If I had points, AC, you would get at least one. Bravo, good sir.
SPOILER ALERT!!! Oh wait...you already read that, didn't you?
It's a meme, bro.
Meme? Try movie scene....with that one actor. uhhh....slippy, sl..slappy......swanson?
You're on the right track to some of the "devil in the details".
Soft woods like pine grow quick, but the wood is, you know, soft. Wouldn't want to live in a skyscraper made of that!
Calling pine a soft wood, and implying that it wouldn't serve well in a structural sense, is perpetuating a myth. SPFs (spruce, pine, fir) are highly regarded for their structural properties. Douglas fir, Southern Yellow Pine, Sitka Spruce, Hemlock...all have excellent MOE/MOR ratings, while yes, having low Janka Hardness ratings. Along with time-to-yield and price, these structural properties are why SPFs rule the US stick-built construction supply.
AFAIK, the hardier the wood, the longer it takes for the tree to grow. That means a long-term investment in your re-planting, and a lot can happen to your plot of re-planted little sprouts (bugs, deer, fires, suburban sprawl, drunk kids on ATV's, massive natural gas deposits) while you wait the lifetime or two for your trees to grow to full size.
Harder wood trees, do "generally" take longer to grow. However, today's new-growth trees pale in comparison to the mostly gone old-growth trees from a properties comparison. The hardness may be there, but their MOE, MOR, and density are usually lower, and their stability and durability are much more volatile. But, again, those are generalities. The science behind wood is quite fascinating; much more in depth than I imagined when I got into woodworking.
The Wood Database is a great resource.
Right now you buy "unlimited" which of course is impossible, since bandwidth is a limited resource or you buy an allotment of voice and data that you get reamed for if you go over that expires every month. You end up paying for data that you don't use and it's a scam that should have been outlawed long ago. It is totally skewed to the benefit of the utility. Imagine buying a car and getting an allotment of gas delivered to your house, say 100 gallons, and at the end of every month, a truck from the dealership rolls up, pumps your tank dry and then turns around and pumps back 100 gallons and charges you for 100 gallons of gas. No one would put up with that bullshit.
You do realize that there are OPTIONS on service, right? It might just be a consumer's responsibility to assess how much cell/data service they use, and purchase the plan that BEST fits that usage. So, while your 100 gallon analogy aligns with billing structure of a common "unlimited" plan, you fail to factor in or mention that the dealership offers other billing structures (which kind of makes you dishonest...ironic).
For both wired and wireless, we need to go to a federally regulated model that completely eliminates any monthly fee, and then companies can charge ONE rate advertised to everyone with no rebates, discounts etc. for data (this forces them to compete on an even playing field and not cut backroom deals that unfairly interfere with competition). The rate would end up being something like 1/2 cent per MB for wireless data and 2 cents per GB for wired data and you pay for what you USE each month. All voice is treated like the data that it is, so no more "voice" plans at all. It encourages Telcoms to invest in new, faster infrastructure and not try to minimize expenditures on new, faster hardware because they only make more money by providing more volume, not by overselling expensive plans and then trying to discourage consumers from using the plans they bought via data caps, throttling and other BS. The reality is nothing is unlimited and each MB you download has cost, the best model for consumers has always been the pay as you use model described above. It is harder for Telcoms because they have to anticipate demand and build out infrastructure to make more money, but that's just the business, if they don't like it, they can GTFO.
In Soviet Russia, text message sends you!
All tired interweb funnies aside, do you have an example of any other public utility that viably operates this way? Even the post office has continuously raised "bandwidth" prices. I would also point back to the early days of SMS. Remember how you were charged by each text message (pay-as-you-go)? The consumer clamored and clamored for unlimited text...or oddly enough, a block of texts per month.
And in your scenario, I find it hard to believe that 1) competition will grow, and 2) that providers will add infrastructure faster. If you kneecap a market by setting a maximum of revenue, providers will be MORE focused on cost cutting to keep the margin under control. And, as those that "don't like it, and GTFO" grows, competition dwindles, and you're circling around to monopolies.
Furthermore, I would imagine you also disagree with corporate lobbying. Well, when government starts setting the price, guess which "expenditure" starts to grow?
Having said all that, I definitely disagree with the marketing of cell services, which is what most people here really seemed to be upset about. Which is why I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned how unfair T-Mobile is being when it says "Netflix for free", but then limits it to 480p. I mean how can I "and chill" at 480p? Boo needs that HD, yo!
I get what Samsung is trying to do, and while I think the idea is clever, I'm not sure the "Dex" platform is the solution.
Clearly Samsung should've called Motorola for some been-there-done-that information. Moto tried this whole thing with the Atrix line (which was an awesome phone with the best biometric implementation), and it BOMBED!!! Web-dock, Desktop-dock, TV-dock; no-no-no.
I get that they exist to make money, but if they think a few thousand Penguin worshippers are going to affect the bottom line...might be time for some new employees. Also, I'll be interested in the EULA.
P.S. "Penguin worshippers" is meant lovingly...
All your files have been destroyed (sorry). Paul.
