DISQUS

I am compelled to agree with Chris Weekly that you're not using "suspension of disbelief" in the correct context here. It is (originally) a literary term that means that you "suspend [your] judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disb...

It doesn't really have much to do with being absorbed in an experience; it happens when you're seeing/reading something that *you know doesn't make sense*, but you accept it anyhow as apart of the story.

An example from the movies would be many action flicks where the guy is running around with a .38 (holds 6 rounds) shooting it 40 times without re-loading; you *know* it's B.S. but you still enjoy it when he kills the bad guy.

So, you can't really have your suspension of disbelief "broken," and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with being so absorbed in something that it's weird when you're interrupted. That's just being so absorbed in something that it's weird when it's interrupted. There may be a term for what you describe, but it's not "suspension of disbelief."

In response to the actual question at hand: I'd generally agree with jonknee: if you're really using a *huge* amount of bandwidth (that can affect the experience of others on your node), then you basically need to upgrade your plan to something more suitable for your use that won't degrade the service for those who are typical users just wanting to check their email.

That being said, from what I can read, I'm no friend of Comcast. They sound just like Shaw Cable or Telus up here in Canada.

Great post, Jon. I like your writing a lot.

Before I go: I don't suppose you'd be willing to put a link to Freedom Footbags in your sidebar, eh? :-)

Cheers.

Ah. So, perhaps rather than "planning to introduce a," you might have said "planning to update/improve their existing."

Thanks :)

"Additionally, Google is planning to introduce a voice-search app for the iPhone, so when you’ll say “images of Canada in the winter” into your iPhone, a Google image search browser window would open, showing you the results."

How is this different than the current Google iPhone app that does voice-based search?

IE4? LOL. As far as I'm concerned, users can expect a degraded experience for anything below IE7. I will not support IE6 any longer. I'm not saying that I don't test in IE6, and I fix issues which affect the functionality and/or access to the information, but the investment of time spent is not worth the payoff. I say force users to upgrade.

IE4? LOL. As far as I'm concerned, users can expect a degraded experience for anything below IE7. I will not support IE6 any longer. I'm not saying that I don't test in IE6, and I fix issues which affect the functionality and/or access to the information, but the investment of time spent is not worth the payoff. I say force users to upgrade.

You know you can query Google via SMS too, eh? http://www.google.com/mobile/default/sms/index....>

You know you can query Google via SMS too, eh? http://www.google.com/mobile/default/sms/index....>

Yes, I would want the president "twittering away" while in meetings.

I think my original comment was lost, so I'll just say that I'm in Google's boat and am just waiting for Android to piece it all together in a very cool way.

I think my original comment was lost, so I'll just say that I'm in Google's boat and am just waiting for Android to piece it all together in a very cool way.

As sad as it is we have a simple case of “greater good” here.

And sad it is. I don't understand how people in the U.S. can possibly think that the system there is democratic. Sad, sad, sad.

As sad as it is we have a simple case of “greater good” here.

And sad it is. I don't understand how people in the U.S. can possibly think that the system there is democratic. Sad, sad, sad.

Personally, I couldn't care less about Flash on my iPhone. Fewer annoying Flash-based sites? Great! Flash is straight-up bad for the web. Developers building sites in Flash should have their heads examined. The only real use for format is for video delivery (an inherently binary medium), and they've already proven that they can work around that issue by using a comparable (arguably superior) codec for that purpose. In fact, I hope they *don't* include Flash support. Can someone tell me how being able to view a Flash-based site on my iPhone is going to enrich my mobile experience? I just can't see it.

@Fred: LOL! :-) That's great. I did that (reworded their comment to flip it around on them) to someone myself recently.

@Fred: LOL! :-) That's great. I did that (reworded their comment to flip it around on them) to someone myself recently.

Hey now, don't go painting anarchists with this brush.

If anything, this behavior you note is a symptom of unbridled capitalism; this type of thing wouldn't happen in an anarchistic society.

Personally, I'm not a true-blood anarchist, but I do think that anarcho-syndicalism is probably a better system than what we have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalist

I'm just tired of people labeling stupid, irrational behavior as "anarchy!". Stupid, irrational behavior is just that, and doesn't have anything to do with anarchy.

Thanks :)

Hey now, don't go painting anarchists with this brush.

If anything, this behavior you note is a symptom of unbridled capitalism; this type of thing wouldn't happen in an anarchistic society.

Personally, I'm not a true-blood anarchist, but I do think that anarcho-syndicalism is probably a better system than what we have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalist

I'm just tired of people labeling stupid, irrational behavior as "anarchy!". Stupid, irrational behavior is just that, and doesn't have anything to do with anarchy.

Thanks :)

I have it on good authority that new and cool features for this type of thing are coming down the pipes.

I have it on good authority that new and cool features for this type of thing are coming down the pipes.

Orkut in written in ASP.

To me, there's always been something strange about the very concept of 'strategic' voting. Personally, I think it does more damage to democracy in the long run by forcing homogenization; the lesser of two evils is still evil.

