Shared posts

19 Aug 23:14

Netflix Is Also Paying A Toll To Time Warner Cable To Improve Speeds To Users

by Chris Morran

The latest Netflix speed data shows that TWC downstream speeds improved after it quietly reached a paid-peering deal with Netflix in June. Meanwhile, FiOS still sucks, in spite of its peering arrangement with Netflix.

The latest Netflix speed data shows that TWC downstream speeds improved after it quietly reached a paid-peering deal with Netflix in June. Meanwhile, FiOS still sucks, in spite of its peering arrangement with Netflix.

Months after Comcast and Verizon allowed Netflix data to bottleneck so badly that the streaming video company had no other option but to pay for a more direct connection to end-users, Time Warner Cable has confirmed that it too is now collecting a toll from Netflix.

The folks at Gigaom noticed a traceroute of a Netflix signal to a TWC customer in New York City skipped directly from Netflix to TWC’s data centers, rather than going the traditional route through and intermediary bandwidth provider.

TWC then confirmed that a so-called paid-peering deal was reached with Netflix earlier this summer and recently began to roll out. That could explain the slight bump in Netflix speeds over TWC’s network in the last month.

Netflix is responsible for the largest chunk of downstream Internet data in the U.S. Until mid-2013, most of that data was carried by bandwidth providers who would hand off Netflix content to Internet Service Providers to carry the “last mile” to customers’ homes. When peering points — the connections between ISPs and bandwidth providers — would become congested during times of heavy use, it was customary for ISPs to open up more connections to alleviate the congestion; much like a supermarket will temporarily open up extra checkout lines to keep customers moving.

But a little more than a year ago, Verizon and others decided to take a hands-off approach to Netflix data, allowing it to bottleneck during times of heaviest use and resulting in substandard streams for Netflix customers.

The ISPs argued that Netflix was taking advantage of their networks by sending so much traffic without paying a toll. Netflix — and many of its customers — contended that ISP customers paid for a certain level of broadband service and Netflix was not to blame for the ISPs’ failure to improve their networks.

But in the end, Netflix capitulated, coming to an agreement with Comcast shortly after the nation’s largest ISP announced it was trying to merge with TWC. Speeds instantly began to improve, but Netflix still maintains that it’s data is being held hostage by the ISPs.

Netflix later made a deal with Verizon, though according to the latest speed data from Netflix, FiOS speeds are still well below the 3MBps that you’d need to stream an HD video. The two have also engaged in a lot of finger-pointing as to why FiOS speeds are still sub-DSL months after reaching a peering deal.

In June, the FCC announced it was going to investigate paid-peering arrangements to see how they affect competition and consumers.

“Consumers pay their ISP and they pay content providers like Hulu, Netflix or Amazon. Then when they don’t get good service they wonder what is going on,” wrote FCC Chair Tom Wheeler at the time. “Consumers must get what they pay for. As the consumer’s representative we need to know what is going on.”

19 Aug 23:10

'Ignore No More' app makes sure your kids can't dodge your calls

by Chris Velazco
Once you tiptoe past a certain age, ignoring calls from mom and dad sort of becomes de rigueur as you go about your day. That sort of filial nonsense doesn't fly when you're younger though, and now there's an app to make sure you return you young'uns...
19 Aug 15:34

Cia Athletica: Eagle, 3

by ivan

Without conditioning you become an easy prey.
Join the eagle. Cia Athletica's cross fit program.
Predator strength.

Advertising Agency: Portal Publicidade, São Paulo, Brazil
Creative Director / Copywriter: Daniel Zini
Art Director: Bruno Mota
Photographer: Guto Bordoni
Published: August 2014

19 Aug 23:00

Kitterfly Effect

18 Aug 02:20

Their family reunions must be f**king awesome

17 Aug 22:49


17 Aug 04:39

Well, they’re not wrong. [mancalaman]

Well, they’re not wrong. [mancalaman]

10 Aug 20:30

Australian Street Performer Uses Flip Flops to Play Music Medley on PVC Pipe Instrument

15 Aug 22:05

My productivity today

15 Aug 22:20

Saw this in Amsterdam

15 Aug 15:46

Humans Need Not Apply

by C. G. P. Grey

Further Reading:



Every human used to have to hunt or gather to survive. But humans are smart-ly lazy so we made tools to make our work easier. From sticks, to plows to tractors we’ve gone from everyone needing to make food to, modern agriculture with almost no one needing to make food — and yet we still have abundance.

