktop type solution. I do use those myself but I also use a remote X server as a terminal. I don't want to just be able to connect from some full PC environment using an application I have to start. I want my terminal to work as it does now, I hit the power button, it loads a minimial OS (fast plus low maintenance) and automatically brings up a login screen to my main computer. It never feels like I am connecting remotely, it's like I am sitting in my office.
If Wayland (or Mir) get all the developers then maybe new applicaitons will not support X. I am a programmer but I am nowhere near knowing how to write my own compositor! If this happens then my way of doing things is permanently screwed! So... I will bad mouth Wayland any chance that I get! Because I fear losing what I have. I would much rather see Wayland and Mir fail to get users. Somebody else will solve the gaming issue eventually anyway, hopefully without removing the functionality I use now.
I wish you weren't A/C it would be nice if you could try this and respond again!
Anyway..
Your experiment doesn't necessarily show they are deprioritizing Youtube. It could be that they are deprioritizing large downloads in genreal. It actually kind of makes sense to do so. You have 100s of thousands of people trying to get millions of files all at the same time. Many are tiny little files that could be transfered nearly in an instant. Some are huge plus will take a while. It makes sense to let those tiny ones through first and just get them done and out of the way. It's similar to someone in a supermarket with a large cart full of items plus a checkbook to fill out and a stack of coupons letting the person behind them in line with just a candy bar and cash in hand go ahead.
At the network level I am guessing they don't know the size of the file so they go by the length of the connection. If it's still open and moving data after so many seconds it must be a huge file so slow it down a bit plus let others go ahead. Such a setup might be quite sensible for a large provider with the means to implement it. I wouldn't expect anything that fancy on a university network so that explains your fast download there.
You should try downloading large files from other places besides just Youtube. If the same happens everywhere then they probably aren't doing anything wrong. No.. wait.. it's Comcast, they must doing something wrong. It's in their nature to be evil but they aren't necessarily doing it in the way that you thought!
Also... since Youtube is supposed to be streamed, not downloaded.. you only need so fast of a download. Any faster and your computer is just caching. I suppose Comcast could know this and it would be a valid reason to increase the performance for other customers by throttling you. I'm not trying to put you down for violating Youtube's terms of service. I've done it before myself and I really don't care but I'm not convinced that is something Comcast has to make accomodations for either.
Now, if that is what is happening and the slower speed is not fast enough to allow you to actually watch the video as intended then they are doing something wrong. It could be that they are being evil, trying to use their control to steer people away from some companies plus towards their own. Or.. they could have just configured their throttle at a time when bandwidth was tighter and Youtube videos had lower resolutions. In that case they are just overdue to revisit their configuration and adjust it to get with the times.
Ok, if Verizon is intentionally slowing down Netflix, something like putting a delay on the transmission of packets or throwing away a certain percent of them so that they have to be resent, etc... That would be an unfair practice and something to be pretty upset about.
But, what exactly are 'Peering Points'? Are they special Verizon to Cogent connections put in place specifically to help us use Netflix? If so then shouldn't we be thanking them for having any such connections at all? Do they for some reason have to add more just because we want to use them? I thought an internet connection was just a connection to the network 'cloud' and from the 'cloud' we just get what we get.
A. Pay for it, (and the public (museums) get the artifacts) B. Don't pay for it (and probably not get the artifacts)
Apparently the government has taken choice C.
Make one person (or household or business) who doesn't necessarily have any interest in the artifact pay for it out of their own pocket even if they cannot afford to do so.
If you can't see why C. is wrong then I sincerely hope you make a monumental discovery in your own back yard some time soon.
If the likelihood and cost of those rules is great enough then there would be no more earth-movers. So, society does with out that I guess. Enjoy your slanty house as it slides down the hill!
I can understand both sides of this one. They really shouldn't be making the finders pay for the excavation.
In the case of a family finding a skeleton, $5,000 is a lot of money! If that history (belongs to us all) then (us all) should be footing the bill! I know that I for one could not afford to pay that kind of money for something I didn't expect and don't actually personally need. I just don't have that much lying around! It isn't there! Maybe I could make payments but a family is enough to pay for already, some extra payment that I don't need would cause a real, tangible hardship.
As for the construction company pouring concrete down the hole.. that is pretty bad. It saddens me that someone is doing that. But... Could they afford to pay for a proper excavation? It sounds like this has happened more than once. How many excavations could they afford? Would they do the right thing right out of business? It's probably expensive enough just having a project delayed while the archaeologists do their thing. Remember.. if the company goes under real people, who are alive today lose their livelihoods. Will the museum take them in, cloth feed and shelter them?
