I'm using GeoIP restrictions on ClassHelper.org. Are you browsing from a U.S./Australia/U.K.-based IP address? If you are, and are still getting blocked, I'd like to know about it. Thanks!
I don't condone prior instances of fraud (which is precisely what they were perpetrating). I'm simply making the statement that I support the practice of well-defined contractual limits on service. It was never "okay" for them to sell unlimited service that was actually (and in fact, arbitrarily) limited.
If I want to exceed the bandwidth cap alloted under the consumer-grade service, I'm free to upgrade to business-class service.
Oddly enough, I've been seeing an increase in visitors browsing my site at 800x600 over the last couple of months. It's at 11% now, and probably still climbing.
Maybe lower-resolution devices really are on the usage upswing.
You're getting a raw deal, no doubt about it. However, the majority of populated regions in the U.S. don't suffer from the problems you've described. ISPs are going to do what appeases the majority.
Thank you, that's exactly my point. People make a decision based on performance versus restrictions; if I have a provider that gives me great download speeds, but I really need an account without a monthly total download cap, I'll either upgrade my account or switch to another (potentially slower) provider that doesn't do caps.
People rarely find themselves in a position where they truly don't have any choice of Internet providers.
So have I. The point is, if your Internet connectivity is sufficiently important to your livelihood or way of life, you will consider it as a major factor when renting an apartment, house, etc. Otherwise, business claim service is almost always available at a higher price.
I didn't claim Internet connectivity was bad around Naval installations. I surmise you've never lived on a base; there is a distinct lack of competition for family housing at each facility, with a "preferred provider" pretty much owning the area in many cases.
I'm also not dismissing claims on an individual basis; I've lived all over the country and am well aware that in some areas options are truly limited. However, that does not describe the vast majority of habitable areas in the U.S. Prove me wrong.
I disagree. The more likely option is that this is a move to discourage the use of Internet-based movie services. Such services directly affect Comcast's advertising and on-demand revenue in a negative manner.
I don't disagree with you in principle. However, the practical truth of the matter is that Comcast's customer base is largly comprised of people that wouldn't know a TCP/IP packet from a hand grenade, and largely don't care about these issues.
As long as Dad can browse CNN.com (or other, shall we say, less savory sites), Mom can check her email, and little Joey can play his flash games, there will be no mass uprising.
Again, I'm not trying the minimize the fact that voting with your wallet is a good answer, just reminding everyone that the number of wallets involved is statistically small.
I consider content the TCP stream that delivers my (X)HTML, CSS, binary data, etc. How, exactly, is inserting additional data into the stream not modifying the content?
I have no problem with the 250 GB cap. I'd much prefer ISPs clearly state their actual usage limits, as opposed to the current widespread practice of selling "unlimited" bandwidth plans that are anything but unlimited.
If consumers dislike a particular ISPs plan, they can voice their opinions and vote with their wallets. Yes, I understand this comment is probably going to generate dozens of "but I can't get another ISP!" replies, and I preemptively dispute the validity of most of them. I'm living on a Naval installation, and I could drop my current cable provider for a number of DSL providers. Would I have the the same download speeds? Probably not, but the option is still there.
We make tradeoffs when buying services from various vendors. With respect to ISPs, some offer higher speeds but have crappy terms of service. Other providers offer "business" level accounts that don't have any caps aside from throughput, and offer static IPs and unblocked ports. You get what you pay for, and the market as a whole decides what's worth offering.
I believe we're simply starting to see the more obvious signs that our species is performing its pre-programmed task exceptionally well: outdoing ourselves. I choose to view this situation optimistically; we're already beginning to converge with silicon-based technologies, and further developments along this line show great promise for the evolution (convergence?) of our species.
We stopped evolving along a "natural" biological path a long time ago; what differentiates us is our ability to store, analyze, and transmit information. The increasing influence of computing and networks in our lives is no more than the natural extension of what our relatives in the distant past were doing when they first scratched symbols in the dirt.
