I understand how the internet works just fine. If YOU understood it, you would know that there's a difference between the natural limits of a technology, the limits of a particular service, and imposed limits because of going over a particular threshold. For example, an Unlimited T1 will never go faster than a T1, but you won't get billed extra or have it slow down to 100K
Any person with a decent command of the English language would interpret "unlimited" in this context to mean the service at the end of the month is the same as at the beginning of the month no matter how much data has been used. If you have to watch that you don't use too much in order to avoid a penalty (performance of monetary), it is *L*I*M*I*T*E*D*.
You won't get higher salaries, you'll get lower ones for the reason I pointed out. You'll also get less safety and more dead peons.
A fair chunk is going to CEOs and directors. The financial sector is taking a big cut as well (no wonder Wall Street is flying high). While smaller individuals can get in on some of that, there's a lot that's for large investors only. They'll never cut small investors out entirely, somebody has to be left holding the bag.
I have provided real examples and evidence, you have hand waved and made bald assertions.
You're the one claiming that there was no need for any social programs in the '60s. Which suggests strongly that you don't believe there was any systemic inequality that created disproportionate poverty.
Thjat, in turn, suggests that if you were around in the '60s you were either too young to know what was what (and didn't learn about it later) or you were socially isolated from the group having the problem.
certainly less likely that it is "favorable to the people writing the check" than what we have right now,
Since unlike a regulator at an agency, a private corporation has no income at all if people don't write them checks.
Meanwhile, since instead of drawing from the general budget, presumably these private corporations would only be paid by employers, wouldn't that INCREASE the financial burden on employers?
Meanwhile, the courts will still need some sort of standards if they will be adjudicating criminal penalties for violating them. Meanwhile, the civil trials will become MUCH more complex since they will first be adjudicated by the certification company, then a suit in court that will involve employer, the certification company, and various expert witnesses testifying about how well the certification company adheres to industry best practices and the current body of research, as well as how well the certification company held the employer to those standards.
The funny part is that you're basically advocating for an even more complex version of Obama's health care.
Yes, a private agency that provides insurance, certification, and fast adjudication and compensation, backed up by criminal penalties.
So, if they are adjudicating and there are criminal penalties, what else would that be unless you want a regulatory agency AND a redundant private organization.
I presume you would have them write the standards too? And there's no way they would do the whole thing to be favorable to the people writing the check (basically enshrining the political bribe in law).
So you wish to grant a private organization the power to jail people? Even the power to jail people who refuse to do business with them? What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!!
Who will they be accountable to and who will enforce that accountability? Turtles all the way down?
Notice that the mechanism by which the workers received compensation was a lawsuit;
Because litigation is famously inexpensive and efficient. It's also well known for bring the dead back to life. Perhaps you missed the part about the radium girls dying.
Meanwhile, the courts, employers, employees, and law enforcement would need some sort of standard to measure negligence. Some sort of agency, perhaps the American for Health and Safety Organization would be needed to set standards. Likely law enforcement would need detectives with specialized knowledge of the standards set so they could effectively enforce the law, since that would kill a lot less people than waiting for the bodies to drop.
Congratulations, you just invented a more expensive and byzantine Regulatory Agency 2.0. On the bright side, maybe the lawfirms whose ads flood daytime television will send you a thank you note.
So they present that whole plan in the advertising, or do they give you the headline and put the limnits to unlimited in fine print too small to render legibly on the TV screen?
In light of that, what makes you thing that without regulations, the training won't put worker's safety and well being dead last as a priority?
And yes, it's often cheaper to buy something that looks like safety gear than something that provides actual safety. At least until you need the gear to actually protect you.
But they don't cost $0.20, they cost $3. And many of the people working in jobs that require them don't know the consequences of not having them.
Based on how things worked before the regulations, I'd guess that even if the worker bought their own safety equipment, the boss would tell him to quit wasting time putting that garbage on and get in there.
Unregulated dumping of pollutants into the air and water. That leaves everyone to fork over money to either clean up after them or to deal with health issues and lost productivity.
Then there is the issue of market distortion. It's funny how many people here claim to want the government to quit interfering with the market EXCEPT for granting patents, copyrights, and corporate charters.
