So in researching a reply to a comment above, limit does come into play (as the article calls out this guy's usage was 30,000 times higher than an average user
The ToS section 4.3. Restrictions on Use states (among other things) "use it for high volume purposes" http://my.verizon.com/central/vzc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=vzc_help_policies&id=TOS
What does "high volume" mean... well I'm sure 30,000 times that of an average user would qualify
The ToS is everything here, and the ISP can choose to dictate its use as they feel
If those terms are unacceptable to you, you can choose to not use the service
As for fine print... not really. It was pretty easy to find the section in Verizon's online ToS, found with a simple Google search and a very quick scan of the document http://my.verizon.com/central/vzc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=vzc_help_policies&id=TOS
Section 4.3. 4. AUTHORIZED USER, ACCOUNT USE, AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
3. Restrictions on Use. The Service is a consumer grade service and is not designed for or intended to be used for any commercial purpose. You may not resell, re-provision or rent the Service, (either for a fee or without charge) or allow third parties to use the Service via wired, wireless or other means. For example, you may not provide Internet access to third parties through a wired or wireless connection or use the Service to facilitate public Internet access (such as through a Wi-Fi hotspot), use it for high volume purposes, or engage in similar activities that constitute such use (commercial or non-commercial). If you subscribe to a Broadband Service, you may connect multiple computers/devices within a single home to your modem and/or router to access the Service, but only through a single Verizon-issued IP address. You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service.
I'm sure someone has already said this but my first thought after reading this was
This guy was not in violation because of how much data he was using, but rather what he was doing to accomplish it
The amount of data he was using just made him stick out for further investigation
Verizon is clearly in the right that this guy is in violation of the ToS (love it or hate it, if you agree to it you are expected to abide it)
If you dont like whats in a ToS, or the concept of ToS the only option you have is find an alternative provider or go without said service
Is LEGO the problem, or retail stores, or kids?
on
Has Lego Sold Out?
·
· Score: 1
Honestly, I dont see this to be an issue.
I have 3 kids ranging from 11 to 4 who are very much into LEGOs.
My two daughters are into the LEGO friends sets, while all three enjoy the various Harry Potter and LotR sets as well,havent quite got them sold on Star Wars yet:(, but in all cases, they build what the instructions say once, and then we never see that again. It gets broken down, and incorporated with the rest of their LEGOs.
So has LEGO sold out? They still have their original set series and assorted blocks, and options to create your own, and sets for the "billion-dollar franchises"
My kids truly enjoy building worlds with some of their favorite movies, using blocks or characters they can associate, but their creations are still original.
For Christmas this year each of my kids are getting a (small) LEGO set from one franchise or another, and a larger gift of 650 assorted blocks, no sets, no instructions, but we had to go online to get the latter.
I find Toys''R''Us to be less guilty of this, but most stores do not offer the LEGO original sets, or if they do its very small section on the shelves.
As for the kids, well i know mine enjoy LEGOs as they should, but for any kid who cannot do more than follow set instructions, their parents aught to throw away those instructions and teach their kids to enjoy imagination.
In my opinion, if there is any issue, it is in what stores choose to stock on the shelves.
Paranoid people start wondering about what if and maybes, quick derail the project before all of civilization falls.
While there are instances where privacy concerns are legitimate, in cases like this it is my opinion (yes I'm entitled to it, no you dont have to like it or agree with it, and so what if you dont) that the only people concerned with the what if's and maybe's are those who do not abide the law.
I've been using iGoogle since '05, I feel like this is a loss but I'm already moving over to Google Reader and getting used to the new interface... at first I'm "Meh" about Reader, but I dont hate it, yet.
Please provide a source for this.... given that I know there isn't and many others have provided sources to the contrary I'm guessing that you are one of the 0.5% previously referenced and are sore about what amount to baseless complaints, so you make up stories to suit your view of reality.
And before you retort with "fanboy" comments, let me save you the time
I am a Blizzard fanboy, after 20 years of awesome I believe they deserve it.
