The Off Topic Topic

[Ed Anger]

Well, there's plenty vegetarian places around, too. And instead of hunting one of our four Subway shops, you might just walk into a regular bakery, most of which will also sell sandwiches, salads and more.

I may have a different take on healthy. I need to cram as many calories into myself as possible--salads and vegetarian food doesn't cut it.

Your puny Euro sandwiches don't cut it either. Also, the processed subway bread, while in every tangible way inferior to what is sold in a standard euro bakery, I sort of prefer (I am a barbarian  ). A foot long sub from subway, with a bag of chips and coke, is a decent sized lunch, fast, cheap, and while not really all that healthy, isn't as bad as it could be.

I don't know about Austria, but pretty much all over Spain you can eat rather well for at most 10€. It should be a crime to go to a fast food joint.

As for portions, if my mate - an ex basketball pro with ridiculously high metabolism - has enough, it should certainly be enough for you.

Just enough Euro scorn with a bit of that holier than thou know it all-ism.

Congrats!

[derspiess]

Birdy can die in a fire.

Yep.

[Syt]

This Atlantic piece about the origins of office speak has this beauty from a 1987 AT&T manual:

Interaction:
The continuous ability to engage with the connectedness and relatedness that exists and potentially exists, which is essential for the creations necessary to maintain and enhance viability of ourselves and the organization of which we are a part.

[Josephus]

How?

If the rumors are true & the draft proposition is that. Then ISP & Content providers/Websites will be able to make deals. Faster speed for Comcast propriety on Comcast networks. Want to acces Google? That'll be 10$/month.

This is of course US only but how the US goes, the internet goes.

ah OK. Now I'm mad. 

[derspiess]

I'm not sure the charging $10 for Google thing is anywhere in the proposal.  ISPs would be able to cut deals to allow faster access to certain services, but I don't think there's anything in there that permits them to shut out certain sites altogether unless the end-user ponies up more money. 

I've always been a net neutrality proponent, but the scaremongering has been a bit much.

[Barrister]

I'm not sure the charging $10 for Google thing is anywhere in the proposal.  ISPs would be able to cut deals to allow faster access to certain services, but I don't think there's anything in there that permits them to shut out certain sites altogether unless the end-user ponies up more money. 

I've always been a net neutrality proponent, but the scaremongering has been a bit much.

Yeah in everything that's been discussed ISPs would not be allowed to block any content.

[Jacob]

Yeah in everything that's been discussed ISPs would not be allowed to block any content.

Yeah, but if you prioritize one your favoured search-engine and non-favoured ones experience a lag of a second or two with use, you'll likely see increased use of your favoured engine.

[Liep]

WOOOOO!

Copenhagen Zoo gets to loan some giant pandas from China. I hope they'll name one Marius.

[The Larch]

How long until they're euthanized?

[alfred russel]

How long until they're euthanized?

The Chinese were probably like, "They kill exotic animals for little or no reason? They are just like us! Lets give them a panda."

[derspiess]

Yeah in everything that's been discussed ISPs would not be allowed to block any content.

Yeah, but if you prioritize one your favoured search-engine and non-favoured ones experience a lag of a second or two with use, you'll likely see increased use of your favoured engine.

That's different from walling off sites & charging extra to access them.

[Jacob]

Yeah in everything that's been discussed ISPs would not be allowed to block any content.

Yeah, but if you prioritize one your favoured search-engine and non-favoured ones experience a lag of a second or two with use, you'll likely see increased use of your favoured engine.

That's different from walling off sites & charging extra to access them.

It is. It's still a pretty significant impediment to free competition on a number of levels.

[derspiess]

It is. It's still a pretty significant impediment to free competition on a number of levels.

Agree that it's an impediment, but not sure how significant.  In the example you gave most users would probably wait through the lag.  If anything they would just assume their ISP is generally slow. 

[Jacob]

It is. It's still a pretty significant impediment to free competition on a number of levels.

Agree that it's an impediment, but not sure how significant.  In the example you gave most users would probably wait through the lag.  If anything they would just assume their ISP is generally slow.

Over the medium term, I disagree.

I see the scenario playing out like this: Google starts being slow, slower than usual even. It's annoying. One day, for whatever reason (response to an ad, clickbait, someone else using your computer) you try Bing and it's lightning fast. You experiment for a bit, and Bing is consistently faster; you switch to Bing as your default search engine.

Over time, and with masses of users, the (network imposed) difference in quality will alter user behaviour.

[Valmy]

I don't understand chicken wings. Way too little meat on way too much bones.

That is the idea.  Lots of surface area for little meat so perfect for sauces.