Think for a moment about how much they'll have to spend to be able to carry 250GB/week/user. Still think they'll be saving money?
Most people don't use all of their bandwidth all the time. This is factored into the ISP pricing structure. If they were providing dedicated bandwidth it would be much more expensive, out of the reach of most households. Given this, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for ISPs to apply tiered data caps so as to keep the heavy users from making internet access more expensive for everyone else.
On the other hand, promoting a capped plan as unlimited is fraud.
I'm no expert, but according to our consultants if more than one aircon unit is serving the same area they will conflict and one or the other (or both) will be likely to fail. (This even applies to leaving a door open between two rooms that are served by different units.)
I've got to admit that I've never quite understood their explanations as to why this is, but FYI.
So tell me why, and do so with the idea that "for the good of society" is an argument I reject, [...]
Since the usual justification (and the original rationale) for the existence of copyright law in the first place is "for the good of society" this question is impossible to answer unless you first explain why you believe copyright law should exist.
Keep in mind that "for the good of the artists" is an argument I reject; aspiring artists are invited to get a real job instead. (I'm talking about new work here, existing work is of course a more complicated subject.)
[...] then keep in mind your opinion on the matter is no more authoritative than anyone else's.
If you agree to help someone launder stolen money, that is a crime in most countries even if the money doesn't exist.
Not unreasonably, but as with blackmail it may be that it is more sensible not to prosecute so that the victims are not afraid to come forwards and report the crime.
I suppose you've got some daft psychology theory to support this absurd premise. Common sense says otherwise.
HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU? I told YOU I don't give a fuck about your opinion, and you posted.
Why should I care whether you care about my opinion or not? (Are you under the impression that I'm posting for your benefit somehow?) Since I don't care about your opinions any more than you care about mine, why are you bothering to continue to post?
See, you say "Pot, kettle, black." when I do something I say YOU shouldn't do.
Such as replying to someone who doesn't care what you think?
In case you're wondering, this has nothing to do with my beleif system
I think the dispute was about the appropriate contextual definition of the word "civilization"; this is of course subjective, i.e., part of your belief system. I'm curious; what do you think the dispute was about?
I'd be interested in finally seeing you "refute" something,
Curious. I'd be interested in finally seeing you make anything resembling a logical argument, rather than increasingly desperate ad hominem attacks.
I win.
Were we having a name throwing competition? I'd certainly be willing to concede that much; you've demonstrating an admirable ability to string together insults in a vaguely entertaining way. Doesn't really address my original post though...
Yes, you're a milquetoast, useless, pathetic whiny fuck.
Exactly. Or, as those of us from civilised parts of the world refer to the condition, normal.
Seriously, though, see a shrink. You obviously have anger issues, or you wouldn't feel the need to verbally abuse strangers in response to mild criticism of your belief system.
I have a Master's Degree in behavioral psychology supporting my opinion,
Yeah, sure you do. That's why you're so very very well-balanced.
PS, I told you I don't care, and you posted a reply anyway,
Whatever. Pot, kettle, black.
in all seriousness, that is a very strong indicator of mental illness.
That's possible. I'm mildly obsessive, certainly, and my current medication (I have Hashimoto's thyroiditis) seems to exacerbate it somewhat.
If I'm distressing you, I suggest you don't bother replying, or at least refrain from saying anything I'm going to feel compelled to refute.:-)
Hmmm. I've always wondered why the US is so tolerant of bullying, this pretty much explains it. Too many of you never really grew out of the wild west.
PS, I don't care, I just want you to know you're a fucking moron.
You do realise your attitude would qualify as borderline psychotic in any civilised society? (On second thoughts, scratch "borderline".)
Because using a false name on the internet isn't illegal.
I don't understand why not. Using a false name off-line under circumstances where a real name is required is fraud; for example, if you took on a mortgage under a false name, even if the name didn't belong to anyone else, that would be fraud, wouldn't it?
Note that using an alias (in the internet sense of the word) isn't the same as using a false name in this context; if you use a name that doesn't belong to you, but don't claim that it is your real name, that's just an alias; if you are claiming that it is your real name, either explicitly or implicitly, then that's fraudulent.