Of course, it’s not just farming, it’s everything. We’ve spent the last several thousand years building tools to reduce physical labor of all kinds. These are mechanical muscles — stronger, more reliable, and more tireless than human muscles could ever be.

And that's a good thing. Replacing human labor with mechanical muscles frees people to specialize and that leaves everyone better off even though still doing physical labor. This is how economies grow and standards of living rise.

Some people have specialized to be programmers and engineers whose job is to build mechanical minds. Just as mechanical muscles made human labor less in demand so are mechanical minds making human brain labor less in demand.

This is an economic revolution. You may think we've been here before, but we haven't.

This time is different.

Physical Labor

When you think of automation, you probably think of this: giant, custom-built, expensive, efficient but really dumb robots blind to the world and their own work. There were a scary kind of automation but they haven't taken over the world because they're only cost effective in narrow situations.

But they are the old kind of automation, this is the new kind.

Meet Baxter.

Unlike these things which require skilled operators and technicians and millions of dollars, Baxter has vision and can learn what you want him to do by watching you do it. And he costs less than the average annual salary of a human worker. Unlike his older brothers he isn't pre-programmed for one specific job, he can do whatever work is within the reach of his arms. Baxter is what might be thought of as a general purpose robot and general purpose is a big deal.

Think computers, they too started out as highly custom and highly expensive, but when cheap-ish general-purpose computers appeared they quickly became vital to everything.

A general-purpose computer can just as easily calculate change or assign seats on an airplane or play a game or do anything by just swapping its software. And this huge demand for computers of all kinds is what makes them both more powerful and cheaper every year.

Baxter today is the computer in the 1980s. He’s not the apex but the beginning. Even if Baxter is slow his hourly cost is pennies worth of electricity while his meat-based competition costs minimum wage. A tenth the speed is still cost effective when it's a hundred times cheaper. And while Baxtor isn't as smart as some of the other things we will talk about, he's smart enough to take over many low-skill jobs.

And we've already seen how dumber robots than Baxter can replace jobs. In new supermarkets what used to be 30 humans is now one human overseeing 30 cashier robots.

Or the hundreds of thousand baristas employed world-wide? There’s a barista robot coming for them. Sure maybe your guy makes your double-mocha-whatever just perfect and you’d never trust anyone else -- but millions of people don’t care and just want a decent cup of coffee. Oh and by the way this robot is actually a giant network of robots that remembers who you are and how you like your coffee no matter where you are. Pretty convenient.

We think of technological change as the fancy new expensive stuff, but the real change comes from last decade's stuff getting cheaper and faster. That's what's happening to robots now. And because their mechanical minds are capable of decision making they are out-competing humans for jobs in a way no pure mechanical muscle ever could.

Luddite Horses

Imagine a pair of horses in the early 1900s talking about technology. One worries all these new mechanical muscles will make horses unnecessary.

The other reminds him that everything so far has made their lives easier -- remember all that farm work? Remember running coast-to-coast delivering mail? Remember riding into battle? All terrible. These city jobs are pretty cushy -- and with so many humans in the cities there are more jobs for horses than ever.

Even if this car thingy takes off you might say, there will be new jobs for horses we can't imagine.

But you, dear viewer, from beyond 2000 know what happened -- there are still working horses, but nothing like before. The horse population peaked in 1915 -- from that point on it was nothing but down.

There isn’t a rule of economics that says better technology makes more, better jobs for horses. It sounds shockingly dumb to even say that out loud, but swap horses for humans and suddenly people think it sounds about right.

