The limeys are hypocrites and they know it; hence their false veeneer of respectability and decorum [...] beneath every stiff upper-lip is a contained YOB that would gladly jump at your throat at the earliest convenience
So let me get this straight; they're all either hypocrites or loudmouth yobs, and everyone who isn't a loudmouth yob is secretly a yob waiting to get out. Well, I'm sure you've examined the population thoroughly and arrived at this conclusion with complete scientific rigour, completely unaffected by bald-faced prejudice, and I am therefore completely inclined to agree. Yes sir!
Only one problem: they DO NOT WORK. They don't prevent crime, they don't help to punish crime. The desperate and ignorant are given a placebo and they welcome it, what a surprise!
the hackneyed line "he who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" is frankly, wrong. not morally wrong, logically wrong. for without security, a lot of that which you take for granted, including your entire ideological and political agenda, would not be possible. you can't educate, you can't earn a good income, you can't have peace of mind, you can't have civilization and progress without security
Remind me, was the security America has in other areas made possible by cameras watching the streets? I'll tell you: no. Fundamental foundation of society? It is, but the cameras have nothing to do with it.
Read the quote again: temporary security. You're talking about permanent security. This offers neither, only the illusion of the latter.
People need to get a grip and understand they cannot walk around in a protected bubble 24/7.
Funny you say that, because that's the reason they're putting the cameras there.
The simple fact is that the notion anything you do IN PUBLIC is in fact private, is utterly insane.
Rubbish. The difference is that with cameras, you are being watched. Without the cameras, people can see you and that's it. It's the difference between a passer-by and a stalker.
With lower caps, the ISP can provide faster traffic to all users as the power users will not be already using the bandwidth and can sell cheaper plans if they know a set of users will only be using 20 or 50 gig instead of potentially using 500 gig.
Don't be naive. You know they won't charge less; you'll get less. Oh sure, they could. But they won't, because people will still buy it at the current price.
I love what Comcast has pulled off with this. They set the cap at the perfect level for them - they're fucking you, but in such a way that complaining about it makes you look bad. Not that it's even relevant what you're downloading; ISP, the P is for provider not for police.
I just cannot imagine how a 250GB cap is a limitation in anyway unless you are a major torrent host.
Online backups. HD video streaming. Legitimate downloads. Game demos. More than one person on the connection doing the same.
Your usage seems unusually low. My family downloads between 40 and 85GB per month on a 3Mbit ADSL connection. With a faster connection the figure would be much larger (there's no limit with the ISP).
Yeah but will they pay for that? If an advert was present but got zero clicks, would the host get any money? If the answer is no then it's still a reasonable position to take.
I agree completely! The options are mutually exclusive, when you think about it. The concept of a 'Download this video' button on a website with streaming video is utterly ridiculous -- nay, utterly impossible. That would require some kind if 'hyper' linking technology, a ludicrous fantasy in a world with browser-embedded video players such as ours. They don't care what the cost is, those damn those Linux nerds will ruin the Internet for all of us normal folk!
if everyone around you (example... your current employer and any other possible employer) behaved atheistically, improving primarily themselves without regard to others
There's no such thing as 'Atheistic behaviour' because atheism is entirely orthogonal to behaviour to begin with. Atheists are just a set of people defined by lack of belief, nothing more. Characterising them as being defined that way is nonsense, like saying "Bald behaviour" as if all bald people were defined by 'acting bald' and not by the simple, unrelated fact that they have no hair.
It's not different than the oft-repeated claim that the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel, which ignores the fact that steel loses much of its strength well before it actually melts.
The utter credulousness this displays is appalling. I mean, doesn't everyone do metalwork/engineering in school at some point? One of the first things I did was heat steel to weaken it, allowing it to be shaped with a hammer... How does someone avoid knowing that heating up metal weakens it? It's mind-boggling.
In a manner of speaking, yes. Remember what happened to that Gamespot reviewer because he gave Kane and Lynch a bad review? They depend on income from the people whose product they're reviewing. If they badmouth it too much, they stand to lose money in future.
I find it difficult to give much credence to reviews on commercial sites, especially if they're reviews of heavily advertised games. Most of the reviews I've read about GTA4 and MGS4 were so glowing it was basically hype and nothing else. Just advertising. You'd get maybe ten words of criticism from them, heavily downplayed, and then later on you hear what the game is actually like from people posting on game forums.
He was selling these. The summary is grossly misleading. I've seen them on Amazon and in shops, I would never have guessed they were illegal. In light of that the punishment seems retarded.
I've seen them in shops here in Ireland, on Amazon, etc. It wouldn't have crossed my mind that they're illegal. If he was really just selling these then the jail time seems totally absurd...
Re:You could build a TOR relay into Firefox
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
What idiot modded this troll, why?
The limeys are hypocrites and they know it; hence their false veeneer of respectability and decorum [...] beneath every stiff upper-lip is a contained YOB that would gladly jump at your throat at the earliest convenience
So let me get this straight; they're all either hypocrites or loudmouth yobs, and everyone who isn't a loudmouth yob is secretly a yob waiting to get out. Well, I'm sure you've examined the population thoroughly and arrived at this conclusion with complete scientific rigour, completely unaffected by bald-faced prejudice, and I am therefore completely inclined to agree. Yes sir!
