That's true of keys, but misplacing optimism is placing it in a faulty idea rather than not having it altogether.

Yes! Do something notable. Most notable people are still findable on the internets, even hundreds of years later.

He implied he did not have optimism. Not sure how one misplaces what one does not have.

So is there a conclusive way on the Amazon website to tell before making a purchase that a file is not DRM protected? From what I've read of the mobi documentation there is a new DRM scheme that requires client-side account verification which does not use device ids encoded in the file by the server, which would imply "unlimited" devices permitted but the book would still be tied to an account. Does Amazon notate the distinction somehow?

I don't think we ever weren't good. I was just learning because what I learned in signals and systems did not jive with what you claimed. It turns out you and I were using latency differently.

If you live in a democracy, you might want to lobby your city to change this stance. It'll make for a more desirable and livable city.

If a book says unlimited, is the file actually DRM free, or is the DRM just permissive. Can a publisher, or Amazon, later change that number from unlimited to something more restrictive and push out the update to terms to devices just like they can push out deletion commands to devices?

I solved a similar problem by time-shifting my reading a little. When I want to read a book, I reserve it at the library. When my place in line comes up, I read it. With a sufficiently flexible schedule I read everything I want to read, just not immediately. That's okay though because my reading list is long enough that I'm not without things to read.

That's why I said it has little effect. I'm convinced that latency has a large effect on throughput but I am unconvinced that throughput has a large effect on latency. I get 16ms latency on my ADSL connection, which is 1.5Mb/s. I don't know anyone with 20+ Mb/s cable connections that has much lower latency than my connection. On the other hand, if you go to something like a 2400 baud modem then latencies are up noticeably.

So, am I misunderstanding? Gigabit fibre should have significantly better latency than a lowly 1.5Mb/s ADSL link? I am not sure it does (haven't tested one).

I did not realize you were specifically talking about the NHL, your original statement was more generic. One would think that telecasts would be cheaper as they can accommodate more people than a rink.

Latency is the measure of how long a signal takes to reach the other end, no? High latency will reduce your throughput, but throughput has little (not none) effect on your latency. Is my thinking incorrect?

Could you explain how that is, please?

When I pay the IRS I get something for my money. If I were to choose to pay Comcast I would get a rebroadcast of what I already receive over the air. I don't mind paying for something, I would mind paying for nothing.

Would going to a hockey rink and watching people play solve your problem or is your problem more specific than "I also like to watch hockey?"

Back when I last had Comcast (around 2005 or 2006) the quality of PBS over the cable was so much worse than OTA. It was full of compression artefacts, dropped frames, audio distortion. I called them several times and they always told me their digital picture was perfect. It got even worse when they increased their compression ratio to up their cable modem bandwidth (I never used their internet service, I used DSL because Comcast didn't want to sell me service with a static IP and unfiltered ports) so it was a net loss for me and was the last straw. I cut the cord a week after they rolled out their faster internet service I wasn't using which made my television unwatchable.