0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
I've had to use comcast for more than 10 years now. It's interesting, to follow the history of this development. Way back in 2003-2007ish, they did not have any official limits. In fact, their service had been sold under the marketing term "unlimited internet"
What they started doing around then, was forwarding people who they said downloaded the top 1% of the data to their abuse department. Those people would get a threatening call from comcast abuse that would tell them to cut back on their download or have their service disconnected for abuse. These calls were intentionally vague about how much you were supposed to cut back, and they would use terms such as "You've downloaded the equivalent of 90 movies, or X number of photos" where X was some number that I can't remember.
These weren't just threats. One person created a blog (it's still up at comcastissue.blogspot.com - but if you go there start reading from the beginning) in 2007 to discuss how he had his internet cut off for a year. His story is outrageous. They called his wife with the threatening call, but she didn't believe it was really comcast (rightfully so! it sounded like a prank call considering he had been sold "unlimited" service), so he called them back and because the company was so disorganized, they denied it was them in the first place. They assured him his internet really was unlimited as advertised... however one month later he had his internet disconnected by this same abuse department. He was banned from comcast broadband internet for a long while because of it.
I might be slightly mistaken, because I'm working from what I remember from several years ago, and I don't have sources handy to back this up. But eventually a class action lawsuit got them over this (I think it was in Florida). It was revealed that they were constantly threatening the top 1% of their users with vague phone calls and sometimes disconnected them. Of course if the top 1% were to cut back their usage to an unknown but adequate amount to avoid being banned from the internet, there would be a new 1% to receive threats in the next month.
In any case, the class action lawsuit forced comcast to stop this bullying of customers, at least not without spelling out the requirements for all customers. Hence they started rolling out these 300GB bandwidth limits on everyone, and making the limits known. The trouble is that the internet is rapidly growing -- for a small suburban family that has netflix, and several family members using it, this simply is not enough for some people. They are making huge profits and could easily work on upgrading their network, however instead they want to punish people who are ahead of the tech curve.
Another thing that irks me about this limit is you'll notice they are selectively choosing areas where they are the monopoly (or alternatives are much worse) to enforce it. If you live, say in the silicon valley area in CA, where there are lots of tech people with multiple options for internet -- you won't get a limit. If you're in suburban Tennessee, well you better not get ahead on the tech curve. Seriously, just notice the areas and cities they are mentioning. I suspect they know exactly what they are doing here. If they enforced a limit in certain areas, there would be major fallout from the competition who could do something about it, and they know it. DSL might be available as a crap substitute in some of those areas, but in general these are areas where customers have no choice but to obide by the decrees of comcast.
Another issue is that is you read the wording on this page, they talk like it's a 10 dollar fee to use additional bandwidth when really, it's a fine. So, the deal is, if you go over by 1GB, so say you use 301GB, you get a $10 fee. The reason it's really a fine, is because that extra 49GB does not transfer over to the next month, nor do you get refunded for any of it if it isn't used in the same 30 day period. If they were really selling you an additional 50GB block as stated on that page, then you should be able to use the remainder of it next month. Instead if you use 301GB in the next month, you get a $10 fine again. This may be me being nitpicky, but I've found quite a few people complaining over this in their own support forum. The wording on this page is really deceptive.
The |
I don't think that would even work.
If I'm interperting Comcast's financial reports , then you'd need to get over 40% of their customer base (~9M households) to cancel all services (not just internet) before they start getting into a negative cash flow situation.
[That's ~1/3 of reddit's US users]( and it appears that [comcast only serves ~1/5 of the US with "high speed internet"]( |
You know you can go into your NetFlix account settings and adjust your stream quality to lower your bandwidth usage right?
Low - 0.3GB per hour
Medium - 0.7GB per hour
High - 3.0GB per hour
You are probably on Auto which will go to high if your connection is fast enough so at 300GB you could be watching close to 100 hours per month. To put it another way, with 300GB only for NetFlix you could watch:
Low - 33 hours a day
Medium - 14 hours a day
High - 3.3 hours a day |
The joke comes when you start to realize the bandwidth is already there, and their operation and maintenance cost for it are roughly the same or less now than they were 10 years ago.
The system is already built, in the ground or hanging on the poles. I've seen pieces of coax still in use that have been hanging there for 20+ years. Where they start racking up any cost is upgrading the system to properly accommodate more homes/users.
Their preferred method prior to actually needing a return path for data transfer was to load 1000-1200 homes on a single node, which is the device that changes the signal from fiber optics to something the coax cable can transmit. The return path was non-existant since it wasn't needed, and they could run the operating frequency of the copper system at a lower MHz and push it farther.
Now that we are starting to send data over these lines, they've had to break down, and break the old massive nodes into smaller and smaller groups, generally now 100ish homes, and start bumping up the operating frequency for faster speeds and bandwidth.
Here is where them just being cheap and miserly comes in. Instead of doing it the right way, they kinda half-ass it. Partially upgrade and old system, but do it the cheapest way possible. What you get is signal levels at the house that are less than optimal, meaning crappy connection/service, and a node that's supposed to be serving 100 people with 200 still on it.
There are also systems out there that are already designed to operate faster, and within limits, but they just haven't bothered to swap them yet. As in the system is designed to run at 1GHz, but their still chugging along at 750 MHz because they can and the customers are still paying.
All it would take to turn them to the faster frequency is a tech rebalancing the amps and optical in the node over the course of an afternoon. They don't though, either because they can still milk it, they're planning on just overloading the poor system.
It all boils down to the board room though or at least the bureaucracy. They're the ones being cheap and greedy. You have the pointy haired idiots over you Metro system being cheap because the regional pointy hairs are being cheap, all because the really BIG idiots are being greedy and not letting them have the funds to actually maintain the system to keep up with growth.
The designers know some of theses systems are broke and were not meant to operate like they are being used in some areas are overloaded, or in a few cases I know they kinda just said screw it, did the bare minimum to "upgrade" and only fix it when they get enough complaints. The techs also see it as well every time they get sent out and they take a read on the signal levels at the tap serving your home.
Source: I work designing RF systems, so I see this crap from the inside.
So |
Miss read this for a second as Comcast tried to block out the sun and believed it whole heartedly till my brain snapped to. |
As someone who's living under this (ATL) and has hit the 300GB cap limit once (thankfully they give us 3 grace periods, bless them! /end sarcasm) this is bullshit.
When I got an automated call from Comcast stating I had hit my limit one month, I was confused. When I signed up years ago in college in Alabama and transferred my service when I moved, I had unlimited. I talked to a customer service rep for awhile and after turning all his analogies around on him to show the thievery they were doing, it came down to this; in his words Comcast can change my data package and rates as they see fit because they're not in a legally binding contract. They are able to do as they will without any sort of input from me, despite it being my service. I also learned that since there's no contract requiring both parties to sign to it, I can cancel whenever I choose and go elsewhere. |
This may sound awful, but it might be better than the way things are right now. I live in Augusta, GA, one of the areas affected, and cuurrently, before this new plan, there is a flat data limit for everyone at 300GB. If you go over, you get massive charges, akin to going over data on your smartphone, and the internet slows down to the point of being unusable. At least I'll have a new option when they put this plan into effect. |
Comcast itself is entirely predatory. I was just stating that there are people who drastically overpay compared to the internet they use and this could help them a tiny bit (and yes fuck them over in other ways). |
please don't do that. They route all the calls to us already. Us being SDC that is contracted out to do tech support. We are only allowed to fix minor problems such as laptop not able to connect.
If you all start calling us like that we would just get an enormous amount of calls which we would get yelled at and would not be able to help or even let you make a complaint since comcast DOES NOT HAVE A COMPLAINT LINE (caps because it sucks I know pisses me off). |
I live in GA. They started this on us back in January. I don't even remember a time when I just paid a flat fee for the internet.
When they started they gave us 3 "courtesy" credits for the first 3 times we went over our 300GB allotment in the month. Needless to say I used those up the first three months.
My plan cost $70 for 50Mb, I now pay an average of about $140. One month it was $280.
My biggest issue is there are no other options, if they want more money because they're dicks then fine, but give me a choice to pay more for a larger plan that I can actually stay in. It's also incredibly annoying at how bad they are at billing for it, there was one month they accidentally issued a credit to my bill for the amount owed due to overage. I thought maybe they were just being nice or revoking the data plan altogether, but instead they just added the amount I was supposed to pay to the next month.
There are 0 other options for hi-speed internet in my area so I'm just stuck with it. I found out Google Fiber was coming to my area a few months ago and nearly started crying when I realized they were deploying in 3-4 cities around me but not my own.
This is my life, I've seen the future. Run. |
And with this detailed analysis, we have determined the best way to price and structure our data plans; just below the normal usage of the overwhelming majority of our users.
And hence, all you fuckers will be paying overage fees and we can continue to run this awful company in an industry that will ultimate kill itself by resiting to provide what our customers actually want. |
Would you call it illegal if a shoe company decided to only sell its shoes in stores that specialize in shoes?
No, because there are thousands of other shoe companies that will happily sell their shoes in department stores.
It only becomes a monopoly if
> There aren't going to be any options except for the ISPs for packaged first run content.
That IS a monopoly. It is legal for cable TV companies to have a monopoly due to a specific exemption from anti-trust laws, but that exemption is for the infrastructure only, it would not exempt what you are suggesting.