Someone really should do a list. I'd be interested in seeing it.
the hackneyed line "he who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" is frankly, wrong. not morally wrong, logically wrong. for without security, a lot of that which you take for granted, including your entire ideological and political agenda, would not be possible. you can't educate, you can't earn a good income, you can't have peace of mind, you can't have civilization and progress without security
Remind me, was the security America has in other areas made possible by cameras watching the streets? I'll tell you: no. Fundamental foundation of society? It is, but the cameras have nothing to do with it.
Read the quote again: temporary security. You're talking about permanent security. This offers neither, only the illusion of the latter.
People need to get a grip and understand they cannot walk around in a protected bubble 24/7.
Funny you say that, because that's the reason they're putting the cameras there.
The simple fact is that the notion anything you do IN PUBLIC is in fact private, is utterly insane.
Rubbish. The difference is that with cameras, you are being watched. Without the cameras, people can see you and that's it. It's the difference between a passer-by and a stalker.
With lower caps, the ISP can provide faster traffic to all users as the power users will not be already using the bandwidth and can sell cheaper plans if they know a set of users will only be using 20 or 50 gig instead of potentially using 500 gig.
Don't be naive. You know they won't charge less; you'll get less. Oh sure, they could. But they won't, because people will still buy it at the current price.
I love what Comcast has pulled off with this. They set the cap at the perfect level for them - they're fucking you, but in such a way that complaining about it makes you look bad. Not that it's even relevant what you're downloading; ISP, the P is for provider not for police.
Forgot to mention: that's 30 euros per month, located in Ireland.
I just cannot imagine how a 250GB cap is a limitation in anyway unless you are a major torrent host.
Online backups. HD video streaming. Legitimate downloads. Game demos. More than one person on the connection doing the same.
Your usage seems unusually low. My family downloads between 40 and 85GB per month on a 3Mbit ADSL connection. With a faster connection the figure would be much larger (there's no limit with the ISP).
It doesn't even look like part of the page body. It looks like a gigantic header that goes straight to the comments...
Still, I think the best
part is how the edit
box is only this wide.
Perfect for all those
people who still use
320x240 as their screen
resolution.
The Universe is for porn. -God
Just download more RAM if you need it!
We're working on it, have patience!
*Puts on shades*
OWWWWWwwwwww!
Terminator? Why, Cyberdyne have one of these too, called HAL.
By the way... nice website:
This Account Has Been Suspended Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.
Yeah but will they pay for that? If an advert was present but got zero clicks, would the host get any money? If the answer is no then it's still a reasonable position to take.
I agree completely! The options are mutually exclusive, when you think about it. The concept of a 'Download this video' button on a website with streaming video is utterly ridiculous -- nay, utterly impossible. That would require some kind if 'hyper' linking technology, a ludicrous fantasy in a world with browser-embedded video players such as ours. They don't care what the cost is, those damn those Linux nerds will ruin the Internet for all of us normal folk!
if everyone around you (example ... your current employer and any other possible employer) behaved atheistically, improving primarily themselves without regard to others
There's no such thing as 'Atheistic behaviour' because atheism is entirely orthogonal to behaviour to begin with. Atheists are just a set of people defined by lack of belief, nothing more. Characterising them as being defined that way is nonsense, like saying "Bald behaviour" as if all bald people were defined by 'acting bald' and not by the simple, unrelated fact that they have no hair.
I'm an arbitrary round number, you insensitive clod!
Yes, apparently American engineering is rather substandard.
:p
Oh, if you were trying to make an argument for a conspiracy, you might want to add an argument on top of that premise and spooky noises.
It's not different than the oft-repeated claim that the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel, which ignores the fact that steel loses much of its strength well before it actually melts.
The utter credulousness this displays is appalling. I mean, doesn't everyone do metalwork/engineering in school at some point? One of the first things I did was heat steel to weaken it, allowing it to be shaped with a hammer... How does someone avoid knowing that heating up metal weakens it? It's mind-boggling.
Are reviewers on crack?
In a manner of speaking, yes. Remember what happened to that Gamespot reviewer because he gave Kane and Lynch a bad review? They depend on income from the people whose product they're reviewing. If they badmouth it too much, they stand to lose money in future.
I find it difficult to give much credence to reviews on commercial sites, especially if they're reviews of heavily advertised games. Most of the reviews I've read about GTA4 and MGS4 were so glowing it was basically hype and nothing else. Just advertising. You'd get maybe ten words of criticism from them, heavily downplayed, and then later on you hear what the game is actually like from people posting on game forums.
He was selling these. The summary is grossly misleading. I've seen them on Amazon and in shops, I would never have guessed they were illegal. In light of that the punishment seems retarded.
I've seen them in shops here in Ireland, on Amazon, etc. It wouldn't have crossed my mind that they're illegal. If he was really just selling these then the jail time seems totally absurd...
Story: 'China Blocks Firefox'