No - if you ad block, then there might be a few bites that were included in web pages that referenced the ads, but they weren't loaded. In the case of the ad sponsored version of games for smartphones, as far as I know, you can't block them. In any event, the point is not to block them - why should you be entitled to a "free" game? The point is that, at least a few years ago, when bandwidth was more expensive and people weren't getting such huge monthly buckets of data, if you played a game a lot, it was cheaper to pay the one or two dollars for the game, because at some point you were paying more than that for bandwidth for the ads.
When ads are delivered over the air you don't pay for their delivery. That's the difference. Sure, most people are getting a large enough chunk of data from providers for a flat rate that it's not a big deal, but not everyone is like that. It was the case that ad based games, like the ad based Angry Birds, ended up costing customers MORE in the long run.
And I never once bought something from a telemarketer... your statement is true, but moot. The strategy is still to cast as wide a net as possible - it doesn't matter if it pisses you off if you aren't going to be a customer anyway.
I guess because I have decent ad blocking that what is getting to me more than ads is every news site I visit popping up a subscription thing over the content that you need to dismiss. In the last month or so, that's been more bothersome than ads.
My relationship with advertisers was doomed from the start. It's better this way. It's like the response TV advertisers have to DVRs and people downloading illegal copies of content to avoid commercials.... add more commercials! Yeah! That'll help!
Agreed... I saw the movie people are discussing a few posts above; the problem is that it was over-hyped and then just "meh," which made people pretty upset with it. It was rushed, it had bugs, but as bad as it may have been, it was hardly "one of the worst."
And pretty much all of these companies are full tilt into research into alternatives. Frankly, they could be 100% green producers of energy and people would still hate them for making billions of dollars.
And here's something they will not admit - if we completely stopped burning fossil fuels right now, by the end of the century we would likely still see as many as (which is a cop-out, nearly meaningless phrase) 20 additional hurricanes and tropical storms each year. If the world is warming, get used to it and prepare for it, because reducing (or even eliminating) carbon emissions will only slightly (if at all) slow the warming.
I have to disagree - you don't want to cruise in a vehicle at it's maximum limit. Your foot would be pressed to the floor, exacting every bit of power you could possibly get from this vehicle, just to keep up (and fail, in most cases) with other traffic. I want a car that can do 120MPH exactly because I want to cruise at 70. This car might be fine in the city, but no one in suburbia or rural areas should even think about it.
Yes. Even if I only did city driving, the longer I could go between fill ups - especially since there isn't a hydrogen station on every corner and I might have to drive to get there, the better. But this car is not for me - I commute on highways where the speed limit is 70. I imagine that having a "top speed" of 60mph means that actually going that speed is really going to be pushing the car to it's limit, whereas a "normal" car should comfortably go that speed. I want a car with a top speed of 120mph because I want to comfortably cruise at 70.
I don't like the idea in theory, but in practice I have to agree with you - if people disagree, they should post. Yes, that might mean they can't moderate in that thread, but so what - if they want to say something, they should say something. Participating in the discussion in much more important than moderating it.
But people don't do that - they moderate something as flamebait simply because they disagree with it.
Perhaps a better answer is for people to be able to moderate moderations - click on the score, see how it was moderated to the value it has, and be able to check negative moderations as "unfair."
In any event, "disagree" mods should not be allowed to drop a post below 1 for a user, 0 for an AC.
I actually like that idea; I know there are roads I've driven on with artificial curves added (and this is in the U.S.) to keep people from going too fast; I've also seen more residential areas getting traffic circles instead of regular intersections, which can have a similar effect (depending on how the stop signs were before). I have no problem with this. In my area it's very common to have speed bumps or speed humps to slow down traffic, and it always pissed me off how my car's suspension had to suffer because some idiots couldn't restrain themselves.
Sounds about right - but to be fair, since the 100k mile point on my car, I've had maybe $6000 in repairs (non routine maintenance). It's got over 200k miles now - definitely worth it.
If the camera fails, I can still use my phone. If the wifi fails, I can still use my phone. Hell, even if the mobile unit fails, I can still do VOIP until I get a new phone. Having it all fail because one part fails is just moronic.
Or they're just slow as s#%t for newer applications, games, or the technology is outdated (like having a non-LTE phone). My last phone was expandable via microSD card, but there were too many things you couldn't move to the SD card, and I ended up having extremely limited number of apps - it was a cheap phone that worked OK for a couple of years, but the constant "insufficient memory to install application" problems pushed me to get a new phone. That simple. Every time I upgrade I actually ask "what can I do with a new phone that I can't do with my old one (that I really need or want to do)?" If I have a good answer, then it doesn't need to be broken to update.
