So apparently Comcast won a court case whereby it was determined that Comcast has the right to restrict internet traffic that traverses their network. There are at least several viewpoints on this, but I'm focusing on two in particular: (1) Comcast is offering the service, owns the equipment providing the service, and has every right to set forth the terms of use for that service. If customers don't like the terms of that service then they can get internet service from another company (if available) or do without. (2) Comcast restricting traffic that traverses their network is censorship. Everyone except the Chinese government knows that censorship is evil.
I can honestly say that I see and understand both viewpoints. Comcast wants to protect their investment and offer adequate levels of service to all their customers. In particular, BitTorrent traffic apparently places an undue stress on their network and hampers the adequacy of service to other customers on their network. The move to block BitTorrent traffic is a protective mechanism. But customers want free reign over what they can do on the public internet. The internet is public and (supposedly) largely unregulated. Paying for access to this public medium entitles people to use it as they wish within the laws of the land set forth by the government. This free reign is unrestrictive and the most desireable scenario. (Like I said, censorship is evil.)
It's a battle between what customers want and what service providers offer. Customers aren't going to do without the service, and if providers are few there isn't much choice for the customer. I see two possible conclusions that I can draw about Comcast. First, Comcast is being a dick to its customer base. It either has a god complex or some underlying motive to extort money from customers through all of this. But I'm usually the type of person to give the benefit of the doubt in most scenarios, and I will do so here. I defer to my second possible conclusion, and that is that Comcast has an inadequate infrastructure to handle the traffic generated by their customers. They've provided more offerings than they can support, and are now restricting their offerings so they can provide service to their too-large customer base.
According to Comcast's SEC filing on February 23, 2010, Comcast had a net income of $3.638 billion in 2009, an increase of 42.8% from 2008. Now with a debt of $29.1 billion I can understand that Comcast might want to spend money paying that off. In fact, they apparently reduced their debt by $3.4 billion in 2009 according to the filing. At the same time I'd like to think an investment of even part of that $3.638 billion net income in infrastructure upgrades would allow for happier, unrestricted customers more willing to give their money to Comcast for internet service. But that's just me.
What do you think?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Search Engines: Evil Business Practices
I saw an article on MSN's web page that interested me, so I started reading it. It's four pages long, but all of the juicy details were links. (i.e. "How does she make that much money? Doing this, she's said." "Doing this" is a link.)
And to what does it link? Bing. It's a link to a Bing search. It appears as though Microsoft is submitting searches to their own search engine with the exact details of what you wanted to know. To get the details of the article one must only look at the URL of the link without clicking it. But what's the point?
I can only imagine it's a numbers and popularity game. If Bing jumped into the number one spot of search engines, it's because everyone who reads MSN articles are reading fluff and clicking links to get the real details. This increases Bing's usage counts artificially which allows Microsoft to claim they're rising in popularity.
If you ask me it's a cheap way to fudge your numbers and shows a lack of integrity when it comes to your business practices. If your search technology doesn't stand up to the competition, let it die. Do well what you CAN do, and leave the rest to someone who can do the other stuff better.
And to what does it link? Bing. It's a link to a Bing search. It appears as though Microsoft is submitting searches to their own search engine with the exact details of what you wanted to know. To get the details of the article one must only look at the URL of the link without clicking it. But what's the point?
I can only imagine it's a numbers and popularity game. If Bing jumped into the number one spot of search engines, it's because everyone who reads MSN articles are reading fluff and clicking links to get the real details. This increases Bing's usage counts artificially which allows Microsoft to claim they're rising in popularity.
If you ask me it's a cheap way to fudge your numbers and shows a lack of integrity when it comes to your business practices. If your search technology doesn't stand up to the competition, let it die. Do well what you CAN do, and leave the rest to someone who can do the other stuff better.
Monday, March 8, 2010
What Would You Do with 48 Cores Contest
AMD has asked, "what would you do with 48 cores?"
http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/03/03/48-cores-contest/
This is my entry submission. Yes, it is a real submission. Yes, I would be surprised if I won (and probably the recipient of an excessive amount of hate mail).
My entry...
In short I would underutilize them.
Let's be honest: relatively few people or organizations can or would actually use eight or 16 cores to a somewhat full potential, much less 48 of them. Even if I had an idea that might change the world, neither I nor my organization have the capital to realize the technology necessary to use the cores to accomplish my idea. I'd need more than just the computer. Verily, I'd probably just virtualize what I have and do my part to save energy and costs as best as I can. The best way to change the world is to start in my own back yard.