I do wish that construction company would use a less destructive method to cover things back up if that is what they must do. It's really too bad that the government that is demanding they do this doesn't at least pay for it.
Actually, although it is all connected sea level does vary some by location. The biggest variance is no doubt caused by the tidal forces from the moon and the bulge at the equater due to the Earth's rotation but those aren't really applicable to this conversation.
There is also the fact that some parts of the world have a whole lot more water coming out of the ocean (evaporation) and others have a lot more going in (like where ice is melting). Of course gravity levels it back out but the world's ocean is really big. It takes time for the water to get from the one side of the world to the other. Meanwhile, since these processes are onging it never really totally catches up. Thus.. the ocean really is higher in some places than others. Since this kind is caused by climate warming actually can increase the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure the people who got into plugging their Kinects into things other than the X-box that it was marketed for will not be stopped by a mere connector. If it's still electrically USB then no doubt they will just cut the end off and attach a real USB plug. Those who still want to use it on the XBox can always attach a USB socket to the connector that they cut off to make an adapter to go back to the XBox.
Some time after we see articles about people doing this all over Hackaday cheap Chinese XBox connector to USB adapters will start showing up on Ebay requiring no cutting.
Be honest, are you really a Computer Scientist? Or are you a Computer Programmer with a Computer Science degree? There is a big difference! Are you working on new computer algorithms on a regular basis? Are you applying computer programming to some sort of scientific research? Or are you just working on one or more business applications.
I have a Computer Science degree myself. Computer Science is definately was geared to prepare one for the first two and you really do need Calculus for that. But... 90 some percent of the jobs out there are just business applications. If you aren't the top of the class in a big name school and/or you don't want to move to one of a few select cities you will almost surely end up writing business applications.
For most programming jobs an Information Systems degree, maybe even just an Associate would probably be more apropriate but a BS in CS looks better on a resume. Sadly, in a competitive job market that's what counts.
Sincerely,
A Computer Programmer who once dreamed of being a Computer Scientist and still remembers the difference
PS: I suppose a few percent or so of programmers find a 4th option, game programming. I have no idea what their mathematical needs are. That market looks way too unstable for me to care!
Hmm... this is a good point. I'm not sure though, should they be made to study specific sciences? If so then which one(s)? How will it protect them from believing falacies about the rest? Should everyone learn it all?
It's a pretty big investment of time, energy (and at the university level, money) to make somebody study something they aren't really interested in. Will they really even learn anything? I knew lots of people in school who could cram a bunch of facts into their short-term memories long enough to get an A and afterwards knew almost nothing and understood even less. Those are usually the people with the best grades!
Maybe people would be better served with a logic course. They could learn how to spot bad arguments about any subject sciences and their own specialties included.
Bull
The only time that rule is valid is when you are writing for a class and your teacher insists on it.
http://grammarist.com/grammar/conjunctions-to-start-sentences/
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm
http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/conjunctions
http://www.writersrelief.com/blog/2010/01/how-and-when-to-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction/
I could keep going for a long time...
http://fhs-consulting.com/aa1tj/Bobik.html - Bobik; An 80m tunnel diode transmitter that spanned over 1000km its first night out!
http://fhs-consulting.com/aa1tj/mikums.html - Mikums; A one-tunnel diode, 80m transceiver
http://fhs-consulting.com/aa1tj/tunneldiodetransmitter.html - Tunnel Diode Transmitter; An adventure with two dots of dirty Germanium
http://fhs-consulting.com/aa1tj/TDConverter.djvu - Tunnel Diode Converter Circuits; Article by Erich Gottlieb
Until the application you want to run no longer supports X. But you need X for it's remote display capabilities...
Yes but nobody provides a direct connection to the Internet as a whole. If I put a computer on the Internet and start serving content from it then that computer is now part of the Internet. I don't expect Verizon and all the other ISPs to start stringing fiber to my house though! Granted, Cogent is much larger than my personal server and Verizon's customers probably are much more interested in reaching Netflix than they are my content. I can certainly see how not making more direct connections to Cogent might piss off Verizon's customers and thus be a bad business decision. I don't see how it would be a net neutraility issue like say inspecting packets and throttling any that involve Netflix would be. It's just an issue of not investing in expanding their network properly.