In this case, the accused both implicitly claimed it was her real name, by using it to register with a site that does not allow the use of aliases, and probably explicitly claimed it was her real name during the correspondence with the victim. That would seem to be enough to count as fraud by any reasonable definition.
But there's no way that not following the ToS of a website should be a felony.
Agreed, in general. If the violation is deliberately fraudulent, that's another matter.
I guess i should get used to people not RTFAing anymore.
Well, yeah, probably. To be honest, I've already posted three or four times in this thread without RTFAing, although I have now - not that there was much more information there than provided in the summary.
The indictment they brought against her is not for what she said, it's for the fact that she broke myspace's Terms of Service.
I'm a bit puzzled by that. Surely under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act it should be possible to prosecute on the basis of fraud - providing false information - without bringing the ToS into it, except perhaps insofar as to show that the use of an alias was not normal practice. Does anyone understand why this wasn't possible?
From TFA:
They point out that even checking out the popular dating site Match.com for the mere purpose of research into this case would have turned the brief's author into a criminal, as she is married and the ToS prohibits those who are not single or separated from using the site.
You know, I don't think I have any problem with this. Fraud is fraud. Perhaps there should be an exception written up for purposes of research, subject to appropriate standards, but the author could certainly have found a non-married person to assist in carrying out the research.
Because I don't think the police department was able to find one. Nor was the prosecutor. And I'm pretty sure they know what "assault" and "harassment" are.
But they instead decided to rely on some BS about making breaking a website's Terms of Service into a felony, [...]
You know, a cynical person might say they chose this particular charge in order to try to set a precedent in a case where a jury really won't want to deliver a "not guilty" verdict...
Look here: Noel Leeming and observe that the second vacuum cleaner listed is 2000W. (The first one listed doesn't specify a wattage and is too pricey anyway.)
Thanks! That link clarified matters considerably. To answer my own question, you have to extract the oxygen as well as the hydrogen or else the electrical circuit isn't complete. (Doh!)
Of course, I'd always assumed you had to extract both (although I'd never thought about why exactly) but the original article confused me by saying that platinum was efficient for the extraction of hydrogen but not for the extraction of oxygen - it wasn't obvious to me that what they really meant was that platinum was efficient at the cathode (where the hydrogen is produced) but not at the anode (where the oxygen is produced).
Here's the post I replied to in it's entirety: "I don't think so. I just chose a vacuum cleaner at random from a retailer web site and it uses 2000W. Mainstream electric heaters run from 1500W to 2400W." There is nothing in that qualifying it as peak power.
OK. In my original reply, I should probably have specified explicitly that I was responding to the claim about total available service. At the time I thought it was obvious, since otherwise what would a vacuum cleaner have to do with anything?
And it does have something to do with it,
Not in the context of estimating electricity usage, either peak or average, for the typical household. The typical household (depending on climate, of course) has mainstream electric heaters, not geothermal.
... unless you're suggesting that anyone installing a solar/hydrogen power system would also be using geothermal or heat pump systems? That sounds almost reasonable, given that you were talking about average rather than peak loads.
By the way, let's not bother having a pointless linguistic debate about the proper meaning of the word "censorship". The point is, the malicious moderation reduced the chances that I'll get an actual answer.
Oh please. Anyone using the default settings won't see the post. That's censorship. And if there's no applicable moderation option - which there wasn't, seeing as that post was neither off-topic nor a troll - then the solution is to not moderate it. (Of course, my reply was off-topic, so do feel free to moderate that accordingly.)
And perhaps you'd like to explain exactly what you think was "retarded" about my question? OK, I'm no chemist, but if there is an obvious answer it's yet to be provided.
Slashdot Mirror
Think for a moment about how much they'll have to spend to be able to carry 250GB/week/user. Still think they'll be saving money?
Most people don't use all of their bandwidth all the time. This is factored into the ISP pricing structure. If they were providing dedicated bandwidth it would be much more expensive, out of the reach of most households. Given this, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for ISPs to apply tiered data caps so as to keep the heavy users from making internet access more expensive for everyone else.
On the other hand, promoting a capped plan as unlimited is fraud.
I'm no expert, but according to our consultants if more than one aircon unit is serving the same area they will conflict and one or the other (or both) will be likely to fail. (This even applies to leaving a door open between two rooms that are served by different units.)