I would certainly show off my new toy and boast to everyone who will hear from where it came and how I got it, though...
http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/03/03/48-cores-contest/
This is my entry submission. Yes, it is a real submission. Yes, I would be surprised if I won (and probably the recipient of an excessive amount of hate mail).
My entry...
In short I would underutilize them.
Let's be honest: relatively few people or organizations can or would actually use eight or 16 cores to a somewhat full potential, much less 48 of them. Even if I had an idea that might change the world, neither I nor my organization have the capital to realize the technology necessary to use the cores to accomplish my idea. I'd need more than just the computer. Verily, I'd probably just virtualize what I have and do my part to save energy and costs as best as I can. The best way to change the world is to start in my own back yard.
I would certainly show off my new toy and boast to everyone who will hear from where it came and how I got it, though...
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Credit Card Payments
I've always wondered about something. Let's say I open a credit card account with Big Bank of the United States. Then I go and open up a credit card account with Little Bank of Virginia. As it is with my real credit card, if I pay any new balance on the first statement since a charge or cash advance is made I won't get any finance charges.
So I buy a computer or a bunch of clothes or something and charge it to Big Bank's card. Now I have a $1,276 balance. When the first statement comes in I go to Little Bank and get a $1,276 cash advance, deposit it into my checking account, and pay Big Bank. I get no finance charge on my Big Bank card, because I paid the balance within the first billing cycle that the charge was made. I have a $1,276 balance on my Little Bank credit card.
Next month I get my Little Bank credit card statement. I go to Big Bank, get a $1,276 cash advance, deposit it into my checking account, and use it to pay my Little Bank credit card balance. Since it was paid on the first billing cycle after making the charge to that card (in this case a cash advance), there is no finance charge. I now have a $1,276 balance on my Big Bank credit card.
The third month (and every odd month thereafter) I get my cash advance from Little Bank and pay Big Bank, and the fourth month (and every even month thereafter) I get my cash advance from Big Bank and pay Little Bank. Paying each new cash advance every month yields me no finance charges, because each payment is being made every billing cycle, the first billing cycle after each new charge. In effect, I can carry the balance indefinitely as long as I'm diligent enough to keep up with it every month. The "finance charges" I pay would be time and fuel to maintain this routine, and I could conceivably pay off the balance as quickly or slowly as I wish.
Would this work, and what protects financial institutions from someone doing this very type of thing?
So I buy a computer or a bunch of clothes or something and charge it to Big Bank's card. Now I have a $1,276 balance. When the first statement comes in I go to Little Bank and get a $1,276 cash advance, deposit it into my checking account, and pay Big Bank. I get no finance charge on my Big Bank card, because I paid the balance within the first billing cycle that the charge was made. I have a $1,276 balance on my Little Bank credit card.
Next month I get my Little Bank credit card statement. I go to Big Bank, get a $1,276 cash advance, deposit it into my checking account, and use it to pay my Little Bank credit card balance. Since it was paid on the first billing cycle after making the charge to that card (in this case a cash advance), there is no finance charge. I now have a $1,276 balance on my Big Bank credit card.
The third month (and every odd month thereafter) I get my cash advance from Little Bank and pay Big Bank, and the fourth month (and every even month thereafter) I get my cash advance from Big Bank and pay Little Bank. Paying each new cash advance every month yields me no finance charges, because each payment is being made every billing cycle, the first billing cycle after each new charge. In effect, I can carry the balance indefinitely as long as I'm diligent enough to keep up with it every month. The "finance charges" I pay would be time and fuel to maintain this routine, and I could conceivably pay off the balance as quickly or slowly as I wish.
Would this work, and what protects financial institutions from someone doing this very type of thing?
Monday, February 22, 2010
The Fight Against the Sale of Used Games
This is almost infuriating. Slashdot (among others) are reporting (http://tinyurl.com/y8vt3mn) that Sony has now joined EA in extorting money from its player base by forcing registration of games for online play.... and when the game is resold or transferred, the recipient of the used game must fork over more money for another registration code to allow online game play.
Now, I readily admit that I could be ignorant about this, but it seems to me that the gaming companies are doing a disservice to their customers with this. I understand the desire to make money, but there comes a point when it's just uncouth if not outright tacky. Is there a panel somewhere that gets hired by companies for the sole purpose of finding ways to screw over customers or extort money?
When it all comes down to it, the world is brimming with greedy money-mongers who don't care about anything except money and/or themselves. I remember when concepts like community and sharing were more prevalent in areas where they're now lacking. Sometimes I'm almost ashamed to be a part of this earth, a part of human society.