As mechanical muscles pushed horses out of the economy, mechanical minds will do the same to humans. Not immediately, not everywhere, but in large enough numbers and soon enough that it's going to be a huge problem if we are not prepared. And we are not prepared.

You, like the second horse, may look at the state of technology now and think it can’t possibly replace your job. But technology gets better, cheaper, and faster at a rate biology can’t match.

Just as the car was the beginning of the end for the horse so now does the car show us the shape of things to come.


Self-driving cars aren't the future: they're here and they work. Self-driving cars have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles up and down the California coast and through cities -- all without human intervention.

The question is not if they'll replaces cars, but how quickly. They don’t need to be perfect, they just need to be better than us. Humans drivers, by the way, kill 40,000 people a year with cars just in the United States. Given that self-driving cars don’t blink, don’t text while driving, don’t get sleepy or stupid, it easy to see them being better than humans because they already are.

Now to describe self-driving cars as cars at all is like calling the first cars mechanical horses. Cars in all their forms are so much more than horses that using the name limits your thinking about what they can even do. Lets call self-driving cars what they really are:

Autos: the solution to the transport-objects-from-point-A-to-point-B problem. Traditional cars happen to be human sized to transport humans but tiny autos can work in wear houses and gigantic autos can work in pit mines. Moving stuff around is who knows how many jobs but the transportation industry in the United States employs about three million people. Extrapolating world-wide that’s something like 70 million jobs at a minimum.

These jobs are over.

The usual argument is that unions will prevent it. But history is filled with workers who fought technology that would replace them and the workers always loose. Economics always wins and there are huge incentives across wildly diverse industries to adopt autos.

For many transportation companies, the humans are about a third of their total costs. That's just the straight salary costs. Humans sleeping in their long haul trucks costs time and money. Accidents cost money. Carelessness costs money. If you think insurance companies will be against it, guess what? Their perfect driver is one who pays their small premium but never gets into an accident.

The autos are coming and they're the first place where most people will really see the robots changing society. But there are many other places in the economy where the same thing is happening, just less visibly.

So it goes with autos, so it goes for everything.

The Shape of Things to Come

It's easy to look at Autos and Baxters and think: technology has always gotten rid of low-skill jobs we don't want people doing anyway. They'll get more skilled and do better educated jobs -- like they've always done.

Even ignoring the problem of pushing a hundred-million additional people through higher education, white-collar work is no safe haven either. If your job is sitting in front of a screen and typing and clicking -- like maybe you're supposed to be doing right now -- the bots are coming for you too, buddy.

Software bots are both intangible and way faster and cheaper than physical robots. Given that white collar workers are, from a companies perspective, both more expensive and more numerous -- the incentive to automate their work is greater than low skilled work.

And that's just what automation engineers are for. These are skilled programmers whose entire job is to replace your job with a software bot.

You may think even the world's smartest automation engineer could never make a bot to do your job -- and you may be right -- but the cutting edge of programming isn't super-smart programmers writing bots it's super-smart programmers writing bots that teach themselves how to do things the programmer could never teach them to do.

How that works is well beyond the scope of this video, but the bottom line is there are limited ways to show a bot a bunch of stuff to do, show the bot a bunch of correctly done stuff, and it can figure out how to do the job to be done.

Even with just a goal and no example of how to do it the bots can still learn. Take the stock market which, in many ways, is no longer a human endeavor. It's mostly bots that taught themselves to trade stocks, trading stocks with other bots that taught themselves.

Again: it's not bots that are executing orders based on what their human controllers want, it's bots making the decisions of what to buy and sell on their own.

As a result the floor of the New York Stock exchange isn't filled with traders doing their day jobs anymore, it's largely a TV set.

So bots have learned the market and bots have learned to write. If you've picked up a newspaper lately you've probably already read a story written by a bot. There are companies that are teaching bots to write anything: Sports stories, TPS reports, even say, those quarterly reports that you write at work.