Your Valspar example is irrelevant. It is perfectly OK for a particular brand (like the NFL) to sign a particular deal with a particular vendor. It only becomes illegal when that vendor signs similar deals with ALL providers.
Example. Ridgid has signed an an exclusive deal with Home Depot. That is fine, no problem at all. But if Black & Decker, Skil, Milwaukee, Ryobi, and any other tool companies you could think of also signed similar deals it would become a monopoly.
What you are suggesting is not that a single content provider signs an exclusive deal, but that all of them do. That would be illegal under basically any realistic circumstances (I won't explain how it could be legal, but if you read up on anti-trust law you will begin to understand-- and understand why it is all but impossible to do it legally). |
So many things wrong with this comment.
First, if that would work, why wouldn't it already have happened for Comcast?
Second, many people don't have a choice between lots of providers, and the merger would further decrease competition.
Third, even if Google bought them out, with no competition, Google has less motivation to continue pushing the high quality service they've had so far in the cable market.
Fourth, even if Google bought them out, they'd be buying a shitty and entirely different network than what they're building, so you'd basically be slapping Google's name on Comcast/TWC's network.
Fifth...oh, what's the point. |
It's a regional issue. Some regions have competent managers that foster knowledge and actually push their teams and techs specifically to not be retarded cable monkies who can only screw things together and call it a day. Other regions decide to be slaves to the metrics (I can only spend X amount of minutes trying to solve the problem before I get in trouble) and sacrifice customer happiness.
I could go on and on but |
An insider would only really have access to a few servers, and not have to use malware to get access.
Nor would an insider have to use proxies. Sneaker net is easier.
Only point I've really got a beef with. I'm IT at a Fortune 500. I might as well be God within my personal fiefdom, which covers hundreds of PCs and dozens of servers, but realistically is an insignificant fraction of the company.
But it still gives me a privileged position where I could attack the rest of the network much easier than the average outsider. And if I wished to gain access to systems not within my regular purview at the company, a malware attack is certainly one possible vector to pursue.
And after sending that malware forth into the company WAN to dig up info... I'm certainly not shipping it back to any machine that I've got access to so I can sneakernet it out the back door. That would leave a very obvious sign pointing to internal access and starting a hunt that would end at my office door. Instead, ship it out via open proxies to try and scatter the trail further. |
It never was about the movie. People are so easily distracted by stupid media bullshit they don't look at what's there.
Look into the Motion Picture Association of America and their back door dealings to attack Google. Microsoft and Sony are two companies that also targeted Google because Google won't play ball with them. DA's have also started to become involved.
A lot of the emails that were released were about this info. I wish more people would just look up and look into something rather than "OMG IT MUST BE NK STOPPING ME FROM WATCHING A MOVIE!!! OOHHH NOOOOOO!!!" |
firstly, computers logical operations are binary (1 and 0) which are power of 2 operations.
for example if(1<0) would return a 0 for a false
Storage for results and files and everything is 1 or 0, also being base 2. Processes on computers rely on this as storage for a char, string, int, etc is not only using factor of 2 (1s and 0's) but also to a power of 2 (2^6 = 64, 2^7 = 128, 2^8 = 256) for the block size. When using various encryption it uses a key size that is ultimately a factor of 2. And to successfully encrypt a file it has to be divisible by a factor of 2 as well.
When receiving a stream, data is separated using a power of 2 (block size).
when you hear about a 64 bit processor, it is separating blocks into 64bits, e.g. a single char (a,b,c,...) takes up 64 bits. Likewise potential memory space is also larger due to requiring double the bits used to describe a pointer 4bytes vs 8bytes.
factor of 2 is very good for processing as well, is every day life, from divide and conquer to binary trees.
e.g. if you have 16 ( 2^4 ) people entering in an elimination contest
then second round you'd have 8 ( 2^3 )
then third round you'd have 4 ( 2^2 )
then fourth round you'd have 2 ( 2^1 )
then a result ( 1 or a 0 ) |
I used to watch a lot of TV as a kid. Way too much, say 2-3 hours a day. And then I went to college and realized how many more (way more) fun things there are to do in life. So I don't really watch TV any more because I realize if I never watched TV again, I would still be a happy person, and crazier still, I would still have watched more TV than I would have liked.
So yeah, we cut the cord at my house and just watch over-the-air broadcasts. It's mainly my mom too, who watches the Vietnamese channels (there are a lot of ethnic media outlets in my area), cooking shows on PBS stations, and some prime-time network stuff occasionally. |
The UK is only "slightly less capitalist than the USA". Even left-leaning countries like Sweden aren't "socialist" by any meaningful definition of the term.
[Here's a handy list of countries]( that have declared themselves to be socialist, to help you get some perspective. |
Well, first, IBM claimed to have created a small experimental 7-qubit quantum computer in 2001.
Second, there is a problem with expanding the number of qubits in a quantum computer. When you are dealing with a small number of qubits, it's (relatively) simple to have them each entangled with each other because it is (relatively) simple to keep them in close proximity to each other.
Once you start dealing with larger and larger number of qubits, the distance from the first to the last qubits in the register becomes large enough that maintaining entanglement and correlation becomes quite a challenge. |
English is a living language. Yes, there need to be rules about what is correct and what isn't, because people need to be able to understand each other. Nevertheless, the language has changed a huge amount over time, and there's no reason to think or decide that the rules are now set in stone.
I didn't mean to imply that "whom" was now wrong. And yes, "who" has been used many times by mistake where "whom" was correct. But this has happened so much that "who" is now an accepted variant, even the preferred option, by such bastions of language as the Oxford Dictionary. See the [usage article]( specifically:
Although there are some speakers who still use who and whom according to
the rules of formal grammar as stated here , there are many more who rarely use
whom at all; its use has retreated steadily and is now largely restricted to formal
contexts. The normal practice in modern English is to use who instead of whom.
Do you think that using "whom" instead of "who" improves the understandability of the statement, or the beauty of the language? If not, why do you believe it should be kept as standard usage?
Another reply to me joked about replacing "old" with "olden." If we never changed the rules, he would be correct. But the rules change, and often these changes simplify the language without removing anything of value. If the language can continue to become easier to learn and format, without removing any of the meaning, I say why not? |
I don't actually know much about it at all, but as I understand it it's a platform that you can integrate into some website, I assume their repo has a "demo" site that demonstrates interacting with Diaspora, and I would imagine that, in doing so (integrating with Diaspora), your information can be given to anybody (but only who you want) inherently, because they all speak the same language. Or something. |
As an adult material publisher I approve this message.
People should be able to block their kids from porn sites or not see it themselves if so desired.
It could also finally allow the reliable blocking of porn while allowing vital sexual health information.
However the danger is from the oligarchs who will try and use this to attack people's right to make their own choices. Tipper Gore's cronies went after the leases of companies who carried music with the parental advisory stickers. |
Yes, stuff like the F-22 Date Line bug will happen with driver less cars. However a bug report will be filed, the bug patched, and the patch passed out to all cars operating that AI/OS in a responsible way. When an at fault accident, or even at fault close call happens to driver less vehicular, all simular driverless cars will learn from it. When a human has an at fault accident or close call, only (s)he learns from it. |
Also People ARE getting caught (32 in Turkey for example) and you can find more and more instances of people getting caught.
Ok, first, I am assuming these are actual Anonymous being caught, and not just a whitewash to make the public feel as though the government is doing more than they are. Moving on from that assumption...
I never said people weren't getting caught. I said the professional, highly-skilled hackers are not getting caught. Sure, script kiddies will get busted all the time when they start delving into realms beyond their expertise - that's no surprise to anyone. I want some proof that important Anonymous members, who are actually skilled at what they do, are getting caught.
> Your "friend" at Google will likely get caught if he actually does some hacking. I'm certain not everybody in Anon does the hacking, so that proves nothing. Not every terrorist straps bombs to their chests either.
Right - just like how every other hacker has been caught, ya?
> You can believe what you want, but Anon are pathetic little terrorists ruining the internet for all of us. You might see them as some glorified "heroes" and they might not all be script kiddies, but they are still pathetic assholes making trouble for themselves.
Ah, so it finally comes out. This isn't about Anonymous being skilled or day-lighting as security experts, it's about your personal vendetta against them. Argumentative bias.
> Your sad little group of hackers, no matter how good they are are not going to subvert the goverment, let alone all of the worlds governments.
I'm not part of Anon. They are not "mine", but seeing what they can do has made me believe they are certainly not sad, and certainly not small. They are currently subverting the efforts of several governments, so that leads me to believe that you're just talking out of your ass.
> Anon doesn't have all of the best hackers. Not all hackers are terrorists and not all would agree with Anon's ethics. The fact that you don't get this just proves to me that you are living in lala land. Or 15 and idolizing them a bit too much... ah, youth.
When did I ever say Anon has all the best hackers? I said they had some of the best, and that's probably not far-off the mark. My whole issue was that you seem to be under the assumption that all of Anon are script kiddies with no real skill, when that is in fact far from the truth. Sure, many of those less talented, "newby" hackers are going to get owned in the face by government officials who have more skill, but for the most part the best of the best in Anon can likely match wits with the best of the best that governments have to offer - and again, these are not mutually exclusive groups.
