>The only people who complain about boot time are desktop users

Or people who spin up and down cloud based instances. Might want to catch up with the times. Very few servers are on the actual hardware these days.

I know a person who has worked at an inmate detention center for 20 years. That long around people and you gain some insight in to human behavior. In general they summed up the interactions between inmates in the following manner.

Males: Violent.

Females: Manipulative.

" each user would have to pay about ã140 ($230) to make up for the lost revenue"

This sounds crazy, I hope someone realizes that. "Lost revenue" in a businness which only has any revenue at all, because soeone somewhere thought that choking the Internet in a tide of ads must be a good businness model... "Losing" that "revenue" would be lost to those companies who built on this idiotic assumption, also this businness is one of those who drive the whole web into sh*t in the long run.The Internet would function fine, their only problem is that they've grown used to the high revenue stream and reducing or losing it would hurt them. But saying that they couldn't live with a reduced ad revenue and they'd need to push all that revenue's source onto customers to survive is also idiotic - who says they need to have the level of revenue they actually have, or that they actually need to survive at all? :)) I wouldn't mind seeing some of them disappear, they are no friends of mine, that's for sure.

While I can understand T-mob. in this case, they - and others as well - could just do what my mobile internet provider in Europe (not T-mob.) does: I got a data package with 10GB of monthly limit with all the constraints (e.g., no torrent use) for average use, but from midnight to 8:00am in the same package they give a separate 100GB monthly allowance without any restrictions at all (and at LTE speed). This way they can force the heavy users out of the more crowded intervals, and everyone can be happy. Oh, the best part, the whole thing costs only ~$20/month....

Me>So you want year round school in the south, but do you want to pay for it?

Other person>But it's the same amount of days, they are just spread apart differently.

Me> But not all days are created equal, when it's 105F out, you're spending a whole lot of electricity to keep the place cool. Even worse, most school busses are not equipped with air conditioning and would have to be refitted or replaced.

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com...

This is a huge point most educators miss. School actually teaches you very little about life outside of school. School is a very limited subset, and very unrealistic reproduction of reality. If I don't like where I work, I get a different job. Unless your parents move (or are rich) you don't get another school. A huge part of a vast portion of society will working alone or in small groups. Not in a room with 20+ other people with the same task.

My view of university education (having an MSc, a separate BSc, and a PhD) has always been that up until MSc (or until BSc, that very much depends on the country and on the followed traditions of education) the point is to get a fairly diverse _introduction_ into as many related [to your main subject] topics as possible, from people who are somewhat knowledgeable in the area, with more deeper knowledge in a lower number of specific areas. Not to make you a jack-of-all-trades in CS for example, but to prepare you to know where to do and where to look and where to start if you'll require deeper knowledge in some other area of your field than the one in which you got deeper intro earlier. That, and survival, i.e., get you acquainted with an environment where you don't only have to learn and be good in one specific topic, but be able to quickly pick up superficial and sometimes deeper knowledge in a related field as well, and be able to produce some results in a short time period. Plus, add the networking possibilities, the opportunity to meet people and gather connections for your later professional life (if you get lucky). You don't get these if you get your degree by doing online courses and from libraries.

Given the above, I don't think longish courses are doomed, they have their places, but one has to have the ability to judge which ones do, retain them, and complement them with some others which have shorter periods and get you more diversified knowledge, which don't necessarily require face-to-face presence or on-site experience. They have to find the proper balance.

I wouldn't support to give total control in the hand of the students when preparing their courses and modules, since that might result in a too diverse graduate pool - some which have very narrow and deeper knowledge, and some who only have very shallow knowledge in several areas but none actually usable for anything. They simply don't have the necessary experience to be their own guides.

If you printed your own card and put a number for an issuer that you controlled I don't see what the difference is.

>The particularly stupid part was messing with their match algorithm.

You are making a false assumption because you are dealing with a biological system.

If you made a screen to sift sand, that screen will reliably sift sand of a certain size because they sand has no choice in the matter and does not evolve.

On the other hand if you make an antibiotic that kills bacteria X you will quickly find out that in just a few generations almost all of bacteria are resistant to the antibiotic.

Culture evolves, religious views change, human relationship standards evolve. 50 years ago it was probably a bad idea to pair a black guy and white woman, not so much so these days (in most places). Saying that a sorting process is going to stand up to that change, when that sorting process itself feeds back in to the system is pretty unrealistic.

>lying about compatibility on a dating site.

Here's the gist of it, they already were lying about compatibility, or at least what you think of as compatibility. Different cultures have distinctly different criteria for selecting mates and it evolves over time. There is no golden rule, no algorithm, no magic. They throw a bunch of different shit at the wall and see what sticks. Why they look so good at finding matches is not actually finding matches but weeding the unmatchable out. Take them out, and most other people can date a pretty wide range of other people with just a few points of similarity.

The fact you don't think that their matching changes over time boggles my mind. Culture evolves and changes, technology evolves and changes, communication evolves and changes, to think some kind of static algorithm could possibly work at matching people under those influence is insanity.

You must not have been online during those times, as SYSOP I trolled the living shit out of people I didn't like.

>OKCupid flipped bad matches to good matches

To be fair on this point is there any objective measure on what a good or bad match is? The entire system on OKCupid is made and defined by OKCupid, there is no objectivity. Therefore a good match == bad match == imaginary purple dinosaur. There are plenty of writeups online about just this subject. Human happiness in relationships is not as formulaic as OKC would like you to believe.

The FB thing is definitely more objectively definable. As in many bits of information was posted, only bits of information that fell under content X were shown to other users.

Is that you Rush Limbaugh?

Bottled water is many times from city sources, it has been filtered again, but is many times still fluoridated.

If you don't want chlorine, put your water in a non-sealed picture in the fridge. The chlorine will evaporate out.

>You could also live in a country where you could grow and roast your own coffee beans. There is always a price vs convenience tradeoff.

Growing your own will cost far more. Think economies of scale.

>Which is great reason to kick the caffeine addiction habit in the first place.

Mormons up in the house, I see.