You're completely delusional if you actually believe this.

Lets take a tiny data center with 1000 servers for example, each server gets a 100mbit ethernet connection, if the hosting provider wasn't overselling their bandwidth they would need 100GBit of upstream bandwidth. Sorry but that just isn't going to EVER happen.

If Google has over 500,000 servers, each with 100mbit ethernet connection, do you think they have a nice fancy 50terrabit connection to the internet?

Overselling bandwidth is business as usual, and always will be. The internet by design is just one big bottle neck at some point or another, you may as well just get used to it now.

I watched the video and the BMW was driven BEHIND the Prius at "speeds as fast as possible".

I think that favors the BMW significantly considering the how close the BMW was driven behind the Prius, the Prius was doing most of the work pushing the air out of the way for it.

What a horrible test on so many levels, its completely useless to base anything on it.

How well does it actually support MythTV though?

I imagine its just a "dumb" video stream player that can't skip commercials or modify any of the programming that a regular Myth frontend can do?

Yes, its completely fair.

If "Rich" guy somehow knows that your entire networth is $500,000 (most of it equity in your home) and he offers $505,000 for the company, he is either a complete idiot or the company isn't worth that much to begin with.

If "poor" guy can't come up with $505,000 by mortgaging his house and getting a $5000 loan from his family/bank, then the project obviously isn't worth that amount, let alone $5000 to someone on the "outside". Selling a 1% stake in your company to retain 99% is a small price to pay. If the company has any worth whatsoever, a bank isn't going to have a problem loaning you the money for a lowball shot-gun clause offer.

As I mentioned in my other post, I would rather walk away from a bad business relationship with $505,000 in my pocket, then what the alternative would be without a shot-gun clause.

If your business partner is that much of a jerk and "rich" it would be guaranteed a few years in court, guaranteed several hundred thousand dollars in lawyer bills, all for what? The CHANCE (no guarantee) of getting only PART (assuming 50/50 partnership) of the company if there is anything left of it in the end.

Shot-gun clauses are the last resort, they are not ideal by any means, but when you are dealing with someone who is completely unreasonable, its the best case scenario and you should be thankful to get anything out of it. Thats the price you pay for having a bad business partner.

If you would rather spend years in court and help your lawyer pay for his fancy car/house, be my guest, don't use a shot-gun clause.

Okay and not having a shot-gun clause results in this:

Rich telling Poor to go screw himself, taking whatever he can and continuing to build the project and sell it... Poor doesn't have the 10s of thousands of dollars to take Rich to court where there is still a 50/50 chance at best that he may or may not walk away with anything other than a fat lawyer bill. At this point the court has to decide who is in the "wrong" when there may or may not be clear cut terms.

I've personally been involved with the sale of a business which exceeded 6 figures, the sale contract was done up by experienced lawyers in which the buyer would make two payments, one up front and another X days after. The buyer also provided personal promissory notes from himself, his wife, and signed over collateral in the form of real-estate.

Well, the buyer never made the 2nd payment, and even with the promissory notes and collateral it still cost 40K in lawyer fees and took almost two years to get a judgment against them before the seller could legally have access to any assets, which turns out by the time this all panned out they were all mortgaged to the hilt and the economy went into the dumps making the collateral (real estate) is worth a fraction of what it originally was. Since the banks get first priority on mortgages, its all worthless to the seller. The best course of action is to wait it out and hopefully the buyer gets into a position to actually make the payment, or have something worth taking.

Now a shot-gun clause wouldn't have helped in this situation, but the point is, going to court is pretty much guaranteed lose situation for "regular folk". At LEAST a shot-gun clause has a "out" with clear and simple terms. If one party tries to get nasty at that point there really isn't any decision for a court to make other than uphold the exchange of money/property/intellectual property. It would still probably cost thousands upon thousands of dollars to actually enforce, but that is a fraction of the alternative.

Its not ideal by any means, but its the lesser of two evils and its always a way out that is as fair as possible.

So? The "rich" guy needs to make the "poor" guy a reasonable offer, because as per the shot-gun clause any offer that is made first can be countered by the other party at the exact same price. So if the "rich" guy tries to lowball the "poor" guy, it could easily come back to bite him.