Now, I readily admit that I could be ignorant about this, but it seems to me that the gaming companies are doing a disservice to their customers with this. I understand the desire to make money, but there comes a point when it's just uncouth if not outright tacky. Is there a panel somewhere that gets hired by companies for the sole purpose of finding ways to screw over customers or extort money?
When it all comes down to it, the world is brimming with greedy money-mongers who don't care about anything except money and/or themselves. I remember when concepts like community and sharing were more prevalent in areas where they're now lacking. Sometimes I'm almost ashamed to be a part of this earth, a part of human society.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Valentine's Day Post Mortem
I actually was thinking about this yesterday, but decided that I wanted to wait to post. Today's good, though.
Why is Valentine's Day wrought with pink and red? When I see so much pink and red I feel my face getting hot as if the stove burner was left on and I was hovering near it. When I think of pink and red I think of heat, fire, blood, and death. I think of people burning alive as flesh gets cooked and charred. Is this really how a person wants to think of Valentine's Day?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
It's supposed to remind you of love.
Okay. But it doesn't. What connection does pink/red have with love? I'll tell you... it has none. Someone started it, and someone else kept it going. Just like love and hearts. There's no connection between love and a heart. The physical and biological evidences from the emotion labeled "love" manifests itself many times as a sensation in the chest, where the heart is. I hear it told that long ago (probably with the ancient Greeks and important thinkers of human history) that this was taken as evidence that love originates from a person's heart (since modern medical discoveries of endorphins and brain functions haven't been made yet). It was a misguided and mistaken association perpetuated through ignorance. For all I know the pink/red association with love and Valentine's Day was arbitrary.
Girls like pink, and it's about wooing the girls and being romantic.
Posh. Girls should be wooed as a normal part of the dating process (although that's not to say it stops there) and romance should exist throughout the life of a love relationship. I don't need an excuse to enjoy romance, just a girlfriend/wife. I even hear it said that the unexpected acts of love can be more meaningful... like a random breakfast in bed or something. Besides, not all girls like pink and/or red. What am I supposed to do? Pick out all of the pink and red candies from the box and give those girls the rest? I'm not about to give my girl a used dessert or candy for Valentine's Day.
Then what do YOU want to do about it?
Nothing. I just don't like being inundated with so much pink and red.
Then why did you bring it up?
Because it's blog content. Duh. There's no point to it. I'm just expressing my dislike for so much pink and red. I'm throwing out the question of how pink and red got associated with Valentine's Day. I'm not trying to change the world here or anything. I don't want to DO anything about it except learn how pink and red got so prevalent when it comes to Valentine's Day.
As a parting thought, I don't claim to be absolved from my own ignornace of anything.
Why is Valentine's Day wrought with pink and red? When I see so much pink and red I feel my face getting hot as if the stove burner was left on and I was hovering near it. When I think of pink and red I think of heat, fire, blood, and death. I think of people burning alive as flesh gets cooked and charred. Is this really how a person wants to think of Valentine's Day?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
It's supposed to remind you of love.
Okay. But it doesn't. What connection does pink/red have with love? I'll tell you... it has none. Someone started it, and someone else kept it going. Just like love and hearts. There's no connection between love and a heart. The physical and biological evidences from the emotion labeled "love" manifests itself many times as a sensation in the chest, where the heart is. I hear it told that long ago (probably with the ancient Greeks and important thinkers of human history) that this was taken as evidence that love originates from a person's heart (since modern medical discoveries of endorphins and brain functions haven't been made yet). It was a misguided and mistaken association perpetuated through ignorance. For all I know the pink/red association with love and Valentine's Day was arbitrary.
Girls like pink, and it's about wooing the girls and being romantic.
Posh. Girls should be wooed as a normal part of the dating process (although that's not to say it stops there) and romance should exist throughout the life of a love relationship. I don't need an excuse to enjoy romance, just a girlfriend/wife. I even hear it said that the unexpected acts of love can be more meaningful... like a random breakfast in bed or something. Besides, not all girls like pink and/or red. What am I supposed to do? Pick out all of the pink and red candies from the box and give those girls the rest? I'm not about to give my girl a used dessert or candy for Valentine's Day.
Then what do YOU want to do about it?
Nothing. I just don't like being inundated with so much pink and red.
Then why did you bring it up?