Also, I'd argue calling them terrorists. I know terrorism is very loosely defined, but in almost all circumstances an act of terrorism is generally thought to be some sort of physically violent action, whereas the action taken by Anon has been anything but physical violence. I'd liken Anon to protesters rather than terrorists. |
It's obvious that with the illegal activities being fostered by the Internet, that a line needs to be drawn. However, I think that this bill is drawing the line in the wrong area.
If a site is a conduit for illegal piracy, then why the hell is it still on the Internet? We don't let people operate meth labs and just fine them when we catch them with the goods. No, we shut down the lab. But when we shut down the lab, we have proof that they are doing something illegal. This bill would be the equivalent of shutting down a basement chemistry lab because of a suspicion of making meth.
You don't do that. As far as I can see, blacklisting websites that are actively engaged in illegal activity is a reasonable course of action. There, I said it. Now let me clarify. This bill is unreasonable not because it places a penalty upon websites engaging in illegal activity, but because it paints in strokes too broad. Therefore, what would make much of the rest of the bill reasonable would be if we changed two things:
Change the bill to state that in order to blacklist a website, there must be definite proof of copyright infringement. In fact, make that blacklisting the penalty for being convicted of copyright infringement.
Change copyright infringement law. This is the big one. It ought to be more similar to libel law, where the copyright holder must prove that the infringement hurt their profits or business. For many outright pirates, this will be easy, but for websites like YouTube, Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit, etc it will be much more difficult, and I think it'll result in a more reasonable application of the intent of this bill. |
In general, the US Government has a positive relationship with India. Congress loves to hate on China, though. "Overseas" is best, "China" is a close second.
EDIT: To elaborate because I sound flippant , see the seizure statistics were from China, and constituted 61% of all seizures -- India only had a value of $1.5 million in products seized, and almost all of that was of pharmaceuticals. Fun fact: footwear constitues almost 25% of value of goods seized. They are almost all fake Nike's.
The pharmaceuticals point is a big one, though, because it includes to greatest threat to public health and safety. It constituted 3% of all seizures by domestic value, but 34% of the domestic value that threatens consumer safety in 2009 and 13% in 2010 (2010 data is distorted due to a high-value seizure of cigarettes in Jordan).
This is relevant because SOPA is also concerned with materials hosted that would facilitate physical piracy -- like patents. (Of course, you could just go to the US Patent office for them, but this legislation isn't particularly concerned with sound logic).
Here's a quote from Assistant Secretary John Morton, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in his [testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs]( from 21 July 2010:
>Mr. Chairman, let me just be direct. We need to focus on strong intellectual property enforcement from Los Angeles to Asia. Simply put, American business is under assault from criminals who knowingly pirate copyrighted material or counterfeit and trademark goods. American ideas, American products are being stolen and sold. Sold on the corner of 4th and Main, sold over the Internet. From the counterfeit pharmaceuticals and electronics, to pirated movies and software, organized criminals are undermining the United States economy on a grand scale.
>Why should we care? Well, here is why. American jobs and American innovation are being lost. Public health and safety are at risk. Pirates and counterfeiters don’t pay wages or taxes. They don’t fund pensions and health care plans. They don’t invest in new movies or TV shows. They don’t develop new drugs to cure diseases. They don’t invent the next iPhone or flat-screen TV. They don’t employ Americans. They don’t make America great. Counterfeiting and piracy hurt American workers and American industry, pure and simple. (Page 41)
And so we saw the birth of Operation In Our Sites from ICE, which A/S Morton characterizes this way:
> Operation In Our Sites .
Throughout the record of this hearing, you will find anti-Chinese insults and condemnations. It's actually appalling. India is mentioned, I think, twice. so |
Extraterritorialism isn't a new thing, both the US and Europe use it heartily to enforce competition law by extending their jurisdiction. In competition (and obviously Intellectual Property is an IP issue) the US has the effects doctrine, whereby if anything is intended to have an effect/has a substantive effect on US trade then they have jurisdiction. The UK (as part of the EU) makes use of a similar doctine called the implementation doctrine which allows jurisdiction where implementation of a violating agreement etc occurs within a member state (essentially this has the same outcome as the effects doctrine, but with a slightly more limited scope). If we didn't have extraterritorial jurisidiction, then people could reside in a country with lax rules and flagrantly damage trade in our own. On a small scale it seems harsh, but on a larger scale you can see why it's necessary. I'm not commenting on whether or not this guy should've been extradited (because I don't know the case), but I'm not surprised that he was.
As for your example, I agree that it may seem a little hypocritical, but here's a comment to douse the fiery anti-American sentiment raging in your soul: In the [GE/Honeywell case]( the EU blocked the merger of what would've been the largest merger in US history. So we're all guilty of this kind of action, but I assure you that it's all perfectly above board ;D
Edited to fix retarded spelling errors |
If you are not logged in it doesn't associate your browsing to YOUR ACCOUNT.
Yes, Google will know that an IP visited a certain site, however, it will not link to the account, and not suggest the results to reflect the ads you see. I have no idea where you got the idea that they would do that, but since their privacy policy says nothing to the tune of retrieving and using all results of everything involving your IP address, they would be breaching their policies and be in deep deep shit for that. |
I think we are forgetting this is their PUBLIC project.. Do we really want to know what the Japanese military is working on. They signed a pact to never go to war again, but I bet making robots fight for them not claiming the Japanese flag is their loophole. |
Am I the only one that knows about 50 dollar unlimited talk, text, and web through walmart t-mobile? It's 52.02 a month, never a cent more, and the only non unlimited thing is after a certain amount (which escapes me) they take you from 4g to 3g. Its a big amount. I've had my smart phone for like 6 months, and I've only been put on 3g once. And you can pay 10 bucks to get back on 4g. You have to provide your own t-mobile phone.
myfamilymobile.com You go to walmart, ask for the t-mobile card, which is by the phones in the back, or sometimes up front in the cell phone store, and I think it was pretty cheap. I'm using a t-mobile, htc g2. There is no contract, and you pay after the month is over. |
And I'd rather have our medical professionals have basically their whole life as an experience pool to draw from when using joysticks and/or buttons to control the laparoscopic science wizardry box that's helping me stay alive.
Fuck that, anyone who doesn't see the possible benefits of having someone that can do [this]( or [this]( is in denial.
I'm maybe not the sharpest tool in the shed, but as far as I know being a surgeon is no easy thing, I mean... long hours, exhaustion, knowing that one little mistake could end your career and/or your patient's life...
I raided for a while in WoW, did a bit of PVP too, but I think the same qualities I looked for in people then are what I would hope for in a surgeon.
In either situation I need a guy who keeps his shit together if crap goes downhill, a guy whos informed on ALL aspects of the task at hand, a guy who knows when to play it safe and when to make the risky decision during a wipe/disaster.
Had a hunter friend like that, DPS are a dime a dozen, and I guess that happens everywhere even in the surgeon community. This guy knew his job and knew how to help others do theirs, he could offtank, he could handle mechanics and adapt to how they changed if someone didn't (STAY OUT OF THE GODDAMNED FIRE) ...
You say you would rather have a certified doctor than a highschool video game addict, and I see your point. But I don't want either of those guys, I want the guy that's right in the middle of that Venn Diagram.
The guy who spends hours mashing his head against the books to know his way around your body blind, the guy who sat there for as long as it took to figure out and beat that super hard level in a game. The kid who maybe thought about being a doctor and tried out Suturekit 5000 when he was 10 and has been playing ever since. I want that guy, because that kind of addict is the guy who might give me the best shot at walking again, or of not losing more of my hand than I have to... or making sure that after that tumor is gone I can see my friends, or remember my kids.
I realize this sounds like I'm going off on you, and I guess I kind of am. It's nothing personal I'm just tired of hearing things like this. Yes there are downsides to video games, but there are downsides to everything. I wish people would stop thinking of them as such a childish thing. Maybe it's because I'm relatively young and they've always been around for me, but videogames have had a huge impact on my life. Characters in videogames have shaped me aswell as providing me with friendships that have done the same. It scares the crap out of me that just because it's videogame related so many people instantly dismiss things.
I'm not saying you're one of these people, I don't know you... but I feel we should all stop arguing about this shit and really give stuff like this a shot. |
There's a simple reason for this: they want to block the threat that Windows Phone represents before it becomes an issue. No one remembers Microsoft doing the same thing on the gaming side of their business? Hint: the then-prevalent view that "the Gamecube is for kids" did not come about by accident. There were leaked memos that showed that MS was working to marginalize Nintendo in just such a fashion, and that the sentiment appeared right along their projected timeline. That's why they marketed the Xbox the way they did, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there were viral campaigns that sought to seed the idea more directly. |
From the LA Times:
> The company’s specific technical explanation: “The mobile Web version of Google Maps is optimized for WebKit browsers such as Chrome and Safari. However, since Internet Explorer is not a WebKit browser, Windows Phone devices are not able to access Google Maps for the mobile Web."