... but it's not unknown for some shack-dwellers here in South Africa to get electric lighting by building the shack beneath a high voltage line and powering it with a simple induction generator.
The downside being that they live under a high voltage line.
Passive water cooling is simply a whole lot easier, and with these units you can just "drop" them in and pick them up later on... If you're not near water, these units are pointless, but if you are, it's still a lot easier. If you're talking about a remote location, I'm think along the lines of research where your data center is local instead of only accessible over a slow internet connection. You drop a unit somewhere, collect data for a few years, then pull it all back to analyze.
Even just in general, any remote location that does not have reliable high speed connectivity could benefit from local storage and data processing.... but even if you did have high speed access, it might be because your data needs to be secure.
To be honest, I shrug my shoulders at the idea, but at least I can see something to it.
I don't understand the complaint about internet connectivity; aside from connecting to the people on land using such a data center, their internet connectivity would be the same as it's always been. I don't think these are necessary for remote areas, but in that instance, it would be a localized data center, perhaps because there's slow, or no, internet connectivity. And the benefit would be a modular system that is passively water cooled (dramatically lowering power requirements), which seems to ideally fit your example of a remote location.
A prefab unit would also be easier to deploy and re-deploy, whereas constructing (even a prefab) unit on land usually requires some foundation and would require a lot more power to operate, as well as take a lot longer to install.
I get it - it's Microsoft, and nobody likes Microsoft, but they have move from the realm of just stealing everyone else's ideas and doing their own implementations to actually doing some research, too, which puts them on par with most decent companies in IT.
Depends where you put them. Might be a shame off the coast of Alaska, but off the coast of Florida it would be pointless. Still, even in a cold climate, it may not be worth the heating benefits when much of the heating comes from the units that cool the servers, takes a lot more energy (generally) getting "wasted" heat than means to generate heat directly. I'd bet there's little savings if buildings are being heated with natural gas (compared to not having to cool the equipment at all).
Slashdot Mirror
No - if you ad block, then there might be a few bites that were included in web pages that referenced the ads, but they weren't loaded. In the case of the ad sponsored version of games for smartphones, as far as I know, you can't block them. In any event, the point is not to block them - why should you be entitled to a "free" game? The point is that, at least a few years ago, when bandwidth was more expensive and people weren't getting such huge monthly buckets of data, if you played a game a lot, it was cheaper to pay the one or two dollars for the game, because at some point you were paying more than that for bandwidth for the ads.
Reminds me of the "contract" viewers supposedly had with TV networks to watch the commercials (Jamie Kellner, former CEO of Turner Broadcasting).
When ads are delivered over the air you don't pay for their delivery. That's the difference. Sure, most people are getting a large enough chunk of data from providers for a flat rate that it's not a big deal, but not everyone is like that. It was the case that ad based games, like the ad based Angry Birds, ended up costing customers MORE in the long run.
Except that people aren't paying for content, they're just blocking what would be considered the form of payment.
And I never once bought something from a telemarketer... your statement is true, but moot. The strategy is still to cast as wide a net as possible - it doesn't matter if it pisses you off if you aren't going to be a customer anyway.
In addition, sites - including news - should NOT autoplay video.
I guess because I have decent ad blocking that what is getting to me more than ads is every news site I visit popping up a subscription thing over the content that you need to dismiss. In the last month or so, that's been more bothersome than ads.
My relationship with advertisers was doomed from the start. It's better this way. It's like the response TV advertisers have to DVRs and people downloading illegal copies of content to avoid commercials.... add more commercials! Yeah! That'll help!
The problem is that the world is a very complicated place, but people like simple answers... so that's what the press gives them.
Agreed... I saw the movie people are discussing a few posts above; the problem is that it was over-hyped and then just "meh," which made people pretty upset with it. It was rushed, it had bugs, but as bad as it may have been, it was hardly "one of the worst."
And pretty much all of these companies are full tilt into research into alternatives. Frankly, they could be 100% green producers of energy and people would still hate them for making billions of dollars.
And here's something they will not admit - if we completely stopped burning fossil fuels right now, by the end of the century we would likely still see as many as (which is a cop-out, nearly meaningless phrase) 20 additional hurricanes and tropical storms each year. If the world is warming, get used to it and prepare for it, because reducing (or even eliminating) carbon emissions will only slightly (if at all) slow the warming.