Because it's blog content. Duh. There's no point to it. I'm just expressing my dislike for so much pink and red. I'm throwing out the question of how pink and red got associated with Valentine's Day. I'm not trying to change the world here or anything. I don't want to DO anything about it except learn how pink and red got so prevalent when it comes to Valentine's Day.
As a parting thought, I don't claim to be absolved from my own ignornace of anything.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Hope in a Decidedly Futile Effort
What's this? Is there another blog post here? Say it ain't so!
Okay, so what's this all about, anyway? In truth, this is a test. Someone (who I won't name, but their initials are Troy Goldie) has found my blog. Or so they claim. Is this unnamed person watching for an update? Will this unnamed person find this post and contact me about it? Hrmmm.... I hope so. CALL ME!!! (Just don't call me bad names.)
I'm not an optimist at heart. I try to hope for the best, but in my heart I know that things will turn out wrong. I'm involved, afterall; therefore, it stands to reason that something will go wrong along the way. I also don't have anything to say to the world. At least, not to the world at large. Certain pieces of the population I'd be happy to tell them to DIAF, but overall I'd rather stay under my varying-sized rock and play WoW. So in a dichotomy that is called my life, I have hope that I will post more on this blog after having already decided that I won't have the motivation to keep posting (resulting in it becoming stagnant for another ... however long it was since my last post). Self fulfilling prophecy? Let me tell you something about prophecy.
A prophet is simply one who speaks for another. To receive a prophecy is to receive a message on behalf of another (typically a divine being) so that it can be communicated on the message-sender's behalf. If I were to declare something to be (according to my beliefs that are of my own design) and then act in a way to carry it out, there is no prophecy involved. The "prophecy" is a declarative statement based on what I think is correct. By that logic a "self fulfilling prophecy" does not exist. I am the one creating the message, I am the one declaring the message to others, and then I am the one acting in a way that makes it so.
Huh?
Let me put it this way: I hope to keep updating this blog. I have reason to believe that this blog will NOT be updated as I hope. Past experience with yourspace and this blog have proven that I did not have the motivation to keep updating these things, and nothing has given me reason to believe that things are different now. The logical conclusion is that my hope of updating this blog regularly is misplaced, and any attempt to fulfill that hope is futile. NONE of this paragraph has anything to do with prophecy.
I like to do what I call "express myself." I think you may call it "rambling." Either way, it's what I do. I'm not a concise person; that's no secret and I'll readily admit that. But as long as what I say is interesting enough to not solicit tl;dr comments, then I don't really care.
Okay, so what's this all about, anyway? In truth, this is a test. Someone (who I won't name, but their initials are Troy Goldie) has found my blog. Or so they claim. Is this unnamed person watching for an update? Will this unnamed person find this post and contact me about it? Hrmmm.... I hope so. CALL ME!!! (Just don't call me bad names.)
I'm not an optimist at heart. I try to hope for the best, but in my heart I know that things will turn out wrong. I'm involved, afterall; therefore, it stands to reason that something will go wrong along the way. I also don't have anything to say to the world. At least, not to the world at large. Certain pieces of the population I'd be happy to tell them to DIAF, but overall I'd rather stay under my varying-sized rock and play WoW. So in a dichotomy that is called my life, I have hope that I will post more on this blog after having already decided that I won't have the motivation to keep posting (resulting in it becoming stagnant for another ... however long it was since my last post). Self fulfilling prophecy? Let me tell you something about prophecy.
A prophet is simply one who speaks for another. To receive a prophecy is to receive a message on behalf of another (typically a divine being) so that it can be communicated on the message-sender's behalf. If I were to declare something to be (according to my beliefs that are of my own design) and then act in a way to carry it out, there is no prophecy involved. The "prophecy" is a declarative statement based on what I think is correct. By that logic a "self fulfilling prophecy" does not exist. I am the one creating the message, I am the one declaring the message to others, and then I am the one acting in a way that makes it so.
Huh?
Let me put it this way: I hope to keep updating this blog. I have reason to believe that this blog will NOT be updated as I hope. Past experience with yourspace and this blog have proven that I did not have the motivation to keep updating these things, and nothing has given me reason to believe that things are different now. The logical conclusion is that my hope of updating this blog regularly is misplaced, and any attempt to fulfill that hope is futile. NONE of this paragraph has anything to do with prophecy.
I like to do what I call "express myself." I think you may call it "rambling." Either way, it's what I do. I'm not a concise person; that's no secret and I'll readily admit that. But as long as what I say is interesting enough to not solicit tl;dr comments, then I don't really care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)