But the process that they followed is well-proven (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0326856/), just work on the idea, or as it is known "the actual invention" and then pass the rest off to the science guys to sort out.
Ok fair point, I updated my blog feed and saw that they have pulled it completely (from steam and all physical retail channels as well).
You seem to have a different definition of guaranteed. Normally when somebody offers a guarantee it means that they are confident enough that it works that they will cover your cost if it fails. That is exactly what has happened for buyers on steam. Are you using some other definition of "guarantee"?
And the answer is: is it a PS4?
What you have claimed is not true at all. Arkham Knight was not pulled from Steam - anybody who was unhappy with the crap they released could get their money back. No questions asked. So the guarantee that the OP claimed does exist on Steam. Either it works (to your personal satisfaction) or you get a full refund.
Remind me, which consoles let you do that?
That is almost a well designed experiment. For counter-balancing it should randomise when something is being transmitted, and not, independently of the light. That would collect data on all four conditions.
Sorry, I have to pick these things apart for a living and it gets difficult to stop sometimes.
Is it a whole biscuit? That is what the hordes of Indian sub-contractors beating down that particular door want to know. Personally I would want to know if they had negotiated hobnobs in their contract, or were stuck with rich tea.
So... basically the Compton Swap-Meet, syndicated all around the world.
Does anybody else read this as the Librarian?
That is completely unprofessional.
At most, it should be 5% horse cock porn so they have to look a bit harder to find it.
Did they not have a subscription to McCaffe? How embarrassing, there should be a free voucher around somewhere...
It's not meaningless at all. It is exactly the same as saying we sell you this average speed, and we will let you burst your traffic to 20000x that speed when you need it. This is precisely the way that bandwidth used to be sold for connections, as it matches the underlying market. For a long period of time people have tried to sell it differently but it just does't work - if you offer someone an unlimited service then you have to assume they will use it constantly at peak capacity. That doesn't really match the economics of any kind of packet-switched network.
If you know of a way to roll out a circuit-switched network that guarantees peak capacity between any two points on the network at all times: congratulations. Please go ahead and make a lot of money. But until that day, most people are happy being sold an average speed and a peak. And if the peak speeds are increasing again - cool. It will be useful.
What does your question about "in Canada" have to do with the discussion? I get that you don't understand that a cap lower than max capacity is an indication of average speed.
What does that have to do with any part of this discussion?
Do you not understand that they are the same thing? Unlimited service = selling by average/constant speed. Limited service = selling by peak speed.
The future is unevenly distributed. My carrier offers 4GB for $35.68, up to 40GB for $71.60. Prices are flat across the lower cap-levels because they don't want to sell plans that small, they prefer selling larger chunks of bandwidth hence the cheaper averages. Their prices fall / caps increase fairly fast. We are currently receiving some special promo with a 100% increase in cap for free, it probably won't end as their prices will have dropped by the time they stop doing it.
Anyway, to get back to your original point - why is average transfer more important to you than peak rates? I don't watch youtube or netflix constantly on my phone, but when I do I want to to hit 80Mb/s for that period.