Much of the topic of this discussion is based on companies wanting no government interference with how they can use DRM, but when it comes to cracking it, they want the full force of the federal government to prevent it.
Except you're handwaving. And actually, due to automation, both McD's and retail staff have seen productivity increases.
There was a lot of talk about replacing grill operators with a machine, then it turned out that the star of the show was a lot slower than advertised and didn't do as good a job as a typical teen.
Also consider hourly warehouse workers (often temps working just short of full time). Their productivity is way up from the days of walking around the warehouse with a hand cart searching for the products on their hand written pull sheet. One person in an office with a spreadsheet now does the work of a whole room full of people with adding machines. They're certainly not receiving 19 annual salaries worth of benefits.
As for beneficial regulations, see OSHA. It's good that workers now get filter masks when painting or working with toxic gases. It's good that they get hearing protection and back graces where called for. It's good that employers have to actually pay them what they promised. Beyond that, I'm not the one that made nebulous claims of expensive regulations, so it's no surprise that I don't know of any.
Regardless of morality or ethics or terms of the contract, they undeniably LIMITED the bandwidth (they even call it that themselves). That is, they LIMITED the unlimited data. The contract may very well have said they could, but their marketing lies it's ass off. A reasonable person would call that plan LIMITED.
Since they haven't pulled out to let it burn, I presume they did go to plan B. But the reason it's plan B is that it's not as good as plan A when it works.
That's the issue. Verizon coded the system (or had it coded to their specifications). Their system, their responsibility. Then, having been informed that it had made a bad decision, they did nothing to override it, in other words they reaffirmed it's action.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand how the internet works just fine. If YOU understood it, you would know that there's a difference between the natural limits of a technology, the limits of a particular service, and imposed limits because of going over a particular threshold. For example, an Unlimited T1 will never go faster than a T1, but you won't get billed extra or have it slow down to 100K
Any person with a decent command of the English language would interpret "unlimited" in this context to mean the service at the end of the month is the same as at the beginning of the month no matter how much data has been used. If you have to watch that you don't use too much in order to avoid a penalty (performance of monetary), it is *L*I*M*I*T*E*D*.
You won't get higher salaries, you'll get lower ones for the reason I pointed out. You'll also get less safety and more dead peons.
A fair chunk is going to CEOs and directors. The financial sector is taking a big cut as well (no wonder Wall Street is flying high). While smaller individuals can get in on some of that, there's a lot that's for large investors only. They'll never cut small investors out entirely, somebody has to be left holding the bag.
I have provided real examples and evidence, you have hand waved and made bald assertions.
You're the one claiming that there was no need for any social programs in the '60s. Which suggests strongly that you don't believe there was any systemic inequality that created disproportionate poverty.
Thjat, in turn, suggests that if you were around in the '60s you were either too young to know what was what (and didn't learn about it later) or you were socially isolated from the group having the problem.
I don't see how it is:
certainly less likely that it is "favorable to the people writing the check" than what we have right now,
Since unlike a regulator at an agency, a private corporation has no income at all if people don't write them checks.
Meanwhile, since instead of drawing from the general budget, presumably these private corporations would only be paid by employers, wouldn't that INCREASE the financial burden on employers?
Meanwhile, the courts will still need some sort of standards if they will be adjudicating criminal penalties for violating them. Meanwhile, the civil trials will become MUCH more complex since they will first be adjudicated by the certification company, then a suit in court that will involve employer, the certification company, and various expert witnesses testifying about how well the certification company adheres to industry best practices and the current body of research, as well as how well the certification company held the employer to those standards.
The funny part is that you're basically advocating for an even more complex version of Obama's health care.
Yes, a private agency that provides insurance, certification, and fast adjudication and compensation, backed up by criminal penalties.
So, if they are adjudicating and there are criminal penalties, what else would that be unless you want a regulatory agency AND a redundant private organization.
I presume you would have them write the standards too? And there's no way they would do the whole thing to be favorable to the people writing the check (basically enshrining the political bribe in law).
So you wish to grant a private organization the power to jail people? Even the power to jail people who refuse to do business with them? What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!!