I second that position, having lived in Connecticut for almost two years, now residing in Washington state. I met a *lot* of racists in New England... if anything, they seemed more open about it than those I knew growing up in Georgia. They're alive and well in WA too, spreading the Pacific Northwest brand of bigotry.
True statements, unfortunately. I'm hoping the next administration might do things differently; hopefully nothing truly important was transmitted in the clear.
Why would someone in the White House use an insecure communications channel to send sensitive correspondence to a foreign official? End-to-end encryption is used in such situations.
Information transmitted from government installations is compartmentalized according to its classification level. Unclassified systems don't reside on the same networks as those intended for classified purposes.
I'm a Navy communications nerd; this is kinda what I do for a living.
Really? You believe that a company be forced to support its product on hardware it was never intended to run on?
Who says they have to support it on other vendors' platforms? Microsoft doesn't do free Windows support Windows on anyone's platform. That's what service contracts are for.
Maybe Apple will wind up offering support to customers who bought their operating system with a Mac, and set up a system to charge support fees to customers who went with another vendor. It's also possible new vendors will offer their own software support contracts.
Yet another case for end-to-end encryption. Folks using the public Internet for sensitive communications without employing crypto, are already in a bad position.
This data looks good until you consider the fact that a major profit center for certain Chinese nationals is the practice of compromising huge numbers of servers hosted outside China, for the purpose of sending SPAM that won't be stopped by GeoIP restrictions.
I interpret it to me mean the poster isn't a fan of the multitude of Chinese nationals who use cracking tools to compromise machines operating in other geographic regions, with the express purpose of using them to send SPAM while getting around GeoIP restrictions.
I take it you haven't administered a network of any reasonable size recently, at least not one which hosts mail servers...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm using GeoIP restrictions on ClassHelper.org. Are you browsing from a U.S./Australia/U.K.-based IP address? If you are, and are still getting blocked, I'd like to know about it. Thanks!
I don't condone prior instances of fraud (which is precisely what they were perpetrating). I'm simply making the statement that I support the practice of well-defined contractual limits on service. It was never "okay" for them to sell unlimited service that was actually (and in fact, arbitrarily) limited.
If I want to exceed the bandwidth cap alloted under the consumer-grade service, I'm free to upgrade to business-class service.
Oddly enough, I've been seeing an increase in visitors browsing my site at 800x600 over the last couple of months. It's at 11% now, and probably still climbing.
Maybe lower-resolution devices really are on the usage upswing.
The parent link is valid. It points to YouTube content showing off the laptop.
No, that's not what I'm saying. The preferred provider is typically for cable service. There's nothing stopping me from switching to DSL.
You're getting a raw deal, no doubt about it. However, the majority of populated regions in the U.S. don't suffer from the problems you've described. ISPs are going to do what appeases the majority.
Thank you, that's exactly my point. People make a decision based on performance versus restrictions; if I have a provider that gives me great download speeds, but I really need an account without a monthly total download cap, I'll either upgrade my account or switch to another (potentially slower) provider that doesn't do caps.
People rarely find themselves in a position where they truly don't have any choice of Internet providers.
I have lived in communities with only one option.
So have I. The point is, if your Internet connectivity is sufficiently important to your livelihood or way of life, you will consider it as a major factor when renting an apartment, house, etc. Otherwise, business claim service is almost always available at a higher price.
I didn't claim Internet connectivity was bad around Naval installations. I surmise you've never lived on a base; there is a distinct lack of competition for family housing at each facility, with a "preferred provider" pretty much owning the area in many cases.
I'm also not dismissing claims on an individual basis; I've lived all over the country and am well aware that in some areas options are truly limited. However, that does not describe the vast majority of habitable areas in the U.S. Prove me wrong.
This is a move to slow down P2P.
I disagree. The more likely option is that this is a move to discourage the use of Internet-based movie services. Such services directly affect Comcast's advertising and on-demand revenue in a negative manner.
I don't disagree with you in principle. However, the practical truth of the matter is that Comcast's customer base is largly comprised of people that wouldn't know a TCP/IP packet from a hand grenade, and largely don't care about these issues.