It basically comes down to this, if the "poor" guy can't get his hands on enough capital to meet the original shot-gun clause offer, likely the project isn't worth it to begin with, but at least he gets to walk away with some cash, likely more money then he or any outside investors think the project is worth.

Given the alternative, the "poor" guy couldn't afford any court costs anyways and would be likely to lose everything PLUS lawyer costs if it ever went to court, so with a shot-gun clause in tact he at least has the option to raise more capital, or he gets bought out for a reasonable amount.

You can't get a more fair system then the shot-gun clause, and one party being "rich" and the other being "poor" makes virtually no difference either.

ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS have a shot-gun clause with a hard time limit in any significant partnership agreement. This "co-owned" 50/50 split stuff is BS and is way too likely to go sour.

If they had a shot-gun clause in their agreement, this would be a simple matter of one party or the other buying full rights and continuing on with the project, no legal system and multi-year drawn out court battles designed to put all the money in lawyers pockets. The issue would be resolved in a matter of days and both parties would essentially be happy.

Its a common myth used to sell work-out DVDs, Pilates and other similar stuff that you can "tone" muscles. Muscles do one of three things, they maintain themselves, they shrink, or they grow. When you get on a treadmill and do "cardio", your muscle doesn't go into "toning" mode and magically start to "look" better.

What makes muscles "look" better is reducing the fat around them (muscle definition), or increasing their size so they are more visible. So when doing "cardio" you are really just attempting to reduce your overall fat which subsequently makes muscle look more defined.

However for most average (not obese) men and women they will need to spend hours on the treadmill and watch their caloric intake with military precision to see much benefit. Instead if you spent that time actually building muscle they would spend less time in the gym overall, see results faster, and not have to watch what they eat as much. The more muscle you have, the more calories you burn even when your sleeping, that beats any time spent on a treadmill.

Of course virtually every women you mention this too will say: "I don't want to be muscle bound or look like a body builder, thats gross.". Its not going to happen unless you approach it like a Olympic athlete or a full time job. So you don't need to worry about this and even if you do, simply stop going to the gym and eat a few more twinkies, problem solved.

How do you build muscle while spending the least amount of time in the gym as possible? Easy, lift weights so heavy you can only do AT MOST 8 reps before your muscles give out in fatigue, then add 10% more weight to that, and don't worry about "form", thats all crap too, just make sure you don't injure yourself, which doesn't exactly set the bar very high. You want to focus on your strongest range of motion, which usually means you may only move the weight a few inches (yes, 1-2 inches is enough) just before you fully extend any joint. Heck, you could just hold the weight in one place and it'll work just as well.

Most people laugh at me when I tell them this, because since they were kids in school they were always taught "form" and full range of motion is the most important, well it only is if you want to spend hours in the gym every day for little or no results. What is most important is building muscle, and with this "idea", you should be able to increase the weight you lift for any one exercise between 5-10% EACH WORKOUT. I only go to the gym once a week now and spend less than 30 minutes. After each work-out I'm sore enough that it takes a few days minimum to recover fully so I can lift more the next time... If you can't lift more the next work out, its likely you are doing it wrong, or not waiting long enough between workouts to fully recover.

What most people don't understand is that in order for muscle to grow, you need to literally tear your muscle fibers so your body notices and starts to grow new ones. This increases the size of the muscle and subsequently the strength. Do not confuse this with PULLING your muscle, that is obviously different. But your muscles should HURT one or two days after a "proper" workout, if they don't, then you just wasted your time.

If you want to read more, google "static contraction training".

Is AT&T seriously that dumb with their contract changes? Up here in Canada, I have an iPhone on Rogers, and they just recently changed their terms in the contract, but they have this wonderful clause at the bottom that roughly states:

If you do not agree with these changes, the original contract is still enforced.

Hence putting an end to people getting "free phones" or out of 2-3yr long contracts.

Uhh, last I checked Canonical hasn't actually turned a profit yet. Its just being funded by someone who has very deep pockets. It could be years before he recovers his investment, if it ever happens.