Who will they be accountable to and who will enforce that accountability? Turtles all the way down?
Notice that the mechanism by which the workers received compensation was a lawsuit;
Because litigation is famously inexpensive and efficient. It's also well known for bring the dead back to life. Perhaps you missed the part about the radium girls dying.
Meanwhile, the courts, employers, employees, and law enforcement would need some sort of standard to measure negligence. Some sort of agency, perhaps the American for Health and Safety Organization would be needed to set standards. Likely law enforcement would need detectives with specialized knowledge of the standards set so they could effectively enforce the law, since that would kill a lot less people than waiting for the bodies to drop.
Congratulations, you just invented a more expensive and byzantine Regulatory Agency 2.0. On the bright side, maybe the lawfirms whose ads flood daytime television will send you a thank you note.
So they present that whole plan in the advertising, or do they give you the headline and put the limnits to unlimited in fine print too small to render legibly on the TV screen?
Like this
In light of that, what makes you thing that without regulations, the training won't put worker's safety and well being dead last as a priority?
And yes, it's often cheaper to buy something that looks like safety gear than something that provides actual safety. At least until you need the gear to actually protect you.
But they don't cost $0.20, they cost $3. And many of the people working in jobs that require them don't know the consequences of not having them.
Based on how things worked before the regulations, I'd guess that even if the worker bought their own safety equipment, the boss would tell him to quit wasting time putting that garbage on and get in there.
Never worked at such a job, have you?
And if you don't have regulations, the unregulated capitalists will give you worse.
You sure are reading a lot into my posts that isn't there. I am not exactly a supporter of DRM, it's enforcement, or of the DMCA in general.
So you figure it makes more sense for the worker to go deaf or die of lung disease? Due to the lack of a $3 set of ear plugs or a $6 pack of masks?
If hearing isn't worth that, here's a challenge: You icepick both ears and I'll send you $6 (double your valuation).
Unregulated dumping of pollutants into the air and water. That leaves everyone to fork over money to either clean up after them or to deal with health issues and lost productivity.
Then there is the issue of market distortion. It's funny how many people here claim to want the government to quit interfering with the market EXCEPT for granting patents, copyrights, and corporate charters.
Much of the topic of this discussion is based on companies wanting no government interference with how they can use DRM, but when it comes to cracking it, they want the full force of the federal government to prevent it.
I never claimed this was a Net Neutrality issue. I claimed it's massive advertising draud.
Except you're handwaving. And actually, due to automation, both McD's and retail staff have seen productivity increases.
There was a lot of talk about replacing grill operators with a machine, then it turned out that the star of the show was a lot slower than advertised and didn't do as good a job as a typical teen.
Also consider hourly warehouse workers (often temps working just short of full time). Their productivity is way up from the days of walking around the warehouse with a hand cart searching for the products on their hand written pull sheet. One person in an office with a spreadsheet now does the work of a whole room full of people with adding machines. They're certainly not receiving 19 annual salaries worth of benefits.
As for beneficial regulations, see OSHA. It's good that workers now get filter masks when painting or working with toxic gases. It's good that they get hearing protection and back graces where called for. It's good that employers have to actually pay them what they promised. Beyond that, I'm not the one that made nebulous claims of expensive regulations, so it's no surprise that I don't know of any.
Regardless of morality or ethics or terms of the contract, they undeniably LIMITED the bandwidth (they even call it that themselves). That is, they LIMITED the unlimited data. The contract may very well have said they could, but their marketing lies it's ass off. A reasonable person would call that plan LIMITED.
You either flunked reading or the alphabet.
That doesn't make the offer any less deceptive.
Since they haven't pulled out to let it burn, I presume they did go to plan B. But the reason it's plan B is that it's not as good as plan A when it works.
To be fair, one of the fire fighters should have a super soaker
It starts with an "L"
Fill in the blank: Verizon <BLANKED> the fire departments transfer speed.
That's the issue. Verizon coded the system (or had it coded to their specifications). Their system, their responsibility. Then, having been informed that it had made a bad decision, they did nothing to override it, in other words they reaffirmed it's action.
The free market people don't have to. They can just privatize the profits while they socialize the losses.