Unless.. they are somehow obligated under some sort of agreement to keep the connection between those parts of the internet built up and flowing smoothly. That's more what I was wondering when I asked my original question. Did Verizon somehow take on a responsibility to keep those parts of the Internet well connected? I'm not very clear on the history of how the backbone transitioned from the taxpayer funded Arpanet to the comercial networks that make it up today and what compels the companies that own the backbone links to maintain and grow them beyond keeping their own customers happy.
Sure, but here I guess is where I don't get it. The original 'cloud' was just the old Arpanet backbone right? Commercial and other networks were connected to it, eventually leaving the original pieces in the dust and Arpanet was taken down. Those new connections were made not to benefit the whole though but rather to benefit the companies that built, paid for and maintained them right? What makes Verizon obligated to build more connections to Cogent?
Well.. I wasn't being serious. I'm not sure sarcastic is the right word to describe it though.
1.42 m/s = 3.18 mph = 5.11 kph
Meters per second is probably far more apropriate for something that is tethered on the end of a short cable but I'm sure many more of us can relate to one of either mph or kph.
Maybe this is a generational gap but I don't get it, why is removing comments from one's own site considered censorship?
Preventing someone from propogating their ideas at all... that is censorship. Preventing them from doing it on your own website/blog/etc... if anything that is free speech!
You have your site to propogate YOUR ideas. Saying you have to accept other's ideas there... that just seems like it tramples your own freedom of expression. Anybody can get their own place to post their propoganda! I think putting somebody down for deleting a comment is like putting a homeowner down for not letting people paint their contrary opinions on the outside of their house.
That being said I will also take what I read with a grain of salt. For example, I wouldn't form an opinion of KDE vs Gnome's popularity by reading the comments on their respective websites! I would look for a neutral third party site for that. It's just common sense!
I think that in many cases 'Fanbois' putting down the competition is fueled by fear. I know in some cases I do it myself!
Here's the thing... we don't all like the same stuff but some things are more popular than others. Most of us are lacking in at least one (if not all three) of time, ability and motivation to take over our favorite projects ourselves. If we perceive that the competition is getting all the users... well.. maybe the developers will start giving up. Maybe the project we like will go away. So... we oppose the competition in any way we can.
For example... I don't like Gnome very much. Most of the reasons are things I could change by customizing it but Gnome isn't even all that easy to customize. You have to (the last I checked, it's been a while) install an extra program that then allows you to edit things in a big jumbled up thing that looks like the Windows registry. (I don't like registries). Plus, for any distro I have tried, Gnome's defaults are almost exactly opposite of what I prefer.
Now... I know that many people do like it that way. They like the default options. They like the simplicity of not having many options staring them in the face. They aren't stopping me from using KDE. But... since Ubuntu chose Gnome it seems like 'everybody' is using it. What if the KDE developers stopped bothering? Then I would eventually HAVE to use Gnome. So.. I enjoy putting Gnome down. Because I REALLY don't want a future where I am stuck with it.
I don't like Mir or Wayland. I know they will lead to better performance for games and such. I know that that is a good thing. I don't have any time for games. I fear it will not support remote display the way I want it to. No doubt somebody will implement a remote compositor for it. But I fear it will be a VNC/Remote Desktop type solution. I do use those myself but I also use a remote X server as a terminal. I don't want to just be able to connect from some full PC environment using an application I have to start. I want my terminal to work as it does now, I hit the power button, it loads a minimial OS (fast plus low maintenance) and automatically brings up a login screen to my main computer. It never feels like I am connecting remotely, it's like I am sitting in my office.
If Wayland (or Mir) get all the developers then maybe new applicaitons will not support X. I am a programmer but I am nowhere near knowing how to write my own compositor! If this happens then my way of doing things is permanently screwed! So... I will bad mouth Wayland any chance that I get! Because I fear losing what I have. I would much rather see Wayland and Mir fail to get users. Somebody else will solve the gaming issue eventually anyway, hopefully without removing the functionality I use now.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." --Robert J Hanlon
I wish you weren't A/C it would be nice if you could try this and respond again!
Anyway..
Your experiment doesn't necessarily show they are deprioritizing Youtube. It could be that they are deprioritizing large downloads in genreal. It actually kind of makes sense to do so. You have 100s of thousands of people trying to get millions of files all at the same time. Many are tiny little files that could be transfered nearly in an instant. Some are huge plus will take a while. It makes sense to let those tiny ones through first and just get them done and out of the way. It's similar to someone in a supermarket with a large cart full of items plus a checkbook to fill out and a stack of coupons letting the person behind them in line with just a candy bar and cash in hand go ahead.