I've got to admit that I've never quite understood their explanations as to why this is, but FYI.
Nobody seems to have asked the obvious question: how much do you expect whoever opens the capsule to be willing to spend to extract the data?
So WHY should they be out of copyright? [...]
So tell me why, and do so with the idea that "for the good of society" is an argument I reject, [...]
Since the usual justification (and the original rationale) for the existence of copyright law in the first place is "for the good of society" this question is impossible to answer unless you first explain why you believe copyright law should exist.
Keep in mind that "for the good of the artists" is an argument I reject; aspiring artists are invited to get a real job instead. (I'm talking about new work here, existing work is of course a more complicated subject.)
[...] then keep in mind your opinion on the matter is no more authoritative than anyone else's.
Words to live by.
If you agree to help someone launder stolen money, that is a crime in most countries even if the money doesn't exist.
Not unreasonably, but as with blackmail it may be that it is more sensible not to prosecute so that the victims are not afraid to come forwards and report the crime.
Seeing as there is no "normal",
I suppose you've got some daft psychology theory to support this absurd premise. Common sense says otherwise.
HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU? I told YOU I don't give a fuck about your opinion, and you posted.
Why should I care whether you care about my opinion or not? (Are you under the impression that I'm posting for your benefit somehow?) Since I don't care about your opinions any more than you care about mine, why are you bothering to continue to post?
See, you say "Pot, kettle, black." when I do something I say YOU shouldn't do.
Such as replying to someone who doesn't care what you think?
In case you're wondering, this has nothing to do with my beleif system
I think the dispute was about the appropriate contextual definition of the word "civilization"; this is of course subjective, i.e., part of your belief system. I'm curious; what do you think the dispute was about?
I'd be interested in finally seeing you "refute" something,
Curious. I'd be interested in finally seeing you make anything resembling a logical argument, rather than increasingly desperate ad hominem attacks.
I win.
Were we having a name throwing competition? I'd certainly be willing to concede that much; you've demonstrating an admirable ability to string together insults in a vaguely entertaining way. Doesn't really address my original post though...
Yes, you're a milquetoast, useless, pathetic whiny fuck.
Exactly. Or, as those of us from civilised parts of the world refer to the condition, normal.
Seriously, though, see a shrink. You obviously have anger issues, or you wouldn't feel the need to verbally abuse strangers in response to mild criticism of your belief system.
I have a Master's Degree in behavioral psychology supporting my opinion,
Yeah, sure you do. That's why you're so very very well-balanced.
PS, I told you I don't care, and you posted a reply anyway,
Whatever. Pot, kettle, black.
in all seriousness, that is a very strong indicator of mental illness.
That's possible. I'm mildly obsessive, certainly, and my current medication (I have Hashimoto's thyroiditis) seems to exacerbate it somewhat.
If I'm distressing you, I suggest you don't bother replying, or at least refrain from saying anything I'm going to feel compelled to refute. :-)
Hmmm. I've always wondered why the US is so tolerant of bullying, this pretty much explains it. Too many of you never really grew out of the wild west.
PS, I don't care, I just want you to know you're a fucking moron.
You do realise your attitude would qualify as borderline psychotic in any civilised society? (On second thoughts, scratch "borderline".)
Because using a false name on the internet isn't illegal.
I don't understand why not. Using a false name off-line under circumstances where a real name is required is fraud; for example, if you took on a mortgage under a false name, even if the name didn't belong to anyone else, that would be fraud, wouldn't it?
Note that using an alias (in the internet sense of the word) isn't the same as using a false name in this context; if you use a name that doesn't belong to you, but don't claim that it is your real name, that's just an alias; if you are claiming that it is your real name, either explicitly or implicitly, then that's fraudulent.
In this case, the accused both implicitly claimed it was her real name, by using it to register with a site that does not allow the use of aliases, and probably explicitly claimed it was her real name during the correspondence with the victim. That would seem to be enough to count as fraud by any reasonable definition.
But there's no way that not following the ToS of a website should be a felony.
Agreed, in general. If the violation is deliberately fraudulent, that's another matter.
Sorry, but the Internet is a consequences-free zone.
Tell that to the RIAA!
Not that I -condone- this sort of 'justice', [...]
