In other news today...
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
Howard studied chemical engineering at the Pratt Institute in Brooklyn until he fell out with one of his professors over the answer to the 1x1=1 conundrum.
"How can it equal one? If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told its two, and that cannot be."
That moron was trying to take chemical engineering?
I think I've cracked his secret new math system.
x 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 √x 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-
:Dissapoint: in that onebox ... you hardly see the mural in question ...
Better ...
-
-
@Luhmann Like Paula?
-
-
@Luhmann Took me a few seconds to get that one ;-)
-
@CoyneTheDup said in In other news today...:
Yes.
This point is utter bollocks:is that it is usually used in a derogatory sense (even in the United Kingdom).
Okay, I'll accept that. But I sure don't see it used much except in derogatory sense...maybe differences in the US.
So, what I get from this is that the UK endorses fat shaming.
-
@Fox I'm actually more concerned with his impression that "what's the square root of two? ... we're told its two".
If he was actually paying attention, he might've been told that the square root of one is one. The square root of two, however, is most certainly not two.
-
@anotherusername The proof of it being irrational is actually quite easy to understand. Only took me 2 readings to re-understand it after not doing any proper mathematics for a decade.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
@Fox I'm actually more concerned with his impression that "what's the square root of two? ... we're told its two".
If he was actually paying attention, he might've been told that the square root of one is one. The square root of two, however, is most certainly not two.
Oh shit, I didn't even realize that part.
-
Next he's going to start claiming that time is actually a cube...
-
-
@mott555 That should be in my shitposting thread ffs. :D
-
@mott555 Yes, that's what I was referring to.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJoke
-
Oh no! I hope it wasn't @RaceProUK!
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
Oh no! I hope it wasn't @RaceProUK!
Holy crap! I mean, maybe one tag or radio tracker, but fuckin' 26!
What, do they not have the ability to register it using a GUID or something? Why would they need so many tags?
-
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
Why would they need so many tags?
Filed under: FUCKING HELL WHY DOES IT DIE ONCE WHEN I TAG IT 26 TIMES, We need a new hedgehog to attack
-
-
@groo said in In other news today...:
"You have to pay extra for double-stuffed," cable company Mediacom tells FCC.
Bullshit. All the Nabisco bags of cookies cost the exact fucking same.
-
@Lorne-Kates the double-stuffed are thicker though, and therefore you get fewer cookies in the package.
-
@groo
A certain blog I frequent has a poster who will diary multiple times a week about the evil government overreach of Net Neutrality. And I always want to punch him in the nose (virtually, of course, because physically would be assault and battery), because he just goes all soapboxy about the government trying to impose on providers what they can and can't do -- he's busy worshipping at the altar of the free market.While I get the providers' point of view (give someone unlimited bandwidth and they don't make any effort to 'turn off the lights', causing higher peaks that require exponentially more expenditure from the provider to support), I sympathize some with the Neuties' position too - Netflix is paying their provider for "unlimited" access at a certain data rate, I'm paying my provider for "unlimited" access at a certain data rate, and that should be that. Of course, what that position fails to account for is the fact that someone, somewhere, has to pay for getting traffic from Netflix's provider to mine, and the existing models don't really account for the sheer volume of video traffic that the Internet is currently being used for.
I think I come down more on the "remove obstructions to competition and otherwise get government out of the way" school of thinking, rather than turning ISPs into regulated monopolies ala telecom providers, or letting everything run hog wild ala the free market solution (which is proven to have some problems in a high-cost-of-entry model, ala AT&T before the regulated monopolies phase). Alas, that solution is far to sensible and has far too little opportunity for graft to work in our system...
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
@Lorne-Kates the double-stuffed are thicker though, and therefore you get fewer cookies in the package.
Fuck, now I'm going to have to buy a box of each and count.
I'm going to have to break out multivariable calculus to figure out the cost:benefit ratio of more icing to less cookie, aren't I?
-
@Lorne-Kates said in In other news today...:
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
@Lorne-Kates the double-stuffed are thicker though, and therefore you get fewer cookies in the package.
Fuck, now I'm going to have to buy a box of each and count.
I'm going to have to break out multivariable calculus to figure out the cost:benefit ratio of more icing to less cookie, aren't I?
Yes. Do this. Then eat all the cookies. Post video. FOR SCIENCE.
-
@izzion said in In other news today...:
Of course, what that position fails to account for is the fact that someone, somewhere, has to pay for getting traffic from Netflix's provider to mine, and the existing models don't really account for the sheer volume of video traffic that the Internet is currently being used for.
It's not about the current traffic; most of the Net Neutrality violations we're seeing come from companies that not only deliver content but also produce/sell it (Comcast/NBC-Universal, AT&T/DirecTV, etc.) trying to position themselves in ways that will make them able to profit disproportionately from the coming transition to 4K video and harm their competitors at the same time.