At the network level I am guessing they don't know the size of the file so they go by the length of the connection. If it's still open and moving data after so many seconds it must be a huge file so slow it down a bit plus let others go ahead. Such a setup might be quite sensible for a large provider with the means to implement it. I wouldn't expect anything that fancy on a university network so that explains your fast download there.
You should try downloading large files from other places besides just Youtube. If the same happens everywhere then they probably aren't doing anything wrong. No.. wait.. it's Comcast, they must doing something wrong. It's in their nature to be evil but they aren't necessarily doing it in the way that you thought!
Also... since Youtube is supposed to be streamed, not downloaded.. you only need so fast of a download. Any faster and your computer is just caching. I suppose Comcast could know this and it would be a valid reason to increase the performance for other customers by throttling you. I'm not trying to put you down for violating Youtube's terms of service. I've done it before myself and I really don't care but I'm not convinced that is something Comcast has to make accomodations for either.
Now, if that is what is happening and the slower speed is not fast enough to allow you to actually watch the video as intended then they are doing something wrong. It could be that they are being evil, trying to use their control to steer people away from some companies plus towards their own. Or.. they could have just configured their throttle at a time when bandwidth was tighter and Youtube videos had lower resolutions. In that case they are just overdue to revisit their configuration and adjust it to get with the times.
Ok, if Verizon is intentionally slowing down Netflix, something like putting a delay on the transmission of packets or throwing away a certain percent of them so that they have to be resent, etc... That would be an unfair practice and something to be pretty upset about.
But, what exactly are 'Peering Points'? Are they special Verizon to Cogent connections put in place specifically to help us use Netflix? If so then shouldn't we be thanking them for having any such connections at all? Do they for some reason have to add more just because we want to use them? I thought an internet connection was just a connection to the network 'cloud' and from the 'cloud' we just get what we get.
I'd run it through something similar to a code beautification script, something that would standardize the whitespace, correct mis-spellings, etc...
Then.. your 3 sources idea might still be a good one in order to check for whole word changes.
Everybody needs an English(or other language) textbook that has had some script randomly alter it's punctuation a bit!
What is your evidence for this claim? Names and phone numbers please.
Oh, yay. Another troll blaming imigrants for everything!
Hah, And then he asked why Ubuntu doesn't make Emacs it's default. Duh! Everybody knows that is because Ubuntu sucks!
Well... here are the taxpayers choices
A. Pay for it, (and the public (museums) get the artifacts)
B. Don't pay for it (and probably not get the artifacts)
Apparently the government has taken choice C.
Make one person (or household or business) who doesn't necessarily have any interest in the artifact pay for it out of their own pocket even if they cannot afford to do so.
If you can't see why C. is wrong then I sincerely hope you make a monumental discovery in your own back yard some time soon.
If the likelihood and cost of those rules is great enough then there would be no more earth-movers. So, society does with out that I guess. Enjoy your slanty house as it slides down the hill!
Aparently humanity needs a bailout from people who build fences? Screw the individual if it can benefit the masses?
I can understand both sides of this one. They really shouldn't be making the finders pay for the excavation.
In the case of a family finding a skeleton, $5,000 is a lot of money! If that history (belongs to us all) then (us all) should be footing the bill! I know that I for one could not afford to pay that kind of money for something I didn't expect and don't actually personally need. I just don't have that much lying around! It isn't there! Maybe I could make payments but a family is enough to pay for already, some extra payment that I don't need would cause a real, tangible hardship.
As for the construction company pouring concrete down the hole.. that is pretty bad. It saddens me that someone is doing that. But... Could they afford to pay for a proper excavation? It sounds like this has happened more than once. How many excavations could they afford? Would they do the right thing right out of business? It's probably expensive enough just having a project delayed while the archaeologists do their thing. Remember.. if the company goes under real people, who are alive today lose their livelihoods. Will the museum take them in, cloth feed and shelter them?
I do wish that construction company would use a less destructive method to cover things back up if that is what they must do. It's really too bad that the government that is demanding they do this doesn't at least pay for it.
Actually, although it is all connected sea level does vary some by location. The biggest variance is no doubt caused by the tidal forces from the moon and the bulge at the equater due to the Earth's rotation but those aren't really applicable to this conversation.
There is also the fact that some parts of the world have a whole lot more water coming out of the ocean (evaporation) and others have a lot more going in (like where ice is melting). Of course gravity levels it back out but the world's ocean is really big. It takes time for the water to get from the one side of the world to the other. Meanwhile, since these processes are onging it never really totally catches up. Thus.. the ocean really is higher in some places than others. Since this kind is caused by climate warming actually can increase the difference.