Neither do I ... but if it were legal for me to do, I would. Nod nod, wink wink, say no more. :-)
I guess i should get used to people not RTFAing anymore.
Well, yeah, probably. To be honest, I've already posted three or four times in this thread without RTFAing, although I have now - not that there was much more information there than provided in the summary.
The indictment they brought against her is not for what she said, it's for the fact that she broke myspace's Terms of Service.
I'm a bit puzzled by that. Surely under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act it should be possible to prosecute on the basis of fraud - providing false information - without bringing the ToS into it, except perhaps insofar as to show that the use of an alias was not normal practice. Does anyone understand why this wasn't possible?
From TFA:
They point out that even checking out the popular dating site Match.com for the mere purpose of research into this case would have turned the brief's author into a criminal, as she is married and the ToS prohibits those who are not single or separated from using the site.
You know, I don't think I have any problem with this. Fraud is fraud. Perhaps there should be an exception written up for purposes of research, subject to appropriate standards, but the author could certainly have found a non-married person to assist in carrying out the research.
Is suicide illegal in Missouri? How about "contributing to the delinquency of a minor?"
So, what you're saying is that you're an imbecile?
No, I don't believe that's what I said.
Go ahead, sue me.
For what, stupidity? Disagreeing with the truth may be stupid but it certainly isn't mean.
Straw man. My post was not malicious, and a drinking binge could not be considered a predictable consequence.
Because I don't think the police department was able to find one. Nor was the prosecutor. And I'm pretty sure they know what "assault" and "harassment" are.
But they instead decided to rely on some BS about making breaking a website's Terms of Service into a felony, [...]
You know, a cynical person might say they chose this particular charge in order to try to set a precedent in a case where a jury really won't want to deliver a "not guilty" verdict...
So whenever someone says anything mean to me, and it makes me depressed, I [should] have the right to sue back?
Damn straight.
Personally, I believe she should be prosecuted for murder. The details don't matter; malicious action resulting in a death is murder.
No doubt there's some daft precedent or silly fine print preventing this.
Look here: Noel Leeming and observe that the second vacuum cleaner listed is 2000W. (The first one listed doesn't specify a wattage and is too pricey anyway.)
Our circuits are usually 10A = 2400W.
Thanks! That link clarified matters considerably. To answer my own question, you have to extract the oxygen as well as the hydrogen or else the electrical circuit isn't complete. (Doh!)
Of course, I'd always assumed you had to extract both (although I'd never thought about why exactly) but the original article confused me by saying that platinum was efficient for the extraction of hydrogen but not for the extraction of oxygen - it wasn't obvious to me that what they really meant was that platinum was efficient at the cathode (where the hydrogen is produced) but not at the anode (where the oxygen is produced).
Here's the post I replied to in it's entirety: "I don't think so. I just chose a vacuum cleaner at random from a retailer web site and it uses 2000W. Mainstream electric heaters run from 1500W to 2400W." There is nothing in that qualifying it as peak power.
OK. In my original reply, I should probably have specified explicitly that I was responding to the claim about total available service. At the time I thought it was obvious, since otherwise what would a vacuum cleaner have to do with anything?
And it does have something to do with it,
Not in the context of estimating electricity usage, either peak or average, for the typical household. The typical household (depending on climate, of course) has mainstream electric heaters, not geothermal.
By the way, let's not bother having a pointless linguistic debate about the proper meaning of the word "censorship". The point is, the malicious moderation reduced the chances that I'll get an actual answer.
Oh please. Anyone using the default settings won't see the post. That's censorship. And if there's no applicable moderation option - which there wasn't, seeing as that post was neither off-topic nor a troll - then the solution is to not moderate it. (Of course, my reply was off-topic, so do feel free to moderate that accordingly.)
And perhaps you'd like to explain exactly what you think was "retarded" about my question? OK, I'm no chemist, but if there is an obvious answer it's yet to be provided.
And you use a vacuum cleaner more than an hour a day?
I'm talking about peak usage, not average usage, questioning the claim that the total available service to most houses is less than 5000W.
[...] a geothermal unit is more efficient that electric [...]
Well, yeah, but what's that got to do with anything? How many people have geothermal heating available?
So the Reuters article is incorrect in saying that the new system still uses platinum for extracting hydrogen?