And on top of that, in the company I work for, anything attached to company resources becomes company property so this division head would be out his server as well
+1
This is truly sad reality. I can remember standing in a McDonald's for morning breakfast back in ~2008, this store had a TV with CNN running and the news anchor made a comment that Russia had moved tanks into Georgia. The person taking my order quite literally asked how it was possible that Russia could get tanks into the USA
"Whats next?" is about as good an argument as "What if we didn't?"
There validity is relative to the observer.
I say, "What if we didn't" do this, and some buzzed driver who refused a breathalyzer but not otherwise detain-able causes an accident that kills your spouse/kid/sibling/parent/someone you don't or otherwise wouldn't have ever know... than what?
I look at "What next?" and think your crazy to dismiss something due to chance of misuse or escalation.
I'm sure you, or others, look at "What if we didn't?" and think "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"
Are either points inherently wrong... I say no, others will disagree and stick to their side but those arguments are whats going to/is tearing us apart.
Best story I've got this year is attempting to help a customer repair a corrupted Exchange information store.
What we found while helping this customer run the repair tools was that they had put their Exchange databases on a software RAID1 between an internal SATA drive and an external USB drive...
All the while, the server in question already had an internal hardware RAID controller with a RAID5 with roughly 3 times available space as the size of their Exchange databases.
On top of that, their backup was a backup to disk folder, on the same software RAID1.
It appeared that the internal SATA drive, which was not properly mounted in the first place due to the fact that the server chassis was designed for hot-plug SAS on a backplane, had failed some time prior, and now the USB drive was starting to experience excessive bad blocks.
We were able to repair their database after moving it to the hardware RAID.
Thank you for your sarcasm and rhetoric, you contributed greatly to this discussion.
But maybe I'm wrong, I mean its not like there are any examples of what some idiot with a camera won't do to get a shot they can sell to TMZ for 15 minutes of fame.
There's just no possible way that someone who is more interested in catching something "juicy", could possibly get in harms way.
Onlookers is always a possible concern, but I think you failed to catch my comparison to paparazzi, who are anything but casual/passive onlookers.
Your position on this topic seems obvious from your sarcastic remarks, but I merely stated my opinions and do not expect anyone to believe what I believe. I am merely trying to consider ALL of the ramifications of specifically making it legal for anyone to do so.
Regarding my suggestion, is it a perfect solution? No not by farm I'm certain, but I believe that something along those lines is a far better solution than inviting the public to become involved, because they will be getting involved for the wrong reasons.
Irregardless of whether police should or should not be recorded...
Making it legal to do so will result in creating a new form of paparazzi that chase down any and all police action. Anyone with an imagination should be able to think of a reason that will not be a good thing.
Can you imagine unnecessary people involving themselves in;
A high-speed police chase?
A hostage scenario?
A drug bust that turns violent?
Not only will these people trying to get that that video footage be putting themselves in harm way, they will be splitting the attention of the officers to ensure their safety.
On another point, when these officers are being recorded, so are the suspected criminals, and possibly even victims. What about their privacy rights? What about justice not being served when a criminal gets his case thrown out for video evidence going viral on the internet before his trial, turning the jury pool against him?
What about someone recording a simple traffic stop? Do you want your face all over the internet for speeding?
I am all for law enforcement accountability, my suggestion is that they be recorded by devices on their person, for review by a 3rd party created for that purpose for review of actions.
It sounds to me as though your perspective for the usage of this device is skewed. Google's made it clear that everything about this device is web centric, including storage of files
Slashdot Mirror
So in researching a reply to a comment above, limit does come into play (as the article calls out this guy's usage was 30,000 times higher than an average user
The ToS section 4.3. Restrictions on Use states (among other things) "use it for high volume purposes"
http://my.verizon.com/central/vzc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=vzc_help_policies&id=TOS
What does "high volume" mean... well I'm sure 30,000 times that of an average user would qualify
The ToS is everything here, and the ISP can choose to dictate its use as they feel
If those terms are unacceptable to you, you can choose to not use the service
As for fine print... not really. It was pretty easy to find the section in Verizon's online ToS, found with a simple Google search and a very quick scan of the document
http://my.verizon.com/central/vzc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=vzc_help_policies&id=TOS
Section 4.3.
