The stuff that works best for me is the Phillip Glass early crossover stuff (i.e. post-Einstein.) Things like Glasspieces, Dancepieces, 1000 Airplanes on the Roof, The Photographer, and the three *qatsi films. They're minimal enough not to intrude on the foreground, but also not as harsh and "difficult" as the early stuff like large chunks of Einstein (except the knee plays) and Music in 12 Parts.
He apologized that silly emotional people got upset at the obvious outcome of this entire stunt.
A sincere apology takes three words. When those three words are buried in hundreds of words of qualifications and context its no longer an apology.
The entire thing is redolent of a condescending tone. Sam, you see, is a scientist! Anyone who questioned his behavior is just an having an emotional reaction and does not understand the real world - where there is always a Sam to piss in the well.
The thing is, most of use knew this already, and his demonstration did not teach anyone anything other than about Sam's character.
EDIT: Oh, I don't care about the gift card. I am simply commenting on the 'apology.'
Fair enough. I guess you can read that from the article.
For me, I can't see these things. Someone else already said that he should've apologized first, unqualified - and I agree that this would make a difference.
On the other hand, I'm not sure if I'd have started like that - it feels natural to me to explain first, reason about my actions and end with an apology. We're not talking about a company here (see the AirBnB comparison), we're talking about a random guy as far as I'm concerned.
Lastly: I guess a lot is getting lost in translation for me. Lots of advices on this forum are hard to get for me, because they are about nuances of English words, implied meanings, 'tone' and cultural rules. While it might very well be possible that you/most of the posters and Sam are sharing the same standards and therefor 'better' understand the content or see a subtext: I cannot.
> it feels natural to me to explain first, reason about my actions and end with an apology
Apologies that start with an explanation are very often more of a personal justification (coping mechanism) than a real apology. It frames the conversation in a way so as to reduce the cognitive dissonance between your actions and the social norm you violated (reason for apology), as well as reducing the discomfort in the act of apology.
It also makes people think you are apologizing to appease, instead of expressing genuine regret.
You have made a logical fallacy sometimes known as the is-ought fallacy or is-ought problem.
The key point is that the parent is stating that things ought to work a certain way. While your statement that things are a certain way may be true, it is actually a non sequitur in relation to the ought proposal.
If you wish to make a cogent argument you'll need to address the ought section of his argument or connect your "is" statement to be no longer orthogonal.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with this, as the author of the post stated, "I work as a entertainment industry consultant, and depend on cloud services such as Dropbox, Simplenote, Google Apps, and Google Docs for day to day work. I use streaming online services such as Netflix, Xbox Live, Playstation Network, and Pandora every day for both work and play."
Okay, so get a business class account, and Comcast will not throw a fit when you completely saturate your residential neighborhood upload link.
Unfortunately, it is a 2-year minimum contract with an install fee over $200. However, sign up for a 4-year contract and installation is waived.
He could also have two cable modems, one residential account in the roommate's name and a business account in his business's name.
While I agree that he should pay for a commercial plan if he has a commercial use case, having one provider is certainly not the way the market should work.
Why is using more than 250GB of data a commercial use case? The author thinks his personal interests in photography and music are what topped the cap. I doubt Google Docs and his other work services would even show up on his bandwidth compared to Netflix and XBox Live.
Consumers shouldn't have to upgrade to a business plan, paying for business-class support, a static IP, and other features they don't need. Comcast would probably end up making more money and saving a lot of face if they had a plan with sane limits for people who live on digital media.
Presumably this is a reasonable growth strategy for them.
As an extant customer, however, I would prefer if they shored up some of their US infrastructure problems.
For instance, I have a 50/5 mpbs connection and no matter what time of day or titles I select my netflix streaming experience consists of an extensive palette of compression artifacts and a tiny bit of film.
I do appreciate that they have made available a few classic films to offset their modern B-class crappy catalog.
I am not going to get started on their recent UI overhaul.
The "tag" is an mbuf tag. Mbuf tags aren't packet data; think of them like per-packet session state, so that different layers of the stack (the network drivers, any driver required to handle crypto goo done on the card, the original IP code, and the IPSEC decapsulation and handling code) can talk to each other without hand-coding a million disgusting callbacks throughout the kernel.
In this code, "mtag" is the tag matching PACKET_TAG_IPSEC_IN_CRYPTO_DONE, which the lower-level drivers use to tell the IPSEC code that the NIC already did verification. If the tag isn't there, then you want to do the verification in software, which is what the fixed code does and the broken code didn't do.
You can create a custom protocol and protocol handler to process file links including UNCs.
This recently allowed me to deploy a web application into an enterprise space with extensive dependencies on creating and editing word and excel documents (as well as pdfs).
The web application generates highly customized rtf from user submitted forms and provides links for users which, when clicked, will open word with the rtf loaded and its working directory properly set within their network file system. Therefore, the user can modify the rtf, simply press save and exit.
This is vastly superior to download / edit / upload schemes or replicating the functionality of word through this web application.
The users can access the files through UNC based methods they already understand and through the new web application. Its glue to wean the enterprise from windows binaries and UNC paths everywhere towards a unified web application.
It also very simple:
1. Name the protocol and generate links using it:
myproto:/path_to_file
3. Write a tiny handler as a binary, or even batch file, to be called by chrome when it parses the custom protocol
In the situation referenced above, the handler application just truncates out the protocol from the link and calls the shell with the resultant string. That means it properly handles all windows file associations. So, .rtf -> Word, .xls -> excel, .pdf -> acrobat, / -> file explorer.
To the user its actually quite seamless.
You do have to touch client machines once to setup the handler, but in this context its fine. This is not over the internet, but inside the enterprise.
I did have to fish around a bit for an old version of curses and create a symlink. It only took a few moments though.
Just a data point to consider.