Cite:
Translation: Google is intentionally punishing WP8 users to get back at Microsoft. |
Can't we just let people kill themselves in peace? Fuck. Killing yourself pretty much guarantees that your final act will be used to push an agenda (or agendas) with which you may or may not have agreed. |
Basically, how I think this should go:
There's an independent group of scientists (let's say deans from science departments at top universities, but really, that detail is small) from a wide variety of disciplines and who have NO ties, past or present, to any capitalistic interest, that allocate the R & D budget. This group of scientists controls who gets funding and addresses Congress. Congress, meanwhile, can't do jack about who gets the money unless they find that it violates any international or national treaties/laws (bioethics, et al). |
Yea, Democrat is not the same as liberal. Conservative denotes remaining with familiar conclusions when new evidence is presented. Liberal would imply that conclusions are modified once new evidence was presented.
If they choose the conclusions of hypothetical religion and political rhetoric because they're more comfortable with that, then they are conservative, regardless of which party they vote for. |
Solar, wind, hydro, bio fuels (burning methane), waste recycling (burning off waste as fuel).
Nuclear does 1 thing - create power.
Solar is interesting - you can develop a system that both sanitizes / cleans water AND provides power (note you effectively boil the water to create steam that drives a turbine. This water is sanitary, and the entire system is sanitary as a result). Clean water AND power.
Wind - Long term investment in areas it's viable. Minimal maintenance, and no requirement of hazardous materials for fuel. - does one thing though.
Hydro - costlier set up, long term viability. Can be used to create a reservoir for drinking water / irrigating farm lands. Relatively high short term environmental impact. |
Let's look at the per capita homicide rate of every OECD country then?:
AUSTRALIA 1.0
AUSTRIA .6
BELGIUM 1.7
CANADA 1.6
CHILE 3.2
CZECH REPUBLIC 1.7
DENMARK .9
ESTONIA 5.2
FINLAND 2.2
FRANCE 1.1
GERMANY .8
GREECE 1.5
HUNGARY 1.3
ICELAND .3
IRELAND 1.2
ISRAEL 2.1
ITALY .9
JAPAN .4
KOREA 2.6
LUXEMBOURG 2.5
MEXICO 22.7
NETHERLANDS 1.1
NEW ZEALAND .9
NORWAY .6
POLAND 1.1
PORTUGAL 1.2
SLOVAK REPUBLIC 1.5
SLOVENIA .7
SPAIN .8
SWEDEN 1.0
SWITZERLAND .7
TURKEY 3.3
UNITED KINGDOM 1.2
UNITED STATES 4.8
Oh look, 2 countries out of a list of 35 that are worse than the United States and 32 that are far better off! |
My thoughts when reading the title, "'May', why did he use such a stupid word if unlocking has already been 'made legal'"
Read the article, "Oh, OP didn't read the article." |
Judging people based on their phone choice is stupid and I'll explain why.
You don't know anything about me. But if I told you I like Apple and the iPhone, you're going to draw conclusions about the kind of person I am based on that. The biases you have would lead you a conclusion that is completely wrong.
I like Apple products and I do have an iPhone. I do not, however, tell people my choices are superior to anyone elses. I'm not in any way an Apple evangelist since I firmly believe that people should buy and use the products they like best and feel more comfortable with.
Yes, I understand that some Apple fans are obnoxious with the fanboy nonsense. But it's also true that Android fans can be just as fanboy some Apple fans are. The reality is that the vast majority of users of both iPhone and android phones just like what they're using and couldn't give a shit what other people use.
The |
Now let's remove sales figures for Samsung phones under $500
> |
The ONLY reason I switched to an S3 was because apple had become stale, nothing new they were coming out with was innovative anymore IMO.
I've had the S3 since February. Hated the stock samsung version of android. It used loads of battery life, was slow and often crashed. Took it back twice and recieved two replacements that were exactly the same. Got my boss to root it to cyanogenmod and it's even worse. I mean it's still fast and has good battery life but all the apps I use run like SHIT. And I mean complete shit.
The camcorder often wont record, in fact before I list these the whole camera facility is crap, at least twice a day it crashes and the phone has to be rebooted to get it working again, instagram video recording quality is pap and I cant use whatsapp video or snapchat if I wanna record more than 4 seconds of footage. The actual camera often doesn't even save the photos I manage to take.
Apps/functions are always crashing or just not responding properly/working the way they should be. And mobile broadcasts? Don't even get me started. what the fuck even is that? No matter what i turn off or fiddle with they just don' stop. Looks like the 5S will be in my pocket this year and I can throw this plasticky samsung crap in the bin. I just can't wait to plug my phone in and not have to mess around with Android file transfer and Kies.
I nearly jailbroke my iphone 4 so I could just actually be able to use a phone again and not have it run like a bag of shit, until I found out that with 6.1.3 you can only tether jailbreak it, too much hassle if my iphone crashes or anything |
I bought an HTC Evo 4G LTE: it broke within a week. I exchanged it for a Samsung S3. Twice. Finally, I traded the third S3 (16GB) for a iPhone 4S (64GB). It's been almost a year, couldn't be happier. |
I think the significance of them no longer being market leader is actually pretty significant due to their business model.
Unlike cars, smartphones also come associated with a given ecosystem. Apple is different to other smartphone manufacturers as it is the only one that gets access to the apple ecosystem. While on the one hand you can see that forcing someone to use itunes makes apple more profitable but it also isolates them. If they fall behind the competition in terms of hardware (which they arguably have started to) it begins to damage the software. Unlike say samsung, htc, sony, etc. if they start producing crap phones people won't abandon the google ecosystem they just buy from another manufacture but will importantly stay as a potential customer in the future, unlike apple.
In the past other companies have tried similar things, such as sony with memory stick duo. Sometimes they can be hugely profitable tactics but it is a risky strategy and it could potentially destroy a lot of brand loyalty.
Also, and i can only speak anecdotally from people i know who recently made the switch from apple have done so because they felt too reliant on itunes and didn't have the choice and flexibility other ecosystems offered. Needless to say it will take a lot for them to go back. |
Or who realize that Windows is a crappy system. Seriously, I work on a large system in C#/.NET, and while those are great platforms, whenever you go outside it, things start to suck. Examples...
Total path names must be 260 chars or less. ..in 2013.
A number of file names are simply prohibited (such as 'con')
Filesystem locking: I have rebooted countless times due to some file being locked. In Windows, unless you are very careful, opening a file locks it down.
Path separator is backslash and not slash, although both sorta work. Line ending is two chars, although just using one sorta works... but not in notepad.
No atomic rename-file-onto-existing semantics. This hurts systems maintaining a database in the filesystem, such as Mercurial and other DVCS's (i contributed code to sorta fix that, but there is no 100% solution possible.)
The list goes on a bit. Now you say: but this is all due to Win32, not the underlying systems. Yes indeed!... but that doesn't matter because everyone and everything uses Win32. Including in particular .NET.
Then there is the useless shell, and feeble attempt to fix it with PowerShell... |
Ever heard of hooligans, ultras or just overly serious fans that break (minor) laws and sometimes jaws to promote their team? I know it is only a minority (albeit not too small) but it shows that it is not only just for fun! |
I see a lot of "/r/technology hates Apple" comments. Some of us actually have legitimate reasons for disliking Apple. For me it's the way they approach iOS development. Lets look at it from the perspective of a student who just wants to try out game development for iOS. He just wants to make a game for fun to play with friends. He doesn't plan to sell this game or make any money from it. First he has to own an Apple computer to develop for iOS, from what I can tell the cheapest Apple computer you can buy is the Mac Mini starting at $599 ( Ok so lets say he already owns an iOS device so he can test his game on there since the simulator doesn't always run the same as an actual device. Awesome, so he should now have everything he needs to dive into iOS game development right? Well if he wants to test his game on a device or share it with his friends he will need to buy a developer license for $99 a year. Wait, he isn't selling this game and doesn't even want to list it on the app store, surely he doesn't need to pay $99 a year to make a game for him and his friends to play. Unfortunately he must pay even to make personal apps to use on his own device.
Now if we look at the same scenario for Android development you can clearly see the difference. First off I'm guessing the student has a computer, oh wait it's not a linux computer, he has a Windows PC. That's ok because he can develop for Android on Linux, Windows, or even Mac. Well he probably needs to buy a developer license. Nope, you can develop and deploy to a device all you want without a developer license. The only time you need to pay is when you want to list your app on the Play Store and even then it's a one time fee of $25. So as long as he has an Android device he can get into developing for Android game development absolutely free.
It just doesn't seem right that an individual wanting to try out iOS development needs to shell out at least $700. |
The point is that he can't reliably use XP after April 8th, so he needs to move to something else (or have all his personal and banking info stolen after a 0-day installs a keylogger, which will probably cost him a lot and impact his ability to pay the rent he's complaining about). Therefore, he needs to get a new OS, which he says he can't do because they cost money ... but there are OSes that don't cost anything, so his path is clear. |
The exact mixture of the precious metals suggests the Romans knew what they were doing—“an amazing feat,” says one of the researchers, archaeologist Ian Freestone of University College London.
Lines like this annoy me because they're ignoring the timescales involved here. It's deeply unlikely some forgotten Roman DaVinci -type invented this whole cloth. Chances are, they'd been experimenting with putting ground-up metals in the glass to make it sparkle or change color a bit for centuries, and the technique just got more refined in the usual way crafts do.
Plus, as someone else mentioned in the thread, the Romans were amazing glassmiths in their time - arguably the only art (aside from killing) they really mastered. So we're talking about a LOT of people experimenting with different ways to make glass pretty, in one of the richest cities in the world.