4. AUTHORIZED USER, ACCOUNT USE, AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
3. Restrictions on Use. The Service is a consumer grade service and is not designed for or intended to be used for any commercial purpose. You may not resell, re-provision or rent the Service, (either for a fee or without charge) or allow third parties to use the Service via wired, wireless or other means. For example, you may not provide Internet access to third parties through a wired or wireless connection or use the Service to facilitate public Internet access (such as through a Wi-Fi hotspot), use it for high volume purposes, or engage in similar activities that constitute such use (commercial or non-commercial). If you subscribe to a Broadband Service, you may connect multiple computers/devices within a single home to your modem and/or router to access the Service, but only through a single Verizon-issued IP address. You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service.
I'm sure someone has already said this but my first thought after reading this was
This guy was not in violation because of how much data he was using, but rather what he was doing to accomplish it
The amount of data he was using just made him stick out for further investigation
Verizon is clearly in the right that this guy is in violation of the ToS (love it or hate it, if you agree to it you are expected to abide it)
If you dont like whats in a ToS, or the concept of ToS the only option you have is find an alternative provider or go without said service
Honestly, I dont see this to be an issue. ,havent quite got them sold on Star Wars yet:(, but in all cases, they build what the instructions say once, and then we never see that again. It gets broken down, and incorporated with the rest of their LEGOs.
I have 3 kids ranging from 11 to 4 who are very much into LEGOs.
My two daughters are into the LEGO friends sets, while all three enjoy the various Harry Potter and LotR sets as well
So has LEGO sold out? They still have their original set series and assorted blocks, and options to create your own, and sets for the "billion-dollar franchises"
My kids truly enjoy building worlds with some of their favorite movies, using blocks or characters they can associate, but their creations are still original.
For Christmas this year each of my kids are getting a (small) LEGO set from one franchise or another, and a larger gift of 650 assorted blocks, no sets, no instructions, but we had to go online to get the latter.
I find Toys''R''Us to be less guilty of this, but most stores do not offer the LEGO original sets, or if they do its very small section on the shelves.
As for the kids, well i know mine enjoy LEGOs as they should, but for any kid who cannot do more than follow set instructions, their parents aught to throw away those instructions and teach their kids to enjoy imagination.
In my opinion, if there is any issue, it is in what stores choose to stock on the shelves.
Paranoid people start wondering about what if and maybes, quick derail the project before all of civilization falls.
While there are instances where privacy concerns are legitimate, in cases like this it is my opinion (yes I'm entitled to it, no you dont have to like it or agree with it, and so what if you dont) that the only people concerned with the what if's and maybe's are those who do not abide the law.
iGoogle wasnt about signing in to search the web. In fact you don't even have to sign in to use iGoogle as an RSS reader or any of its many widgets.
No, I'm "Meh" about Reader, for now
I've been using iGoogle since '05, I feel like this is a loss but I'm already moving over to Google Reader and getting used to the new interface... at first I'm "Meh" about Reader, but I dont hate it, yet.
OS upgrades are a bad idea anyways, fresh install and no worries
All of you have backed up your data already... right?
Play the game, you dont get that level of control
Well it was sufficient for about 10 minutes of distraction
Before you know it, he's the one wearing the fancy clothes/jewelery that's dropping precious metals and stones in the street
Please provide a source for this.... given that I know there isn't and many others have provided sources to the contrary I'm guessing that you are one of the 0.5% previously referenced and are sore about what amount to baseless complaints, so you make up stories to suit your view of reality.
And before you retort with "fanboy" comments, let me save you the time
I am a Blizzard fanboy, after 20 years of awesome I believe they deserve it.
