The movies are still DRMed.
This is so incorrect, and I see your are on your way to be modded so that nobody will see this. But I will respond anyway since I don't have mod points today.
Net neutrality does not in any possible way prevent you from buying a faster download speed. You pay commensurate with your connection to the backbone. For example, Google or Netflix pay a lot more than $50/mo to connect to the internet to pump as much into it as they do.
What net neutrality says is that a provider can't cause one source of information to *not* be sent out at the given rate you paid for. So if you paid for a 50 mb/sec connection, and Netflix is pumping bits into the system a terabits/sec (for example), the provider can't arbitrarily send you (i.e. throttle netflix to), the consumer, only 3 mb/sec unless Netflix pays extra. If you paid for 50 mb/sec, you should get 50 mb/sec, not just from select sources.
How people can be against that is beyond me. Maybe because they thought net neutrality is about how you describe it. Which it isn't
You carry the same amount of alcohol whether you carry the dehydrated stuff or a bottle of grain alcohol. Actually, the dehydrated stuff is heavier since you also are carrying the polysaccharide to which the alcohol is adsorbed.
If you want to get drunk in the woods, you need the millions of molecules of C2H5OH which weighs the same no matter if you bring it in pure (well, the 95% azeotrope probably) or adsorbed to sugar.
Right. Because chanting "you can hang them from a tree" is more or less equivalent to calling a white person a cracker.
Note, the above is sarcasm, which usually doesn't come through on the internet.
I was thinking about this the other day. I tend to wonder if it would make sense to completely immunize companies from lawsuits over failure to provide adequate steps to prevent a terrorist and state-sponsored attacks as long as they comply with any direct government instructions and regulations.
The US used to do something like this, specifically cover insurance over a specific (high) limit in the case of a terrorist attack. But it was just killed by a single republican member in Congress: Congressional Roadblock Upends Market for Terrorism Insurance even after it was passed 93-4 by the Senate and 417-7 in the house.
Exactly. The purpose of the assignment wasn't to get some code to work. It was to learn how to develop an algorithm.
I'm not a CS person, but rather a chemical engineer. When I was in college, we learned, and had to do, all sorts of distillation designs using McCabe-Theil diagrams and other hand and graphical calculations. Would we ever do this at our job? No, there are all sorts of computer programs that figure these things out. However, going through the process of doing the work the hard way, and more importantly redoing the work that other people have already done, makes us understand the principles behind the logic. It also helps for giving insight if and when we want to extend the thinking to some new area.
Talking about how things are reused in one's job is completely missing the mark.
Who said each company would be limited to 1/20 of the wire's bandwidth. This is capitalism. If a company can provide internet service for a low price with great uptime, people will flock to them and they will use more of the wire. Since there is a low barrier to entry, some other firm who may be able to figure out an event cheaper, more reliable way to supply yuo with your bits, then they are going to be the one sending most of the bits down the wire.
And in case you haven't heard, with cable internet, your bandwidth is already being limited by your neighbor's usage. It wouldn't matter whether "centurylink" or "comcast" was sending those bits down the wire.
That's not true. The wire still handles the same number of bits. It is just different suppliers feeding them into the upstream end of the pipe.
Slashdot just had a story on how this works wonders in Sweden. And if you don't want to click, I'll provide the spoiler: it's not socialist/communist. The internet suppliers are all private companies. It's only the last mile that is owned by city.
Google books is different. The content provided by google books is specifically just a portion of each book. That way they are covered by "fair use" by only showing parts of the book. If they scanned and uploaded the entire book, then it would be copyright infringement.
This is a dumb regulation, but if you RTFA, it is not a permit for "taking pictures". It is a permit for doing news reporting, including photography/viedography, within wilderness areas.
The average hiker taking photos is subject to this regulation. So for example, the comments about Ansel Adams above don't apply.
But still a stupid regulation.
Well, what if they pass a law saying that Redpill82 has to pay one million dollars in taxes a year? The government could pass allowing what you fear whether or not net neutrality exists. So I fail to see how your fear is an argument against net neutrality.
And what's to stop the government from "leveling the playing field," giving additional network resources to failing energy companies, state education systems in favor of Common Core, public companies who need to better compete against private ones etc. ?
Um, net neutrality perhaps? That's what net neutrality is about. Not giving any one content provider preference over another is the definition of net neutrality.
I think the more salient point is this: Maybe we do get that last 1%. *When it is new!*. I keep my cars for 8 years or so. Most people keep their cars for a long time. After a while they start breaking down. While you can fix the breakdowns, you don't know when they will break down. Sure there are annual inspections, but currently they don't cover the effectiveness of autonomous systems, and probably won't for a while. And even if they do, the systems could fail the week after the inspection.
So do you only allow the system to work for, say one year, and then you have to turn it off? Do you have to have the manufacturer check and rebuild it on a regular basis to keep it valid (sort of like they do with jet engines if I understand correctly)?
I tend to stay away from new fancy stuff on cars. That sort of stuff is always the first thing to break down.
Specific electric power doesn't go anywhere. Electricity is a voltage potential difference between sources and end users and flows through a grid. This is why you can't just buy, say, wind or solar power.
Both Huntley and the NYPA Niagara Falls hydro plant send power into the grid. You can't distinguish what power comes from where. Because Niagara Falls generates more power than Huntley, I would say that almost certainly this big solar panel factory will be powered principally with power generated by hydro.
That said, you can charge people different rates. NYPA, as a NY State Authority (thanks Robert Moses for creating monsters like this), can cut deals with downstate users for cheaper power. However, a certain amount of power has to be distributed at low cost prices to Western New York businesses. This is part of the NYPA licensing process. It is commonly referred to as low cost hydropower, but again, a voltage potential is a voltage potential - it doesn't matter to the grid who generated the potential.
I did get a chuckle reading the Buffalo News this morning (yes, I devour the dead trees version every day - it's a great paper) that they are expanding this previously announced solar plant due to the availability of a low cost power allocation from NYPA. Irony indeed.
Still, as Obama says, you have to pursue "all of the above" so I am glad they are ramping up production.