But still, at the end of the day, the only real insight required here is someone realizing that more-fine means more-sparkly and deciding to see how far that can go.
(edit) |
that's absolutely what the cause of this was. especially when they started talking about oligopolies, because that's what's going on here and that's what they're (justifiably) being accused of.
I'm really glad that I missed their entire campaign of ignorance since I don't have cable/satellite TV, and I don't listen to the radio, but I've been doing whatever I can to get away from big Telcom. I've got my internet on an indie (Teksavvy) and I'll be switching my phone away from Rogers to Wind as soon as my contract allows. I would have done it a few years ago, but they tricked and manipulated my wife and I using what was probably illegal tactics to get us on a new contract back in 2011. (the story being that my wife called to ask - just ask, nothing more - if there was any way to lower our bill because I was on a long term hospital stay. they changed the account without my say so since it's my name on the account and put us on a new 3 year contract and they weren't even going to give us new handsets. we had to fight for those alone, and no one at the company or the government seemed to care what they were doing. |
At my local station in Ontario the difference is 12% today between regular and premium. Regular is $1.286/L ($4.868/US Gallon) while premium is $1.440/L ($5.451/US Gallons). The price of regular here is slightly below the current provincial average of $1.319/L.
From the sounds of some of the numbers above, US gas is typically around 40% cheaper than Ontario gas, which would put it in a ballpark of $0.864/L for "premium".
If we convert your price to litres, it'd be £1.400/L or, in Canadian funds, $2.290/L.
It's hard to compare gas prices directly. There's apparently [more octane in most UK fuels]( though with all the specific automotive brands a clear consensus is hard to come by.
From what I can tell, 98 RON is a reasonably typical UK example of octane level; whereas in Canada most "regular" gas is around 91 or 92 RON. Canadian "premium" gas will get higher, somewhere as high as 100-102 RON. |
The universe is not Turing Decidable, and recognizing it would probably be EXSPACE-Hard. That means that we would need a computer that is far bigger than the universe in order to simulate the universe, which would just be silly, as it would be easier to just create the universe instead of simulating it that way. |
the reality will be a heavily regulated internet.
And that is exaclty why it will be very easy to join unregulated intranets like TOR. Ok, its not realy a intranet but what I want to say is:
Many governments will try stuff similar to the UK. Unknowingly they urge more and more people into stuff like TOR, darknet, deep web etc. Yes, the normaly visible inet will the strongly regulated, but there are already so many people out there who can teach you how to get rid of this control that the government will not be able to stop this movement. By controlling the net stronger and stronger they help people who want to have a uncontrolled net. At this very moment there are some realy good FAQs and wiki pages about how to use TOR and similar stuff. In the future these things will become easier and easier because more and more people are interested in a free web. |
It's not the same thing.
I have been into cameras since I was 16 and have shot thousands of pictures over the past 20 years of my (large) family get-togethers. I've shared the photos with them and they all love it.
But I use the camera for 5-10 minutes at a time and then I put it down and go grab a drink/snack and have conversation with people.
The kind of awkward, obsessive, and socially maladjusted people like the loner in this video is a not a product of the smartphone but a product of bad parenting. How many smartphone-obsessed escape artists are actually shooting and producing family videos? Maybe 1 in 10,000?
By the way, it's social recluses like this kid that end up getting "bullied" (yes, I put it in quotes) and end up with a chip on their shoulder and pretty much beget children that act the same way. |
I went in expecting a terrible commercial and it ended up hitting me hard. I was that kid when I was a teenager, didn't really socialize with my family and I was always just in the background. Only difference tho was that I didn't have that technology back then (well I did have the Gameboy), but I always tried (and still do) to find the perfect gift for everyone, one that shows that I listened and cared.
That was really the only way I was able to express my feelings towards my family, what was shown in the commercial is exactly what I would have done (or tried to do) if the technology we have now existed back then. Now I'm not a fan of Apple and sure they were advertising their products, but it wasn't exactly in your face about it and managed to be very affective even if you had absolutely no interest in what they were advertising. |
The cost to business has already been hundreds of millions of dollars in excess development and maintenance costs
That's amazing. I'd love to examine the research behind this claim.
EDIT: Put on sunglasses, then visit the letter author's [glorious web zone](
EDIT 2: |
Your scenario won't last long. ok, let's take a look at the costs.
You pay $70/month for 2GB. NetFlix says that a High video consumes [upto 1GB/hour]( That's a nice round number, so we'll go with that.
How many videos on High do you watch a month? Me? Probably 30 since I have Amazon Prime and I watch TV and movies. Maybe I'm on the high side. Regardless, our Free Streamer streaming services sends video at 1GB/hr and let's say Sponsored Streamer does the same but sponsors. One hour media content would consume half my allocated data or $35. Free Streamer pays nothing, Sponsored Streamer pays $35. At two hours, Sponsored Streamer has broken even with what I paid and it goes down hill from there.
In order to cover costs, Sponsored Streamer has to do something. At the bare minimum, they have to ensure that they are, on average taking in more money then they are paying out. If they charge a subscription, then they have to charge enough to cover costs which can easily run into the $100 or $1000 per month per user just in paying AT&T for a sponsored video. They certainly can't touch that with advertising. There's no business model there.
But wait, I bet Sponsored media probably doesn't pay full rate for data consumption. Maybe, I don't know, but in order for a media streaming company to make money this way, the price for Sponsored content paid to AT&T would have to be very, very low. So low that it wouldn't off set the cost that AT&T has in place (and whether the costs is artificial or not, it does exist for AT&T and thus, it exists). |
There is no positive to this only negatives. Unless you are an Executive at ATT where you get more money in your pocket for this.
I will try my best:
Say Lukeb127 has a really cool website idea. It is so good that it will replace reddit and digg and fark and all of those sites. So Lukeb127 starts coding away on the site. It is ready to get out there into the world now. Now you have to PAY money to ATT to have their customers come to your site. Say you want Verizon customers as well. Now you have to pay Verizon money as well. So let's just say that its a measly 100$ a month to both companies. You being a start up may say ok we can afford that. Now lets say its 10k or even 25k per month. This is where it starts pushing you the new start up into the ground before you can even let the market decide if you are a viable product. |
How short sighted are you that you don't think this will extend beyond AT&T very quickly once every other carrier starts realizing they can charge for data twice? Speaking of, that's certainly what they are doing. Can I only browse content that sponsors are paying for? Without my own data plan? So long as I can't, they are charging both of us for the data.
Naive doesn't begin to describe you. Amazon is currently offering Prime Video as a loss leader, the Kindle as a loss leader, and many other services at or below costs to get people through the door. They have big pockets and an interest in protecting their top spot in Internet retail, they'll slit their own throats if it keeps them on top, and something like this plays right into their hands should a young startup come along and try to start usurping them. What's one more "loss leader" for a company that gives away so much to be number one? Nobody has been trying to slap Amazon for anti-competitive practices.
It's very much relevant that they are creating artificial scarcity, there is virtually no cost to transmitting data these days, if it weren't for a virtual oligarchy in wireless, they'd never get away with it (as evidenced by countries that lack our limited wireless market) and now they're going to attempt to leverage that "scarcity" to start playing both ends while picking winners and losers for whose content gets delivered. |
Complete tech-newb here. I saw this and my first face was a blank stare. Could someone |
Kind of ironic but I still think drones should stay. This overly dramatic bullshit on how drones will end the world is just silly. Only difference is where the pilot of a the drone is.
Will it make the world safer? Doubtful. But will it keep people out of harm's way.
Will collateral damage happen where people still die like the wedding everyone keeps going on about. Probably, but since when is that different from any other sort of airstrike? I mean if that had happened with a guy in a plane the result would still be the same. |
This could be an amazing idea. But it could be used against the average internet user.
A while ago a friend an I where chatting about internet accountability. And how that when you are browsing you can be as anonomus as you allow yourself to be. A device such as this would identify the user at the keyboard at any one point. Meaning that that users interactions could be tracked and logged.
I know how conspiracy theory like that sounds. But when you think about it, it could easily happen. A person being tracked at all times regardless of which device you use. However it would force people to be a bit more responsible in their online interactions. Its a double edged sword. |
Meh. Until I can have the brand new content at the same time as regular HBO subscribers, I'm not excited. Allow me to watch Game of Thrones (or whatever show is your thing) via Prime on Sunday night at 9 PM Eastern, same as everyone else, and we're golden. I'd even pay a small premium ($0.99/episode seems fair) on top of my regular Prime to do this. I'd still pay money to HBO/Prime to see the content, AND save money by not having to subscribe to HBO when all I really want is their original programming. |
He isn't talking about censorship, he's talking about soft-censorship. Censorship is the government stopping you from saying certain things.
Soft-censorship can take a variety of forms, but for simplicity I'll list the varient he's referencing.