I have to disagree - you don't want to cruise in a vehicle at it's maximum limit. Your foot would be pressed to the floor, exacting every bit of power you could possibly get from this vehicle, just to keep up (and fail, in most cases) with other traffic. I want a car that can do 120MPH exactly because I want to cruise at 70. This car might be fine in the city, but no one in suburbia or rural areas should even think about it.
Yes. Even if I only did city driving, the longer I could go between fill ups - especially since there isn't a hydrogen station on every corner and I might have to drive to get there, the better. But this car is not for me - I commute on highways where the speed limit is 70. I imagine that having a "top speed" of 60mph means that actually going that speed is really going to be pushing the car to it's limit, whereas a "normal" car should comfortably go that speed. I want a car with a top speed of 120mph because I want to comfortably cruise at 70.
Of course - I completely agree with you. But you can't change human nature.
I don't like the idea in theory, but in practice I have to agree with you - if people disagree, they should post. Yes, that might mean they can't moderate in that thread, but so what - if they want to say something, they should say something. Participating in the discussion in much more important than moderating it.
But people don't do that - they moderate something as flamebait simply because they disagree with it.
Perhaps a better answer is for people to be able to moderate moderations - click on the score, see how it was moderated to the value it has, and be able to check negative moderations as "unfair."
In any event, "disagree" mods should not be allowed to drop a post below 1 for a user, 0 for an AC.
I actually like that idea; I know there are roads I've driven on with artificial curves added (and this is in the U.S.) to keep people from going too fast; I've also seen more residential areas getting traffic circles instead of regular intersections, which can have a similar effect (depending on how the stop signs were before). I have no problem with this. In my area it's very common to have speed bumps or speed humps to slow down traffic, and it always pissed me off how my car's suspension had to suffer because some idiots couldn't restrain themselves.
Example in Sarasota.
Sounds about right - but to be fair, since the 100k mile point on my car, I've had maybe $6000 in repairs (non routine maintenance). It's got over 200k miles now - definitely worth it.
If the camera fails, I can still use my phone. If the wifi fails, I can still use my phone. Hell, even if the mobile unit fails, I can still do VOIP until I get a new phone. Having it all fail because one part fails is just moronic.
Or they're just slow as s#%t for newer applications, games, or the technology is outdated (like having a non-LTE phone). My last phone was expandable via microSD card, but there were too many things you couldn't move to the SD card, and I ended up having extremely limited number of apps - it was a cheap phone that worked OK for a couple of years, but the constant "insufficient memory to install application" problems pushed me to get a new phone. That simple. Every time I upgrade I actually ask "what can I do with a new phone that I can't do with my old one (that I really need or want to do)?" If I have a good answer, then it doesn't need to be broken to update.
... but it's not unknown for some shack-dwellers here in South Africa to get electric lighting by building the shack beneath a high voltage line and powering it with a simple induction generator.
The downside being that they live under a high voltage line.
Only you always lose when you convert energy, so it's an extremely inefficient toll road.
Passive water cooling is simply a whole lot easier, and with these units you can just "drop" them in and pick them up later on... If you're not near water, these units are pointless, but if you are, it's still a lot easier. If you're talking about a remote location, I'm think along the lines of research where your data center is local instead of only accessible over a slow internet connection. You drop a unit somewhere, collect data for a few years, then pull it all back to analyze.
Even just in general, any remote location that does not have reliable high speed connectivity could benefit from local storage and data processing.... but even if you did have high speed access, it might be because your data needs to be secure.
To be honest, I shrug my shoulders at the idea, but at least I can see something to it.
I don't understand the complaint about internet connectivity; aside from connecting to the people on land using such a data center, their internet connectivity would be the same as it's always been. I don't think these are necessary for remote areas, but in that instance, it would be a localized data center, perhaps because there's slow, or no, internet connectivity. And the benefit would be a modular system that is passively water cooled (dramatically lowering power requirements), which seems to ideally fit your example of a remote location.
A prefab unit would also be easier to deploy and re-deploy, whereas constructing (even a prefab) unit on land usually requires some foundation and would require a lot more power to operate, as well as take a lot longer to install.
I get it - it's Microsoft, and nobody likes Microsoft, but they have move from the realm of just stealing everyone else's ideas and doing their own implementations to actually doing some research, too, which puts them on par with most decent companies in IT.
Depends where you put them. Might be a shame off the coast of Alaska, but off the coast of Florida it would be pointless. Still, even in a cold climate, it may not be worth the heating benefits when much of the heating comes from the units that cool the servers, takes a lot more energy (generally) getting "wasted" heat than means to generate heat directly. I'd bet there's little savings if buildings are being heated with natural gas (compared to not having to cool the equipment at all).