Yes, we all know that "up to 1,000 Mb!" internet service is a joke, and most people don't see performance anywhere near what is advertised. As some people have already pointed out... "DUH". It's biased advertising, what do you expect - that's how advertising works. Secondly, the article explained several reasons that people will not see the entire 6.7 Mb in terms that even the least tech-savvy person could understand.
I agree with the FCC's assessment. Essentially, they summed up the fact that it's pretty shady advertising, but ISPs are not doing anything illegal. The proposed solution is a new type of speed rating, similar to a nutrition facts label, which I think is genius.
On another note - I think it's pretty simplistic and idiotic to compare the facts and issues related to this topic to, say, restaurants. The article mentions how ISPs have little power over what happens to their service farther down the land lines - which is a fact. They have no control over interference, poor quality routers, etc. You can't make a comparison between that and a cheeseburger. The restaurant has complete control over their ingredients until it reaches the customer's hands physically, so no, you cannot make that comparison.
Interestingly, you might draw the analogy that McDonald's offers a quarter-pound patty on their burgers. This is typically the pre-cooked weight, meaning that there's a lot of liquid included in that measurement. In addition, you might order a double quarter pounder with one patty being less than a quarter pound, and the other being more than a quarter pound. Who flippin cares, as long as you get similar sized patties?
The moral of that story is... don't eat at McDonalds. Fix your own damn burger, and stop complaining!
You will spend the money you saved on gas, and then some, on a new set of tires - be it a new tire technology, or just a new set of tires at improper camber.
Personally, I would prefer the nicer ride, handing, and tire life - to dealing with this whole pseudo-environmentally-friendly "tech tip".
I think that video games and movies share the same problems and dilemmas - especially now that CGI sequences are a dime a dozen. There are directors and producers that would rather use a simple camera trick to pull off special effects, and there are those that would rather spend $100,000,000 on CGI sequences. Is either method incorrect? Not necessarily...
Those who produce and direct games or movies need to focus on the end product - their actual goal. By intelligently and thoughtfully incorporating each and every available method, and properly using each tool, they can create a masterpiece. A game's claim to fame shouldn't be based solely on it's graphics, game mechanics - or physics engine. A truly well-made game utilizes everything to the necessary extent in order to fulfill the creators' vision or goal.
... we can now ensure that kids and adolescents have vision problems as a result of staring at screens for too long. In addition, we will spend at least twice the money to start this program while pretending that we're saving money.
Cue utopian-fantasy programs that will not, or at least should not, ever see the light of day - and yet, it still pacifies the angry population. Somehow.
I can admit though - it would be interesting if the schooling system could implement things like: checking your kids progress or grades online, seeing what they're going over in class (at any given point in time) - tools that would help both the children and their parents. While these things are indeed possible at the moment, perhaps a more efficient system would benefit everyone - and also encourage more parents to be actively involved in their child's education.
... what can on expect?
If you take photos of secured/secret things or locations, you can be sure someone will be alarmed and probably contact the "authorities".
... and here we have people worried about exploding shoes and finger nail clippers.
... has this not already been covered multiple times?
Perhaps I'm confusing slashdot with other news sites... in any case, if the starter edition is cheap enough - it isn't a bad move for people who don't do anything besides check their email, type up letters, and websurf.
Grandma and grandpa would probably be more than happy to dish out $50 - 75 for a 3-application limited OS than $200 for something that is almost as barebone and castrated.
You know, despite the general public's movement towards digital distribution, I am still torn as to whether this is the best way to do business. Granted, the game industry isn't really there to suit every gamer's needs, but still...
On one hand I'd like to have the physical copy of the game - but that isn't my deepest, darkest fear when it comes to digital purchases. I am afraid that, per the EULA, I'll someday get screwed due to some random errata or possibly lose everything if the service shuts down.
Say that a company buys out Steam (Valve, etc), and decides that it was a poor investment and closes Steam altogether - everything I purchased on there would be gone. It'd be interesting if they could at least guarantee steam-free ISO downloads of each game in this scenario, or even, perhaps, allow you to download the ISO WHENEVER you wanted to.
Granted, they'd never do this because the point of the digital distribution is to help counter piracy, and releasing untouched ISOs into the wild would essentially be giving the games away. I do find a quote from the article interesting, however:
"Piracy is more of an annoying thing. It's an ego thing. You put your heart and soul into a game and you see someone playing it online who stole it. It pisses you off. You're just really mad. You have to take a step back and say, "if you had stopped them from pirating it, would they have bought it?" The answer is probably no."
It's pretty unfortunate that executives at companies like EA never realize this. I completely understand that this thought-pattern alone isn't enough to quell the rage felt by everyone who helped to develop and produce the game, but then again this is the mindset that prevents game makers and distributors from implementing obtrusive and obnoxious DRM.
I guess my point is that digital distribution is somewhat of a scary thought - no guarantees, no control, no "freedom" - if you read the EULAs, you essentially paid $50 to "rent" the play time from the game makers.
In addition to all of this we have companies like Time Warner Cable that want to implement bandwidth caps - imagine a future with complete digital distribution of operating systems, all software, and all games - but then you have a bandwidth cap, so you end up paying ridiculous sums just to access the products and services that you paid to have access to; you end up paying for the program and the bandwidth to download it. Don't even get me started on cloud computing.
Blah, after that rant, all I can say is - I hope that games are never completely taken off the shelves and distributed digitally exclusively... even if GameStop is overpriced, or a pain to deal with, it's at least a fun place to stop and browse, occasionally pre-ordering a hot title (there's nothing like walking in with a receipt, ahead of everyone, and asking for your brand new pre-order... digital distribution doesn't provide you with that feeling, or the smell of the new case/manual/disc)!
... the older you get, the better things USED to be... and present things suck worse and worse...
This is my first, and probably last, post in my journal. I have to wonder how many people actually bother keeping their Slashdot journals; better yet, I wonder how many people actually read them.
Musing of a Slashdot-o-holic who hasn't read a journal entry yet.
... I dread the day when, after the implementation of Adobe Flash, TV will also be bombarded with content similar to that on sites like YouTube. It'll be the end of TV as we know it!
Wait a second...