When a society is, by and large, run on corporate terms, the corporations hold more power in certain respects than the government. The government can cooperate with or use corporations to do very bad things without getting their hands dirty or without breaking rules that only apply to governments. When the only platforms for communication with enormous groups of people are owned by private enterprises (save for physically going outside and talking loudly, but that doesn't hold a candle next to the effectiveness of internet-based communication), those private enterprises effectively control the dialogue. If they don't like something being said or done on their servers, they can censor it. It isn't illegal, because it's a corporation, not the government, doing the censoring. However, the net result is the same; an individual's ideas are repressed for sociopolitical/monetary reasons, and the culture as a whole suffers. This bad effect is compounded by the fact that the corporation really isn't accountable to the citizens, and the citizens really have no say. A country ruled by corporations may be just as "Free" on paper as a country led by a democratic government, but the functional exercise of rights can be curtailed and limited to the point of nonexistence by corporations, and no one can do a thing about it. The fascist state is not conducive to freedom of the individual. |
The US may never convert, I for one, have been using the metric system for myself and my nerdiness. Its nice when I have to communicate to foreign coworkers. I may not speak their language, but with measurements, we understand each other.
Seriously, its not that hard. Switch your phone to metric. You'll have it down in a month. We drink liters of water and whatnot, just gotta find a common point to start. I used 1 liter to 1 quart. Its not exact but it was a start. For temps we all know 0 and 32 are freezing, and boiling is 100 and 212. I learned that 15 is 59, so basically 60. From there it was easy. Distances are just easy, 10 paces, 10 meters, 1000 meters is 1000 paces. You walk around 5km/h.
Well that was a lot longer than I anticipated. |
I'm gonna hop on the "not completely wrong" wagon - if your hardware isn't very good, you just won't be able to handle it. My old ass hard drive can't really handle doing more than 10 Mb/s file transfers (well SOMETIMES I see it doing 40 megs a second, but not common at all), and quite often you won't really be getting the maximum speed on your downloads, anyway. You're not gonna be starting up a BitTorrent client and seeing the download speed being "1 Gb/s", in both cases you'll be able to stream 1080p video without much interruption, you'll be getting satisfactory latencies in games, and it's pretty rare to be downloading anything larger than 10 gigabytes, and with 24mbps, the download time isn't absolutely terrible.
For a good bit I was running a connection that would top out at about 350kb/s on downloads, and then we upgraded to a connection that can do 2mb/s. THAT was a boost. 350kb/s was way too slow for regular use, streaming video was a pain, downloading software was a matter of days and leaving the computer on overnight. But now, I'm able to stream every video I need smooth, and I can download anything reasonably sized in under a couple of hours. There's the possibility to upgrade to something much faster now, but I'm not super excited about since what I have right now is simply good enough. |
His friend's statement is true, if carefully qualified.
For downloading large files there is an inarguably noticeaeble difference in speed. For most internet users who do some streaming, but mostly are just browsing and checking email, there will be no noticeable difference.
This is because the vast majority of files/images they download are very small, and even at a 12mbps connection they load (as far as we can perceive, assuming a reasonably fast computer) instantly. |
Let's provide a little telecom industry context. Back in 2010, I did a brief stint (desperate for a job) selling 1.5 - 3.0 Mb/s DSL door-to-door for a shit-can of a company called Windstream. The markets I was selling in had either a local cable company that offered 10 - 50 Mb/s speeds or Comcast (which was 20-50 at the time).
If anyone asked us about the speed difference, we were supposed to point out that the cable companies' speeds were "maximum speeds," and that the poor schmucks we were trying to convince to buy our overpriced shit-pipe would never actually see those kinds of speeds unless they made a habit of surfing the net around 3 AM, whereas OUR service was a GUARANTEED speed (it actually wasn't), meaning their overall internet experience would be much better.
I got the fuck out of that job as soon as I could find anything else, but most of the sales force I worked with had zero technical knowledge, and they bought the spiel hook, line, and sinker. |
This statement could be accurate from a user perspective.
The overall speed of a network connection is impacted by many factors; bandwidth, latency, congestion, distance, characteristics of intermediate devices. Bandwidth and latency are two things that can be easily measured and accurately describe a user's experience.
Bandwidth is the amount of information that the wire can hold. A 24 mbps link can transmit 24 mb of data every second. 1000 mbps = 1000 mb every second. That does not translate directly into speed.
Latency is the amount of time it takes for information to get to the other end of the link.
Gamers will be very familiar with the impacts of latency on their connection. High latency is a major cause of lag in online games. No matter how much data the wires will hold, it takes time for those packets to get where they are going and for you to get a response back from the other end.
Many others have commented that higher bandwidth will enable you to do more things simultaneously, and they are spot on. Latency, which can vary significantly depending on many factors, means that after a certain threshold, more bandwidth does nothing to improve the performance of an individual link.
The connection between bandwidth and latency can be confusing for the non-techies and bigger is better is easy to market. That is probably why ISPs sell bandwidth and don't talk about other factors that impact overall performance.
source: used to be a network admin/engineer |
Here's the real reason ISPs are fighting so hard against high bandwidth internet:
Most ISPs also provide TV as well as internet and make far more off cable than internet services. The second they provide a 1Gbps connection we will question why we're paying for HDTV cable when we can just stream the same quality over the internet. They will then get hounded to offer the same services that Netflix/Hulu/etc are already doing well with.
While this isn't a big deal on paper, psychologically this is HUGE. What's the biggest difference between Netflix and cable? Hardware. The cable companies have a TiVo and HDTV receiver to justify the disgustingly high cost of television. We're paying a premium for video content and renting their hardware. The second they start sending their video content over the internet they lose out on the hardware fees they can charge.
Another example of immoral practices by ISPs is throttling . There are two differnet ways to throttle traffic:
Control bandwidth for a particular services. IE, any Netflix traffic doesn't get more than 2Mbps when HD content requires ~5Mbps. (what ISPs are doing)
Set priority for particular services. IE, any company that pays for the fast lane gets priority to bandwidth over non-providers. (what ISPs SHOULD be doing but don't because they just want to screw over content providers)
The latter would provide usable bandwidth for any/all services but when you start to run out of bandwidth, it will throttle the non-payers.
Essentially, this means ISPs are intentionally crippling content providers they don't like when there's a bigger, easier way to provide fast lanes.
Source: I'm a Network Administrator/Engineer in IT |
I see bandwidth and speed being used interchangeably on some of these posts so just want to clarify for OP:
Think of Google Fiber 1Gbps as a very fast sports car (Bugatti's Veyron)
and AT&T 24mbps as a family SUV (Subaru Forester).
One has a much higher maximum speed then the other. But speed doesn't equal Bandwidth.
My favorite Bandwidth analogy is comparing bandwidth to lanes on a highway: Imagine a 5 lane highway coming up to a toll booth with only one lane open. That is a small amount of bandwidth at that point.
If you are the only one driving on the road that's probably going to be okay, but you add relatives in your house streaming at the same time as you, you're putting more cars on the road and you're going to choke shared small bandwidth.
When it comes to Bandwidth, you can go pretty fast when no one is around but usually you have to share the road, which slows things down.
Now I think Driving a Veyron to get milk and eggs everyday is a bit of overkill and wasted potential. Not everyone NEEDS Veyron speeds, most people will never use it's top speed, and if they do it's usually a niche hobby or need (like running a server in your house). I only know two race car drivers who come close to using their full internet speed. Most everywhere you go you have to obey the posted speed limit (In this case there are many variables that affect your internet connection other than your connection at home)
All the non technical non server running average friends and family I know would love fiber and swear it's faster but in reality they won't be using any of it's potential. I"m sure they'll say: "I love my Veyron, it feels so much faster now when I drive through my neighborhood to get milk and eggs. I don't know how I lived without it before."
But it's in their head. They're still only going 35mph in the school zone and it still takes just as long to get the groceries and come back home.
(As they surf through their old Wireless B router)
However I agree with those who say being complacent stifles innovation. It's certainly easier for Company X to come out with a new service for people to use like a new superhighway if everyone is driving speed demons for cars.
5 years ago I felt bad for people buying the "speed tier" packages paying extra for internet gaming that they weren't going to use. But much has changed in 5 years. Grandma figured out how to use Youtube to look at her Grandkid's videos and got hooked on cat videos while she was at it, and Netflix runs on everything including toasters now so people are starting to actually use some of their speed. I agree 1gbps doesn't matter much more than 24mbps right now but Speed needs are only going to get worse and it is going to matter at some point soon.
Nice report on average global internet usage by category and internet type:
Show North America home connections highest hitters are Netflix, Youtube, and Facebook.
According to Netflix you need 5Mbps for HD movies:
So if you're an average user then Torrents are really the only semi common internet usage thing that might use some of the Veyron potential, and Torrents are just going to get my Friends and Family in trouble, cause they're not going to use encryption.
; |
Dislike this article for several reasons...
For starters, why would you disqualify MMOs simply because it features a custom-created female lead, rather than a forced-choice for one? Stupid qualifier.
Next - I'd be interested to see how the breakdown of protagonists in action games matches the actual gender mix in real life militaries. Having a fifty percent mix of each would be weird because in reality not that many women fight.
Factually, the article is also incorrect, to the point where I'm pretty sure the guy never played these games. You can't fuck strippers in Sleeping Dogs, for example, although there are five girlfriend interests in the game and no explicit nudity from any of them to my recollection. |
Well, I think the idea originally was that wholesale data and call collecting would remove the guesswork/uncertainty out of intelligence.
Back in the cold war, you heard something from a guy, or tracked a guy going to a location, and had to connect the dots, and make sure someone wasn't trying to trick you. Data intel was supposed to mitigate the guesswork, 'cause you have the direct evidence from the people you want to track.