Paper work, decision making, writing -- a lot of human work falls into that category and the demand for human metal labor is these areas is on the way down. But surely the professions are safe from bots? Yes?


When you think 'lawyer' it's easy to think of trials. But the bulk of lawyering is actually drafting legal documents predicting the likely outcome and impact of lawsuits, and something called 'discovery' which is where boxes of paperwork gets dumped on the lawyers and they need to find the pattern or the one out-of-place transaction among it all.

This can all be bot work. Discovery, in particular, is already not a human job in many firms. Not because there isn't paperwork to go through, there's more of it than ever, but because clever research bots sift through millions of emails and memos and accounts in hours not weeks -- crushing human researchers in terms of not just cost and time but, most importantly, accuracy. Bots don't get sleeping reading through a million emails.

But that's the simple stuff: IBM has a bot named Watson: you may have seen him on TV destroy humans at Jeopardy — but that was just a fun side project for him.

Watson's day-job is to be the best doctor in the world: to understand what people say in their own words and give back accurate diagnoses. And he's already doing that at Slone-Kettering, giving guidance on lung cancer treatments.

Just as Auto don’t need to be perfect -- they just need to make fewer mistakes than humans, -- the same goes for doctor bots.

Human doctors are by no means perfect -- the frequency and severity of misdiagnosis are terrifying -- and human doctors are severely limited in dealing with a human's complicated medical history. Understanding every drug and every drug's interaction with every other drug is beyond the scope of human knowability.

Especially when there are research robots whose whole job it is to test 1,000s of new drugs at a time.

Human doctors can only improve through their own experiences. Doctor bots can learn from the experiences of every doctor bot. Can read the latest in medical research and keep track of everything that happens to all his patients world-wide and make correlations that would be impossible to find otherwise.

Not all doctors will go away, but when doctor bots are comparable to humans and they're only as far away as your phone -- the need for general doctors will be less.

So professionals, white-collar workers and low-skill workers all have something to worry about.

But perhaps you're still not worried because you're a special creative snowflakes. Well guess what? You're not that special.

Creative Labor

Creativity may feel like magic, but it isn't. The brain is a complicated machine -- perhaps the most complicated machine in the whole universe -- but that hasn't stopped us from trying to simulate it.

There is this notion that just as mechanical muscles allowed us to move into thinking jobs that mechanical minds will allow us all to move into creative work. But even if we assume the human mind is magically creative -- it's not, but just for the sake of argument -- artistic creativity isn't what the majority of jobs depend on. The number of writers and poets and directors and actors and artist who actually make a living doing their work is a tiny, tiny portion of the labor force. And given that these are professions that are dependent on popularity they will always be a small part of the population.

There is no such thing as a poem and painting based economy.

Oh, by the way, this music in the background that your listening to? It was written by a bot. Her name is Emily Howel and she can write an infinite amount of new music all day for free. And people can't tell the difference between her and human composers when put to a blind test.

Talking about artificial creativity gets weird fast -- what does that even mean? But it's nonetheless a developing field.

People used to think that playing chess was a uniquely creative human skill that machines could never do right up until they beat the best of us. And so it goes for all human talent.


Right: this might have been a lot to take in, and you might want to reject it -- it's easy to be cynical of the endless, and idiotic, predictions of futures that never are. So that's why it's important to emphasize again this stuff isn't science fiction. The robots are here right now. There is a terrifying amount of working automation in labs and wear houses that is proof of concept.

We have been through economic revolutions before, but the robot revolution is different.

Horses aren't unemployed now because they got lazy as a species, they’re unemployable. There's little work a horse can do that do that pays for its housing and hay.

And many bright, perfectly capable humans will find themselves the new horse: unemployable through no fault of their own.

But if you still think new jobs will save us: here is one final point to consider. The US census in 1776 tracked only a few kinds of jobs. Now there are hundreds of kinds of jobs, but the new ones are not a significant part of the labor force.