It's analogous to those who hold Ralph Nader responsible for Gore's defeat in the 2000 election: those who didn't really support Gore, but who voted for him anyway as an opposition to the republicans.

I think that forcing a two-party system in order to avoid the opposition is inherently un-democratic and does more to indict American-style democracy as a failure than having Bush in office in the first place.

I do think that you raise an interesting strategy here; that if there were to be a 'strategy' behind my vote (beyond simply voting for the best platform), that this would probably be it :) I like the idea of someone holding membership in both parties; it's a statement to the absurdity of the system.

Then again, I've been known to spoil my ballot by voting for everyone, so don't take my logic at face value ;) If I were a US citizen, I'd vote for Paul over any of the dems but Kucinich.

To me, there's always been something strange about the very concept of 'strategic' voting. Personally, I think it does more damage to democracy in the long run by forcing homogenization; the lesser of two evils is still evil.

It's analogous to those who hold Ralph Nader responsible for Gore's defeat in the 2000 election: those who didn't really support Gore, but who voted for him anyway as an opposition to the republicans.

I think that forcing a two-party system in order to avoid the opposition is inherently un-democratic and does more to indict American-style democracy as a failure than having Bush in office in the first place.

I do think that you raise an interesting strategy here; that if there were to be a 'strategy' behind my vote (beyond simply voting for the best platform), that this would probably be it :) I like the idea of someone holding membership in both parties; it's a statement to the absurdity of the system.

Then again, I've been known to spoil my ballot by voting for everyone, so don't take my logic at face value ;) If I were a US citizen, I'd vote for Paul over any of the dems but Kucinich.

Hey Daniel.

Why "believe" in anthropocentric global warming to begin with? It's science; there's nothing really to believe or not believe. There's just a mass of evidence that suggest things to be one way or another. If this guy's assertions turn into real evidence that the current climate models are straight-up wrong, then we can recalculate, change the theory, and move on. It's not really about being right or wrong; it's about following the best hypothesis at the time.

What is Mr. Christie saying anyhow? That a few holes (of myriad) as yet to be explained invalidates most of the research out there? OK, what if they do? What does that mean? Mr. Christie seems to think that if we stopped spending all of this money on "global warming" and started building more schools in Africa that the future would suddenly be better for us?

Let me get this straight: because C02 doesn't drive climate change, that means that coal-burning electric plants and the internal combustion engines are suddenly cool again? That can't be what he means, but . . .

To what end are we arguing this? So we can stop investing in sustainable energy? Do we keep giving oil companies huge tax cuts? Because the service they provide is relevant?

Does it matter if our pollution is changing the global climate? It damn-sure alters local climates, and is just so plainly and obviously not good for us or our natural surroundings. How are C02 emissions good?

What does not believing in human-induced global warming gain us? did the problem go away? Maybe we're using different semantics, but the problem remains.

Considering how many more of us there are going to be, figuring out a way to power ourselves with perpetually renewable, non-polluting sources is the task of our time (or rather stopping the oil companies from suppressing the already existing technologies).

Maybe our pollution will cast us into another ice age; maybe we'll all fry; maybe the climate will remain stable, but we'll just slowly poison ourselves through the very food we eat.

All of this leads me to ask: Who cares what this guy says? It's not a controversy because even if it's true, it shouldn't change a damned thing except the semantics.

Hey Daniel.

Why "believe" in anthropocentric global warming to begin with? It's science; there's nothing really to believe or not believe. There's just a mass of evidence that suggest things to be one way or another. If this guy's assertions turn into real evidence that the current climate models are straight-up wrong, then we can recalculate, change the theory, and move on. It's not really about being right or wrong; it's about following the best hypothesis at the time.

What is Mr. Christie saying anyhow? That a few holes (of myriad) as yet to be explained invalidates most of the research out there? OK, what if they do? What does that mean? Mr. Christie seems to think that if we stopped spending all of this money on "global warming" and started building more schools in Africa that the future would suddenly be better for us?

Let me get this straight: because C02 doesn't drive climate change, that means that coal-burning electric plants and the internal combustion engines are suddenly cool again? That can't be what he means, but . . .

To what end are we arguing this? So we can stop investing in sustainable energy? Do we keep giving oil companies huge tax cuts? Because the service they provide is relevant?

Does it matter if our pollution is changing the global climate? It damn-sure alters local climates, and is just so plainly and obviously not good for us or our natural surroundings. How are C02 emissions good?

What does not believing in human-induced global warming gain us? did the problem go away? Maybe we're using different semantics, but the problem remains.

Considering how many more of us there are going to be, figuring out a way to power ourselves with perpetually renewable, non-polluting sources is the task of our time (or rather stopping the oil companies from suppressing the already existing technologies).

Maybe our pollution will cast us into another ice age; maybe we'll all fry; maybe the climate will remain stable, but we'll just slowly poison ourselves through the very food we eat.

All of this leads me to ask: Who cares what this guy says? It's not a controversy because even if it's true, it shouldn't change a damned thing except the semantics.