The problem is that the 'baddies' aren't stupid- and so they don't leave evidence around. They use code-words and dog whistles and constantly change their methods and vernacular. This isn't to say that data-intel is useless, its simply just as difficult to decipher, and verify, as old-school human intel, and has the added labor of sifting through millions of different people's communications, with a myriad of potential false-positives. |
I see it being a hard sell. In a lot of areas, water/sewer systems are managed and serviced by private companies, but are owned by the people it serves. The down side is, every property owner is a debtor on the capital cost and is liable for operating expenses and upgrades, and that is written into the deed. |
I don't pay your cable bill so I'll take your word for it. I did, however, spend a lot of time doing planning and budgeting on large networks probably a lot like the one you're using. (I also got the fuck out of the business.)
[Here]( is one analyst who shares your dread. Personally, I disagree with his conclusion, but I do agree with one of the people he quoted:
> Jayant added that usage-based pricing will come, but he believes it will be reactive rather than proactive. “When things get bad enough on the video side, they will have this arrow in their quiver,” Jayant said.
The margins in the TV part of cable TV are going from slim to anorexic; there's no upward room on monthly rates, and new networks keep adding to costs. Broadband is about the only lifeboat the industry has.
On the other hand, here , which, along with continuing rollouts of FTTH/FTTP will mean that 10 years from now you'll be screaming that comcast has fucked you because of the obscenely small 30TB "cap". |
It is the usually defensive bullshit. Pick something really wrong that is endemic in one party and people come out of the woodwork to point out that there are some people in the other party with the same issue so therefore both parties are equally bad. It is the "but mo.......m, everyone is doing it" defense. And it doesn't really apply when comparing parties because something being part of the party platform is a whole different level then a few mavericks within the party taking that stance.
It is a sickness in politics. If people from either side are corrupt (including blatant protectionism at the expense of their consultants like apposing net neutrality) then we should vote against those people. If a party's platform is on the wrong side of that issue then one might consider voting against everyone from that party unless you believe that the specific candidate will actually oppose the party line. When a whole party takes a side it shifts the line from no stance being acceptable to requiring explicit opposition to the party line.
Alas, voting on only one issue is also silly, and we never have many candidates to choose from with our two-party system. |
The title isn't misleading. The crystals they currently use don't emit light constantly, but blink on and off. The times that they're off harms the efficiency of the system. The title didn't claim free energy, just that they're constantly on. And they are. You apply power and they are continuously on. This is much better than "you apply power and they blink on and off rapidly."
The cheapness comes from the second property of this crystal, in that it can create any wavelength of light merely by growing crystals of different size. This kind of standardization (vs the current system where different wavelengths come from different materials) of the manufacturing process could, indeed, drastically lower the price of these goods. |
Yeah, that new guy's gonna get fired for that eventually while Monster cock will get a promotion to middle management after 3 solid years of sliming.
That's why Best buy is a piece of shit and you shouldn't shop there. I bought a laptop that the company would not return, the fucking laptop had a cracked LCD when purchased! Toshiba said this is up to best buy to return; best buy told me that I broke it. They agreed to return it at a 50% restocking fee.
6 months of fighting... manager after manager, corporate bitch after corporate bitch, the BBB constantly resolving my complaint without best buy doing anything but telling them it's my fault [BBB = USELESS], etc... and I was robbed of $999.
Then I heard about the guy who bought a fucking brick he thought was a Macbook, which they gave hell over too.
Fuck Best Buy. Why would you even shop there after knowing their attitude and business practice? You're the problem; you're helping this company post record profits. You're helping slimball continue to be one, by allowing him to keep his job.
Shop somewhere else if you want slimball to lose his job, so he has to get a job with real morals. I haven't been back in roughly 2 years; never plan to set foot in one again. I also harass family members when I find out they've been there. |
For the niche market that needs 1200fps at 336x96 I'm sure this product is great. For the dude producing a short video of seagulls flying around to be posted on Youtube, this is probably a great product.
From a professional standpoint, it is a gimmick. There isn't a substantial market for 1,200 fps at 336x96. It is a $1000 camera for hobbyists posting their videos on a site that is mostly populated by 14 year-olds and video bloggers.
This camera shoots at 1,400,000 fps. Is it way more expensive? Yes, but that's because it has a real use outside of user created content. At 1280 x 800 it still shoots at 7,530 fps. There is a market for high-speed, but it's way higher than 1,200 fps. Think: those X-Mo replays during sporting events.
>Why dont you make fun of an HD camera's sub-par frames per second capability?
Because the par for fps is 29.97! That's broadcast. The Panasonic HVX shoots at 60 fps at 1280x720. So does the HMC-150. That's a $3,500 camera! They also have the benefit of being good for something other than Youtube. Even with those capabilities though, they're still rarely used for anything more than test footage. It's neat to have those features, but you're still going to be shooting at 29.97 or 24 most of the time.
The EX-F1 is a bridge camera, which i dislike for being a bad midpoint between a DSLR and a Point & Shoot. It's a jack of all trades, but a master of none. Wait 2 years for Canon or Nikon (or maybe Sony) to do it in a DSLR if it's really that useful to you. By then it will probably have a more respectable resolution anyway.
I never denied that Youtube was popular. I denied that Youtube was ahead of the curve in regards to video technology. Most of the videos on Youtube are horrible anyway. The whole site bleeds money.
I happen to think I'm interested in high-speed video. I work full-time on video, including video for the web, but the first thing I did when I clicked on your link was try to press the HQ button that wasn't there. I then looked up the resolution of the camera to see if there was any higher quality footage. That was pretty distracting.
I'm all for videos of seagulls, especially neat slow-mo ones, but it still seems pretty gimmicky, especially at such disappointing resolutions. |
You are missing the point of the article. Not to mention being a huge douche. |
Well yes it does seem like a lot of them see furthering their political career and essentially bending over for the highest lobbying power as more important than protecting people's rights. They will of course talk about protecting people's rights when it seems like this will make their audience feel better, but very few seem to really speak out about how concerned they are of their own accord (Dennis Kucinich comes to mind).
Imagine if just 10% of Reddit subscribers contributed $5 to a lobbying fund. All these issues we rant and rave about, with some of us complaining that we never actually achieve anything by complaining on the internet, this is one way we could actually make a difference.
I would happily contribute to a Reddit Net Neutrality lobbying fund even though I do live in England, these issues are important for all of us. Money talks and together we have a lot of it, surely enough to buy our own influence. |
The U.N. does a lot of things, and what you're suggesting would require the application of military force (peace keeping/N Korea) and massive amounts of money (food), which is but a few of the methods that the U.N. applies to make changes to the world. What we're talking about here is focusing on the philosophy of a person's right to communicate via the internet, and this does not detract or take "focus" from the U.N.'s other duties and goals. We're talking about a large conglomerate of countries here, it's sensible to remember that they have a massive scope of goals, as well as methods to meet them. The U.N. also adopt resolutions to help shape member states' domestic legislation, which seems to be the goal here. |
Have you tried running the applications on 64bit machines? Chances are they'll still work anyway
If you can't use the 64bit server you could install a load of 32bit virtual servers
Is the NAS a separate box to your main server? What is the transfer speed like from that machine? Does it have any maximum number of simultaneous users etc?
Having a stripe (RAID 0) would mean that if any one drive fails then you lose everything stored on all of the drives. Having two drives mirrored (RAID 1) means one of them can fail and the system will still function (you then just swap in a new good drive)
With RAID 5 you can lose multiple drives depending on the number of drives you have. |
But "pulling the patent" will be even worse because, if they "pull the patent" then anyone can make a product including this. Apple could technically block anyone from doing it at this point. |
To be honest it doesn't sound like the worst job. I recently worked at a mill during one of their shutdowns for boiler refurbishment(10 story boiler). I worked as a contractor working 10 hours a day 7 days a week. I also worked the night shift from 7:30 pm to 6 in the morning. Many places inside the mill section we were working in were easily 40-45 degrees Celsius. As well it was recommended for all personnel to wear personal respirators at all times in the mill, though this was not enforced(This is due to lead and asbestos particles likely floating around, kicked up by various activities). As well people doing my job could find themselves walking around patrolling for fires, as well as sweeping. It was said to be disrespectful for us to sit down on the job considering how much we were being paid. So often times i basically found my day filled with me patrolling my floor for sparks and sweeping and cleaning when possible(no sitting).
I'm a young guy so it wasn't so bad for me once i got my sleep schedule worked out, but there was a guy on my crew who's 52 and doing the same shit as I am.
Ont op of this they expected minimal sick days.
As in if you're sick without maybe having worked a month then you'll just be laid off, because they need people who will be able to reliable work through the shutdown.
One young guy on my crew working a lead abatement job is apparently sick with lead poisoning. |
It is the race to the bottom.
I quit a job this spring because the company had absolutely no respect for the workers that did the hard work to make the company actually run. I am a college graduate and saw some good potential in an expanding company, however my hard work went unnoticed. Although we were not temp hires by contract the company had no plans to retain good workers or pass on profit gains though raises or bonus. We were disposable to them.
At a new start up location hey hired twice as many people as they needed so they could cut the bottom half of workers with no prior notice after three weeks. All of the decent employees quit, I quit then too. I hope someone got the message when they suddenly hardly had enough employees to function.
