Member Since: August 4, 2008
Country: United States
Elvis, bearing a grudge against Mario, shoots another TV.
You make it look so easy <blush>.
To show divisibility by 7, take all the digits except the rightmost, multiply that number by 3, and add the rightmost digit. Repeat until the number is recognizably divisible by 7.
Example: 42 - multiply 4 by 3 and add 2, you get 14. Multiply 1 by 3 and add 4 to get 7.
Example: 105 - multiply 10 by 3 and add 5 to get 35. Multiply 3 by 3 and add 5 to get 14.
This method occurred to me in 3rd grade. I’ve attempted a mathematical proof a few times but haven’t succeeded. (I don’t know how to apply the fact that something pertains only to integers, and not to reals, in a proof.)
I couldn’t prove it, but I was able to generalize it: to find if a number is divisible by a number, n, less than ten, take the upper digits, multiply them by (10 - n) and add the rightmost digit.
“burps out light, determines how long it takes to get back, and tells you the distance to the nearest object”: And thanks to the non-existence of the ether, it’s equally accurate no matter which direction you point it in!
I don’t believe a word of it. It’s all witchcraft. If Shawn weighs the same as a duck, then he’s made of wood and therefore a witch.
Netflix undeniably makes heavier use of bandwidth than almost anyone else. The ISPs' capacity is finite, so did they throttle Netflix for fun, or as a necessary means of managing their capacity? Is it unjust that a heavy user of bandwidth pays more? Is it an impediment to a startup video streaming site, which may not be throttled at all since it has fewer customers and is not a significant burden to the ISPs?
As far as I can see, no one has been hurt. Customers are getting their video, Netflix is paying for its heavy usage of a finite resource, and no one is claiming that any startup company has been harmed. All the alarmist warnings are about things that haven’t happened yet.
BTW, is there an existing problem this net neutrality fuss is supposed to address? I currently have no problem accessing any website. Yeah, some people have run into throttling, but that’s ISPs trying to manage the load on their systems, not trying to favor one site over another.
Before we introduce a slew of government regulation, I’d like to know if there’s actually a problem, as opposed to an ominous warning about what might happen in the future.
Bandwidth costs near zero
How can this be? It costs money to replace copper with fiber. It costs money to add 4G equipment. A computer that can move 1GB/s costs more than one that can move 1MB/s. Even once the equipment is installed, its abilities are not unlimited.
Oooh… you score a zero for logical argument, but a 10 for insulting.
Sure they’re interested in expanding it. According to that chart, they spent $13.5 billion on it in 2013. Yeah, it’s less than the $16 billion in 2001, but you can’t say $13.5 billion is “not interested”.
No public wish lists :(