Here's the list of jobs ranked by the number of people that perform them - it's a sobering list with the transportation industry at the top. Going down the list all this work existed in some form a hundred years ago and almost all of them are targets for automation. Only when we get to number 33 on the list is there finally something new.

Don't that every barista and officer worker lose their job before things are a problem. The unemployment rate during the great depression was 25%.

This list above is 45% of the workforce. Just what we've talked about today, the stuff that already works, can push us over that number pretty soon. And given that even our modern technological wonderland new kinds of work are not a significant portion of the economy, this is a big problem.

This video isn't about how automation is bad -- rather that automation is inevitable. It's a tool to produce abundance for little effort. We need to start thinking now about what to do when large sections of the population are unemployable -- through no fault of their own. What to do in a future where, for most jobs, humans need not apply.

Robots, Etc in the Video

Terex Port automation

Command | Cat MieStar System.

Bosch Automotive Technology

Atlas Update

Kiva Systems

PhantomX running Phoenix code

iRobot, Do You

New pharmacy robot at QEHB

Briggo Coffee Experience

John Deere Autosteer (ITEC Pro 2010). In use while cultivating

The Duel: Timo Boll vs. KUKA Robot

Baxter with the Power of Intera 3

Baxter Research Robot SDK 1.0

Baxter the Bartender

Online Cash Registers Touch-Screen EPOS System Demonstration

Self-Service Check in

Robot to play Flappy Bird

e-david from University of Konstanz, Germany


Empty Car Convoy

Clever robots for crops

Autonomously folding a pile of 5 previously-unseen towels

LS3 Follow Tight

Robotic Handling material

Caterpillar automation project

Universal Robots has reinvented industrial robotics

Introducing WildCat

The Human Brain Project - Video Overview

This Robot Is Changing How We Cure Diseases

Jeopardy! - Watson Game 2

What Will You Do With Watson?

Other Credits

Mandelbrot set

Moore's law graph

Apple II 1977

Beer Robot Fail m2803

All Wales Ambulance Promotional Video

Clyde Robinson

Time lapse Painting - Monster Spa

15 Aug 22:35


15 Aug 22:42



15 Aug 22:47


15 Aug 22:52

3 Myths Comcast Is Telling The FCC About TWC Merger

by Chris Morran

Comcast has been justifiably criticized for blatantly trying to curry favor with the FCC by trying to spend $110,000 to sponsor a fundraiser honoring FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, but while the Kabletown Krew shrugged off those allegations, Comcast EVP David “The Merger Whisperer” Cohen was meeting with the FCC to push the company’s slate of semi-truths about its pending acquisition of Time Warner Cable.

In a letter posted to the FCC’s docket on the merger, Comcast recounts the details of an Aug. 11 meeting between Cohen and various FCC officials.

Much like Cohen’s risible appearances before lawmakers, he tried to bolster the merger argument with several truthy facts, including:

Myth #1: Comcast’s broadband domination will be nowhere near as bad as people say

In the meeting, Cohen took issue with merger opponents’ claims that a combined Comcast/TWC would control around 50% of the national broadband market. He cited an earlier letter submitted by Comcast calculating that the number would be closer to 35.5%.

In a particularly ballsy move, Comcast uses the FCC’s own data to make this point. Surely Big C wouldn’t dare try to pull one over on the FCC with its own numbers, right?

But look at the title of this chart that Comcast uses:

Yes, this chart lumps in every form of fixed-line broadband with downstream speeds of 3Mbps or more. So Comcast is lumping itself in with all those cruddy DSL lines that don’t even meet the FCC’s current — and already-outdated — definition of broadband as 4Mbps downstream.

So yes, if you include all the various regional telecom companies offering Internet service that will barely allow you to stream a Netflix movie, a combined Comcast/TWC might only account for 35.5%. If you were to move the bottom limit up to 4Mbps — or up to the more realistic broadband standard of at least 7Mbps — that number would certainly increase.

But honesty only hurts Comcast’s case.