They don't phrase it that way, of course, but when you pay attention to what's going on and who's doing it, the picture becomes pretty clear.
-
@izzion Problem is, it's not a free market. If I start doing telecom services in my backyard I'm going to get a visit of their monopoly enforcement.
-
@Lorne-Kates said in In other news today...:
I'm going to have to break out multivariable calculus to figure out the cost:benefit ratio of more icing to less cookie, aren't I?
-
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
the picture becomes pretty clear.
-
@Lorne-Kates said in In other news today...:
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
@Lorne-Kates the double-stuffed are thicker though, and therefore you get fewer cookies in the package.
Fuck, now I'm going to have to buy a box of each and count.
I'm going to have to break out multivariable calculus to figure out the cost:benefit ratio of more icing to less cookie, aren't I?
Don't forget to test all the various flavors too.
edit: Damn, should have known this existed...
-
@izzion said in In other news today...:
I think I come down more on the "remove obstructions to competition and otherwise get government out of the way" school of thinking, rather than turning ISPs into regulated monopolies ala telecom providers, or letting everything run hog wild ala the free market solution (which is proven to have some problems in a high-cost-of-entry model, ala AT&T before the regulated monopolies phase). Alas, that solution is far to sensible and has far too little opportunity for graft to work in our system...
Nice as this is in some markets, others don't necessarily work that way - for the high-cost-of-entry markets like telecoms, natural monopolies are easily created. Even if the natural monopoly is broken, there's often still so much power imbalance (and possibly collusion) that it's not effectively different from a monopoly from a consumer's perspective. Sometimes regulation isn't about graft and "think of the children" - it's a way to manage the consequences of these types of systemic imbalances in power/knowledge/money/etc.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
therefore you get fewer cookies in the package.
So in other words, Nabisco is able to market their products in packages that appeal to their consumers and price points that make sense without having to lecture the customer about what they "really want"?
-
@Yamikuronue said in In other news today...:
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
therefore you get fewer cookies in the package.
So in other words, Nabisco is able to market their products in packages that appeal to their consumers and price points that make sense without having to lecture the customer about what they "really want"?
how entirely unlike ISPs.
look TWC, i don't care what you say i want, what i REALLY WANT is for you to ACTUALLY GIVE ME THE 50/10 Mbps BANDWIDTH I'M PAYING YOU FOR! On a GOOD day i get 25/2, so either you give me a fucking huge discount because you don't provide me the service i am paying for or you ACTUALLY FUCKING UPGRADE YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE SO I CAN GET WHAT I'M PAYING YOU FOR!
Oh, and TWC? just so you know.... the instant someone drives residential fiber down Broadway i'm getting that, so if you want to keep me as a customer long term.... you might want to be the ISP that drives that residential fiber connection.
...... uhh......
-blink-
where was i?
-
@groo said in In other news today...:
If I start doing telecom services in my backyard I'm going to get a visit of their monopoly enforcement.
And that is the core of the problem.
-
Ooooooooooooh internet of things at its finest!
-
-
@accalia said in In other news today...:
...... uhh......
-blink-
where was i?
I'm guessing that you're not on the interstate, during rush hour, doing maybe 35 MPH on a good day, on a road that is part of infrastructure that you're paying for, that is supposed to allow you to travel at speeds up to 55 MPH...
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
@accalia said in In other news today...:
...... uhh......
-blink-
where was i?
I'm guessing that you're not on the interstate, during rush hour, doing maybe
3520 MPH on a good day, on a road that is part of infrastructure that you're paying for, that is supposed to allow you to travel at speeds up to5565 MPH...My commute... There was a really great image on Facebook about this area - it was a time "exposure" of google maps. Oh cool, it's been made public:
-
@DogsB said in In other news today...:
Ooooooooooooh internet of things at its finest!
What's funny is that crackers can break into my IP cameras easier than I can...
-
Some weird art
-
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
That's not really news, per se...
You have a pussy wall at home?
-
@Luhmann said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
That's not really news, per se...
You have a pussy wall at home?
There's a reason I took down the internal cameras, just in case these guys decided to open them to the internet:
@DogsB said in In other news today...:
-
@Luhmann said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
That's not really news, per se...
You have a pussy wall at home?
I'm more of an ass-man myself.
-
-
@Fox said in In other news today...:
I'm more of an ass-man myself.
I'm not surprised
@Fox said in In other news today...:
I'm not surprised
-
-
@DogsB 30 years later and we're back using devices without resizable windows
-
@groo
But all the experts have assured me that size doesn't matter, it's what you do with it...
-
-
@bb36e said in In other news today...:
It appears to be the perfect size to hold an macbook box! Therefore it is completely novel.
"No other bag holds our Book like our bag!"
"Bag Your Book!"