But that also does not mean that GameFly should be closing up shop either.
This
And on top of that, in the company I work for, anything attached to company resources becomes company property so this division head would be out his server as well
+1
This is truly sad reality. I can remember standing in a McDonald's for morning breakfast back in ~2008, this store had a TV with CNN running and the news anchor made a comment that Russia had moved tanks into Georgia. The person taking my order quite literally asked how it was possible that Russia could get tanks into the USA
And at 6, how this inappropriate joke will affect not only the world, but individual US citizens.
Hey, they must be on to something, I've done forgotten what it is that article said, guess I didnt absorb enough of it.
"Whats next?" is about as good an argument as "What if we didn't?"
There validity is relative to the observer.
I say, "What if we didn't" do this, and some buzzed driver who refused a breathalyzer but not otherwise detain-able causes an accident that kills your spouse/kid/sibling/parent/someone you don't or otherwise wouldn't have ever know... than what?
I look at "What next?" and think your crazy to dismiss something due to chance of misuse or escalation.
I'm sure you, or others, look at "What if we didn't?" and think "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"
Are either points inherently wrong... I say no, others will disagree and stick to their side but those arguments are whats going to/is tearing us apart.
.... doesn't mean you should.
Best story I've got this year is attempting to help a customer repair a corrupted Exchange information store.
What we found while helping this customer run the repair tools was that they had put their Exchange databases on a software RAID1 between an internal SATA drive and an external USB drive...
All the while, the server in question already had an internal hardware RAID controller with a RAID5 with roughly 3 times available space as the size of their Exchange databases.
On top of that, their backup was a backup to disk folder, on the same software RAID1.
It appeared that the internal SATA drive, which was not properly mounted in the first place due to the fact that the server chassis was designed for hot-plug SAS on a backplane, had failed some time prior, and now the USB drive was starting to experience excessive bad blocks.
We were able to repair their database after moving it to the hardware RAID.
Thank you for your sarcasm and rhetoric, you contributed greatly to this discussion.
But maybe I'm wrong, I mean its not like there are any examples of what some idiot with a camera won't do to get a shot they can sell to TMZ for 15 minutes of fame.
There's just no possible way that someone who is more interested in catching something "juicy", could possibly get in harms way.
Onlookers is always a possible concern, but I think you failed to catch my comparison to paparazzi, who are anything but casual/passive onlookers.
Your position on this topic seems obvious from your sarcastic remarks, but I merely stated my opinions and do not expect anyone to believe what I believe. I am merely trying to consider ALL of the ramifications of specifically making it legal for anyone to do so.
Regarding my suggestion, is it a perfect solution? No not by farm I'm certain, but I believe that something along those lines is a far better solution than inviting the public to become involved, because they will be getting involved for the wrong reasons.
Irregardless of whether police should or should not be recorded...
Making it legal to do so will result in creating a new form of paparazzi that chase down any and all police action. Anyone with an imagination should be able to think of a reason that will not be a good thing.
Can you imagine unnecessary people involving themselves in;
A high-speed police chase?
A hostage scenario?
A drug bust that turns violent?
Not only will these people trying to get that that video footage be putting themselves in harm way, they will be splitting the attention of the officers to ensure their safety.
On another point, when these officers are being recorded, so are the suspected criminals, and possibly even victims. What about their privacy rights? What about justice not being served when a criminal gets his case thrown out for video evidence going viral on the internet before his trial, turning the jury pool against him?
What about someone recording a simple traffic stop? Do you want your face all over the internet for speeding?
I am all for law enforcement accountability, my suggestion is that they be recorded by devices on their person, for review by a 3rd party created for that purpose for review of actions.
It sounds to me as though your perspective for the usage of this device is skewed. Google's made it clear that everything about this device is web centric, including storage of files
I meant to include
This is not news
Last Updated: Monday, 16 February 2004, 15:31 GMT
My first thought reading the headline was, another one? Wait there's already a diamond star named Lucy.