Myth #2: Wireless broadband needs to be thought of as competition to Comcast

The above chart also makes the claim that a combined Comcast/TWC should really only be thought of as controlling 15.5% of the broadband market, since wireless broadband is a competitor.

Except it’s not.

Comcast charges around $50-70/month to most broadband customers, depending on bundles, speed, and region. This includes a monthly data threshold of a few hundred gigabytes.

Wireless companies charge a similar monthly rate (for just data; nevermind device costs or charges for voice) but most plans cap at between 2-5GB/month. So, in terms of per-GB costs, wireless data currently costs about 100 times what you get from fixed broadband.

This will inevitably change, but there are no indicators that wireless companies will open up their caps to allow for the same usage limits enjoyed by fixed broadband customers.

Additionally, broadband from pay-TV providers allows Comcast to bundle in TV service. Wireless broadband may offer live streaming of all sorts of video, and download speeds may be comparable — if not sometimes better — than cable, but no wireless companies are offering a live-TV over-the-top service with a channel lineup rivaling cable providers.

Until that happens — until a consumer could reasonably consider a wireless data plan as a replacement for fixed broadband — this is a nonsensical point that only makes Cohen and Co. look bad.

Myth #3: There’s nothing to worry about because Comcast & TWC are not currently competitors

This old gem again.

“[T]he broadband marketplace is competitive and dynamic, and consumers enjoy ample and growing choices of broadband providers,” reads the letter.

To quote every hack Jerry Seinfeld impersonator, “Who are these people?”

Please, someone show us this magic land where consumers have the choice of multiple broadband providers all offering high download speeds at a decent price, because most of us have the choice of broadband from our cable company and DSL from the phone company, and that’s it.

Just look at the FCC data from 2013, from the very report that Comcast tries to draw its pro-merger conclusions:

In addition to the wide swaths of rural land with few broadband options (again, this uses the outdated definition of 3Mbps or better), many of the most densely populated metro areas in the country — Los Angeles, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, St. Louis, Seattle, New Orleans, and basically the entire D.C.-Philly-NYC-Boston corridor — have few options for even barely acceptable Internet service.

Approving the Comcast/TWC merger will do nothing to change this map. It will only change the name of the company that screws up the billing for the customers in these areas.

But Comcast’s argument that you can’t take away competition when no competition exists runs counter to its other core claim that the “marketplace is competitive and dynamic.” Cohen is trying to have his cake and claim it’s a hot dog.

Comcast has asked the FCC to focus on “protecting competition, not competitors.”

But what the company is really asking is for the FCC to allow Comcast to protect itself by buying its way into the nation’s two largest markets — L.A. and NYC — without ever having to compete or win over consumers.

15 Aug 13:51

Most-Pirated Movies, TV-Shows and Games Per State… Debunked

by Ernesto

crosscatPiracy is a hot topic, so when there are statistics to report the media is usually all over it. This week a series of intriguing maps has been doing the rounds.

The data was first published by the piracy experts over at Movoto Real Estate. Based on a large sample of three million unique IP addresses collected over a period of 40 days they presented a map of the most torrented movies, TV-shows and games per state.

This was quickly picked up by The Washington Post, Venturebeat and several other publications, who all shared the findings with their readers. TorrentFreak was ready to jump on the bandwagon too, but we couldn’t help noticing a few odd results.

What stands out immediately is that some of the most-downloaded movies in certain states are barely downloaded at all through torrent sites. “La Grande Bellezza” in New Jersey, for example, or “Cuban Fury” in Florida. The same is true for “Witching and Bitching” which, according to the map, is very popular in Indiana and Tennessee.

Are these movies really more often downloaded than blockbuster successes such as Divergent and X-Men as the map below suggests?

Most pirated movies per state?

The same odd results appear in the games and TV-show maps. Game of Thrones is by far the most downloaded TV-show in America, but for some reason “Awkward” is more popular in Texas and Louisiana. The same Louisianans also download the game “Scribblenauts Unlimited” more frequently than popular releases such as Minecraft and Watch Dogs.