As long as Dad can browse CNN.com (or other, shall we say, less savory sites), Mom can check her email, and little Joey can play his flash games, there will be no mass uprising.
Again, I'm not trying the minimize the fact that voting with your wallet is a good answer, just reminding everyone that the number of wallets involved is statistically small.
... inserting forged protocol packets ...
I consider content the TCP stream that delivers my (X)HTML, CSS, binary data, etc. How, exactly, is inserting additional data into the stream not modifying the content?
I have no problem with the 250 GB cap. I'd much prefer ISPs clearly state their actual usage limits, as opposed to the current widespread practice of selling "unlimited" bandwidth plans that are anything but unlimited.
If consumers dislike a particular ISPs plan, they can voice their opinions and vote with their wallets. Yes, I understand this comment is probably going to generate dozens of "but I can't get another ISP!" replies, and I preemptively dispute the validity of most of them. I'm living on a Naval installation, and I could drop my current cable provider for a number of DSL providers. Would I have the the same download speeds? Probably not, but the option is still there.
We make tradeoffs when buying services from various vendors. With respect to ISPs, some offer higher speeds but have crappy terms of service. Other providers offer "business" level accounts that don't have any caps aside from throughput, and offer static IPs and unblocked ports. You get what you pay for, and the market as a whole decides what's worth offering.
No, "rediculous" is clearly a derivative work of "ridiculous", and would violate the "no derivative works" clause of Webster's copyright:
Ridiculous by Webster's Dictionary is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Prepare to be boarded.
I believe we're simply starting to see the more obvious signs that our species is performing its pre-programmed task exceptionally well: outdoing ourselves. I choose to view this situation optimistically; we're already beginning to converge with silicon-based technologies, and further developments along this line show great promise for the evolution (convergence?) of our species.
We stopped evolving along a "natural" biological path a long time ago; what differentiates us is our ability to store, analyze, and transmit information. The increasing influence of computing and networks in our lives is no more than the natural extension of what our relatives in the distant past were doing when they first scratched symbols in the dirt.
I second that position, having lived in Connecticut for almost two years, now residing in Washington state. I met a *lot* of racists in New England... if anything, they seemed more open about it than those I knew growing up in Georgia. They're alive and well in WA too, spreading the Pacific Northwest brand of bigotry.
(active duty radioman, USN)
These are very good points; denial of service can be as bad for business as improper disclosure.
True statements, unfortunately. I'm hoping the next administration might do things differently; hopefully nothing truly important was transmitted in the clear.
Thank you for your service!
Why would someone in the White House use an insecure communications channel to send sensitive correspondence to a foreign official? End-to-end encryption is used in such situations.
Information transmitted from government installations is compartmentalized according to its classification level. Unclassified systems don't reside on the same networks as those intended for classified purposes.
I'm a Navy communications nerd; this is kinda what I do for a living.
Really? You believe that a company be forced to support its product on hardware it was never intended to run on?
Who says they have to support it on other vendors' platforms? Microsoft doesn't do free Windows support Windows on anyone's platform. That's what service contracts are for.
Maybe Apple will wind up offering support to customers who bought their operating system with a Mac, and set up a system to charge support fees to customers who went with another vendor. It's also possible new vendors will offer their own software support contracts.
Yet another case for end-to-end encryption. Folks using the public Internet for sensitive communications without employing crypto, are already in a bad position.
Sensitive government communications ride on networks that operate separately from the public Internet.
This data looks good until you consider the fact that a major profit center for certain Chinese nationals is the practice of compromising huge numbers of servers hosted outside China, for the purpose of sending SPAM that won't be stopped by GeoIP restrictions.
Who's making assumptions now?
I interpret it to me mean the poster isn't a fan of the multitude of Chinese nationals who use cracking tools to compromise machines operating in other geographic regions, with the express purpose of using them to send SPAM while getting around GeoIP restrictions.
I take it you haven't administered a network of any reasonable size recently, at least not one which hosts mail servers...
No matter who you bank with, you can make one-time payments using the PayPal Plugin, even to merchants who only accept traditional bank cards.