Seriously the managers where always so stressed out and everyone was overworked. It was deplorable conditions that could rip a hole deep into ones soul, it just felt terrible working there. The district managers would come in once or twice a week and look over everyone's shoulder making everyone nervous as they make sure they are receiving maximum profits. |
Bullshit. I used to work in manufacturing - this is all about "passing the savings on to you".
Have you seen the profit margins on a car? Or in a warehouse? Or at a retail store? I've worked in, and seen all of the above numbers. They're low , incredibly low.
Why are people being treated like shit? Because American consumers are absurdly price sensitive. I once worked for a retailer where we were studying how much extra people were willing to pay for environmentally-conscious products. We all suspected the number was depressingly low - maybe a 5% premium.
You know what we found? The answer was zero . The vast majority of consumers in America will instantly turn their nose if the product was charged a premium. Damned if it's fair trade, responsible labor, environmentally friendly, or any such crap. It's a exceedingly tiny portion of the US consumer base that will actually pay a premium for such things.
I hate this whole "blame the corporations" thing. They're no saints, but it's us that's driving the middle class out. Our obsession with the bargain-basement gallon jar of pickles, the $4 t-shirt, the $1 sandwich, and thumbing our noses up at anyone who dares charge a premium for doing responsible business. |
In the event your stunning display of grammar is not, in fact, a troll:
Spelling specifies concepts and grammar sets rules to keep ambiguity low. When people use the wrong words or mangle the words, it's not always possible to figure out what they meant when reading at-speed.
After you read enough, your brain gets very good at matching patterns of letters with words and concepts. When there's suddenly a word is a place which doesn't make sense, it looks wrong, and you have to stop and investigate what you're reading.
The inverse is when people read too little, or become used to reading things which have equally little regard for grammar. Then, you get trained to infer the context from the surrounding sentence much more than relying on the words, which is 'safer', but much more ambiguous. If you can't figure out there/their/they're, not only will you not know which one to use, but you won't care which one other people use either. |
I agree with most of what your saying - except you're overstating the help from Microsoft. Microsoft was a key player for bringing important software to the platform, but that was not THE key to today's success of Apple.
Jobs was not a designer - never studied it - dropped out from school, etc. All true. He was rather a very tough customer to satisfy. He would tell designers what he wanted clearly, and be VERY VERY critical and difficult to please. Everything had to be perfect. Which is o.k.! Designers prefer customers that know what they want! It helps them be creative to have clear boundaries - and helps them concentrate their work on what's most important. He was kind of like the Simon Conwell of computers. When Simon hates a signer, heill say it quite bluntly. But when Simon totally loves, you know you are meant for stardom.
Additionally to being a very though cookie for his designers (which, once again, is a good thing if well done), he secured financing, got 3rd party developers in the game, and pulled everything Apple needed to get it's shit together.
So basically, he was just simply a good CEO. Designers and developers generally dislike doing all the "political and visionary bullshit". They much prefer someone take care of all that for them well so that they can do what they love the most - designing and developing. Jobs did a very good job at that, which is why his designers don't mind that Jobs get attributed get the fame related to the final products. It is very satisfying to see your products become extremely famous. And it is even funner to know that you have a good boss that will help you design more and more glorious products.
It's the same as a movie director. Does Steven Spielberg act like all his AAA actors - no? Does he do music like John Williams - no? Does he write as well has his writers? NO! He just knows what elements are required to make the whole movie a masterpiece! |
I don't even know what Anonymous's motto is anymore. I want to like Anonymous, but their ego of laying down justice on the internet is sometimes embarrassing to explain to my friends. And their only Public Relations is crappy youtube videos. No one will send that video to people who have power to change for good, because one could mistaking as a 12 year old making their own Batman trailer. |
I don't think it is dumb if they actually follow through - I'd rather be taxed and have the government/media/economy embrace the digital nature of culture. Everything digital is infinitely copyable, and trivially shareable (look at piracy...). You cannot charge for a single copy of something that is infinite in supply. But you can't let media industries collapse either. Basically, I would rather live in a sane world where what is infinite in supply is shared freely. |
Campus IT only has so many people. Its easy to monitor for P2P connections autonomously, searching for individual downloads is much more difficult and requires a person looking at every connection (very probably illegal). Also you are protected by the DDL hosting site, if a content provider issues a copyright infringement notice they will just kill the link/delete the file. They don't give your IP address out unless there is a warrant issued. |
Magnet links are just that, links. Torrent magnet links have the torrent hash value (a string of letters and digits that is unique to that torrent) instead of domain name in HTTP links, for example. They also may have adresses to trackers after the hash.
Torrent files contain all that as well as a list of files, size and name of each file and maybe some other information. That data is of course needed regardless of download method, so if you are using magnet links, the data will be downloaded from the tracker, if any.
The interesting thing that is demonstrated by magnet links from The Pirate Bay is that you don't need a list of trackers. There's this thing called Distributed Hash Table (Denoted as [DHT] in the Trackers tab in µTorrent) that is spread out over torrent clients all over the world, probably including your own. Each one containing a few pieces of the table. The DHT has all the information that would normally be given in a torrent file (listed above) of every torrent file in existance and is completely descentralized.
By the way, you can see the parts that you're responsible for storing by going into the Logging-tab in µTorrent, right clicking and choosing "Dump DHT Tracked". |
I went to the Pirate Bay for the first time this week, but unfortunately they didn't have what I wanted.
What drove me to want to pirate something?
I need a math textbook (Teaching Secondary Mathematics: Techniques And Enrichment Units, 8th Edition), and I decided I wanted to try an ebook instead of having to drag around a thick textbook. The publisher offers one, but only through Coursesmart. They don't sell ebooks, they only rent them. You're restricted to printing 10 pages at a time. The interface isn't any better than a pdf file. And the worst part, you can't access it offline unless you use firefox . . . so, I won't be able to use my iPad.
I am not paying money for a product that severely restricts my ability to use it! In some backwards attempt to thwart pirating they are encouraging me to seek out a pirated source. If they had just offered a user friendly product at a fair price I would have handed over my credit card instantly. Now though, my plan is to go to the library, get the book, and scan each chapter as needed. I'd rather scan 500 pages than give one cent of my money to a company that won't give me the product I want/need. |
They said the same thing when Napster got taken down. People thought that no one would go out of their way to learn how to get a torrenting program, learn how to access the files from their torrent and add it to their music player, learn how to search online for a torrent, learn what seeding was, etc. when they are used to just searching on a program and clicking download.
Flash forward five years, and the average user is most definitely torrenting, and if they are not they get music from their friends who torrent. Also, the old methods never died. Believe it or not, Limewire is still going, but everyone knows it's a pile of crap so they left it. |
If you're hoping to vote for a third party, the voting system in USA sucks with an effective duopoly. The electoral system favours two likely winners where unless your preferred party is hugely popular, you make the best vote by betraying your favourite. Yes, USA has a weak democracy compared to foreign countries which is why there's mentions of Greens, Pirate Parties, etc, are getting elected in other countries. |
It would do if we had an impartial system for weighing of votes. Any system of weighing, whether it be on how systemically educated you are to what jobs you have held are going to be biased towards received wisdom. Also bear in mind education and positions of power predominantly goes to the wealthy anyway, so this doesn't actually solve any of the problems you highlighted with representative democracy.
There will never be an unhackable form of encryption; there is always a loophole. Any type of vote where you don't have to attend a polling station will be subject to all sorts of abuses, as we see with the postal vote system in the UK. But most importantly of all you will always need a guy to run stuff when the shit hits the fan. You can't be having polls on every decision during times of war, or economic crisis, or even day to day living to be honest. While a minority of the population have the time and inclination to stay on top of politics, most have too much going on to read up on how the economy works, or how best to structure education or any number of the incredibly complex arguments a government has to deal with. |
The more flexible and dynamic something is, the greater becomes urge to control it.
By something I mean:
Are there any other gods? No %god_name% is the only one!
Is there going to be a satiric comedy performance today? No, they hung themselves, sorry.
I have invented an eternal power generator which is perfect in every sense, can I please have some funding from you guys? No, no you can not. We do not need one. |
Interesting that you presume that I didn't understand how the system worked. I didn't go into nitpicky details because I don't see how they affect anything I said. I was simply pointing out that it wasn't necessarily some nefarious scheme or back-door-dealing that results in regional monopolies for cable provision; it's inherent to the type of service they provide and the types of investment provision of that service requires. Who is "owner" and who is "lessee" of the hardware is immaterial because the local government cannot do anything with the lines except contract out to a company for operation, and that lessee will almost always be the company that built it.
Now, for the link to monopoly, I would have thought it very perverse if the old company DIDN'T win the contract upon expiration just because they're in a better position than anyone else to offer the most attractive bid. Any other provider would have to bite tremendous costs in acquiring the new service area, even assuming that their hardware was theoretically compatible with the existing infrastructure. Keeping even a single information network operating smoothly is a nightmare, and forcing interfaces between networks that were not designed to do so is even more of a nightmare. Assuming even inferior operating efficiency of the old company, any new bidder would have to take on massive costs in order to rival the old company's bid. Basically, the old company would likely have to be either bankrupt, or incapable of providing vaguely acceptable service in order to get ousted. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.