Something is clearly amiss, so we took the unprecedented step of downloading the source data which is readily available.

To our surprise, the maps in question don’t represent the most-downloaded titles. Instead, they appear to reveal for which shows the download numbers differ the most when compared to the national average. This is completely unrelated to which movie, TV-show or game was downloaded the most.

Whoops, not downloads

Now back to our earlier question. Is “La Grande Bellezza” really that popular in New Jersey? No, the actual data shows only 2 downloads in this state…

Similarly, is “Awkward” the most pirated TV-show in Texas? Again, no, it has 232 downloads in the dataset compared to 2,554 for a single Game of Thrones episode. And we can go on and on.

In fact, if we made a real map based on the actual download counts in the dataset, Game of Thrones would be the most downloaded show in each and every state, as expected.

Confusingly, however, a map of the most pirated movies per state would list “Blood Widow” on top in pretty much every state.

This suggests that there’s an issue with the data itself too, as this movie is nowhere to be found in the list of most shared files on The Pirate Bay and elsewhere. The most likely explanation is that the researchers ran into a fake torrent file with bogus IP-addresses.

Whatever the case, it’s safe to say that the maps in question should be taken with a grain of salt, or a barrel of rum perhaps.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

12 Aug 23:05

Bruce Lee was reincarnated as her leg

12 Aug 17:45

Not sure what kind of bug and reptile orgy is going on here

12 Aug 19:37

Found these shorts at a thrift store. They're certainly... uh...

12 Aug 23:00

The Science of Good Cooking: Don't Thaw That Frozen Steak

by Lisa Marcus

YouTube Link

Dan Souza, Senior Editor of Cooks Illustrated, makes a fantastic case for cooking steaks from a frozen state as opposed to taking the extra time to thaw them. Were you unaware of any way to improve upon a juicy steak? Check out this video for the sensible rationale.

12 Aug 22:55

The deadly facts about water!

12 Aug 23:00

Reversible USB Cables A Step Closer [Link]

by JLister

The USB 3.0 Promoter group says it’s finalized the details of type C USB connectors, which will work no matter which way up you plug them in. It follows the announcement of the concept last year.

The main news today is confirmation that there’ll be a degree of backwards compatibility:

The new USB Type-C plug and receptacle will not directly mate with existing USB plugs and
receptacles (Type-A, Type-B, Micro-B, etc.); however, the USB Type-C specification defines
passive new-to-existing cables and adapters to allow consumers to use the new connector
with their existing products.

The new cable format will support data transfers up to 10 Gbps and power transfers up to 100W. The plan is that eventually the type C plug, which is roughly the size of existing micro-USB plugs, will become standard across all devices, no matter their size or purpose.

[Full Press Release]

11 Aug 19:00

Quick, Roll a Hallucination Check!

11 Aug 17:13

Earth, Wind, and Fire

11 Aug 23:48

T-Mobile announces new Pay as You Go rate that starts next week

by Sam Sabri

T-Mobile has just announced a new Pay as You Go plan for users. This isn't a change to their monthly prepaid plans, instead this is for people who value pay-per-use, daily and weekly plans. The new plan has customers paying just $0.10 per minute or message as a flat rate.

11 Aug 23:54

Microsoft Research project turns a smartphone camera into a cheap Kinect

by Chris Velazco
Microsoft's been awfully busy at this year's SIGGRAPH conference:...
11 Aug 17:31

Here's How You Make An Enormous Nuke, Just In Case You Were Wondering

by Michael Ballaban on foxtrotalpha, shared by Michael Ballaban to Jalopnik

With the Cold War coming back , I figured this would be a good time to freshen up on some basic nuclear tips. Just helpful hints, like how to duck and cover, how to eat canned crackers, and, of course, how to build a goddamn hydrogen bomb yourself. Here's that last one, in video form.


12 Aug 00:16

dreamemu: clock



12 Aug 00:10

Hunters! Quick! Let´s Get The F**k Outta Here!

12 Aug 00:20

Don't get drunk and fall asleep.