Blockbuster's online offering is far superior to Netflix's.
Netflix constantly sent me random movies from my queue instead of using anything remotely resembling the order I'd prioritized them in. IIRC, they were everntually sued for that.
Blockbuster only seems to have tried that twice with me and a single email to their customer care address resolved that and got me an apology along with it.
I can also drop my total access movies off at the local LackLuster and trade them for free in-store rentals. And they ship my next online rentals the next day.
I've been running my own mail server for the last seven years just so that I could have IMAP access.
In the last year or two my anti-spam measures have become less and less effective and because I'm no longer a sysadmin at an isp I just haven't bothered keeping up with newer/better ways of spam filtering.
And then there's that Cyrus IMAP sucks balls, and just try to keep it working with qmail-ldap after you've done a dist-upgrade. And then give up on qmail-ldap and lose the ability to use dash-extensions. Bummer.
Methinks that I'll be switching to gmail to handle email for my domains and turning off my IMAP daemon. I'll just run an IMAP client there to have my own backup archive. I'll keep my own SMTP daemon running so that I can get back the dash-ext functionality.
And then I'll point squirrelmail at gmail so that I can keep using my own web-based front-end from places that block web-based email.:-D
My "better idea" was meant to show how ridiculous the situation is. It's intended to put responsibility where it should be (on parents) but also points out the degree to which it restricts parents in how they raise their children
You cannot possibly equate publishing Doom with accosting children. That's absolutely ridiculous and more than a little offensive.
Legislation is no substitute for parents' being actively involved in their childrens' lives. If you don't want your children to play violent games, don't buy such things for them. If you're concerned that they'll play them at a friend's house, ensure that your childs' friends' parents' values are similar to your own. YOU are responsible for raising your children.
Here's a better way to accomplish the desired result- make it illegal for children to possess/play such games and have consequences for parents who fail their children in this regard.
I'm saying that ISPs should pay each other what's fair.
The only remotely reasonable idea behind net neutrality is that simple peering agreements are no longer enough to keep certain ISPs from footing a disproportionate amount of the costs of delivering content.
So in place of peering agreements we put in a reciprocal compensation scheme. You and I pay our webTube bills, the content providers pay their fatPipe bills, and the ISPs collectively sort out how much each of them owes the others for any traffic imbalance.
This idea of Time Warner billing Google for delivering their content would be like Sprint sending you a bill because you called one of their customers. Asinine.
With telcos there's the notion of "reciprocal compensation". It's essentially an arrangement whereby a telco that terminates a call gets paid by the telco that originated it. For example, when you (a pacbell customer) call me (a verizon customer), pacbell pays verizon some amount for delivering the call to me.
Perhaps large network infrastructure companies need a similar arrangement above and beyond simple peering relationships.
As an example: If Global Crossing is delivering many more of Verizon's packets than Verizon is delivering of Globx's then Verizon can shake down their own customers directly to cover what they have to pay Glbox for the imbalance. This would be much more fair and efficient than having every penny ante network provider on the planet trying to extort cash out of every content provider on the planet.
I don't understand why net neutrality is even an issue.
I pay for my net connection. In fact, I'm already dealing with tiered pricing- if I want a faster connection I have to pay more for it. And if I were to transfer more than a certain amount of data I'd have to pay more for that too.
And sites that I go to pay for THEIR bandwidth.
So when I hit google apps, or nasioc, or wherever... it's already being paid for . Twice.
Is this about peering? ISP A feels like they should be compensated for shuffling a disproportionate amount of traffic between ISP B and C?
Or is this purely QoS? On top of charging more for bigger/faster pipes, they want to charge more in exchange for... not slowing things down? Through the pipes we're already paying for? Twice?
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia YOU kill exploding laptop battery.
Why is it better to use a tool designed for sharing files instead of just attaching such things to emails?
Quotas.
Blockbuster's online offering is far superior to Netflix's.
Netflix constantly sent me random movies from my queue instead of using anything remotely resembling the order I'd prioritized them in. IIRC, they were everntually sued for that.
Blockbuster only seems to have tried that twice with me and a single email to their customer care address resolved that and got me an apology along with it.
I can also drop my total access movies off at the local LackLuster and trade them for free in-store rentals. And they ship my next online rentals the next day.
Not affiliated, just a happy customer.
I've been running my own mail server for the last seven years just so that I could have IMAP access.
:-D
In the last year or two my anti-spam measures have become less and less effective and because I'm no longer a sysadmin at an isp I just haven't bothered keeping up with newer/better ways of spam filtering.
And then there's that Cyrus IMAP sucks balls, and just try to keep it working with qmail-ldap after you've done a dist-upgrade. And then give up on qmail-ldap and lose the ability to use dash-extensions. Bummer.
Methinks that I'll be switching to gmail to handle email for my domains and turning off my IMAP daemon. I'll just run an IMAP client there to have my own backup archive. I'll keep my own SMTP daemon running so that I can get back the dash-ext functionality.
And then I'll point squirrelmail at gmail so that I can keep using my own web-based front-end from places that block web-based email.
This rocks.
They have enough trouble supporting Windows users.
Imagine trying to deal with some bumbling idiot with an Ubuntu box?
And then... Which distro(s) should they support?
Politicians will simply ignore the facts and press ahead.
I think that $10 is entirely unacceptable.
They've been making money by keeping information about me, and now they want ME to pay them to STOP?
Ridiculous.
Yeah, well, do the beowulf clusters of laser sharks in Korea eat hot grits?
Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of laser sharks?
Sarcasm doesn't come through well over the 'net.
My "better idea" was meant to show how ridiculous the situation is. It's intended to put responsibility where it should be (on parents) but also points out the degree to which it restricts parents in how they raise their children
You cannot possibly equate publishing Doom with accosting children. That's absolutely ridiculous and more than a little offensive.
Legislation is no substitute for parents' being actively involved in their childrens' lives. If you don't want your children to play violent games, don't buy such things for them. If you're concerned that they'll play them at a friend's house, ensure that your childs' friends' parents' values are similar to your own. YOU are responsible for raising your children.
Here's a better way to accomplish the desired result- make it illegal for children to possess/play such games and have consequences for parents who fail their children in this regard.
Why do we need legislation to protect children?
Isn't that what parents are for?
Parents should know their kids and what their kids are doing.
Outlawing lazy/ignorant parents, I think, would be much more productive than banning video games and porn.
But they'd have clean laundry.
I'm not saying that we should pay more.
I'm saying that ISPs should pay each other what's fair.
The only remotely reasonable idea behind net neutrality is that simple peering agreements are no longer enough to keep certain ISPs from footing a disproportionate amount of the costs of delivering content.
So in place of peering agreements we put in a reciprocal compensation scheme. You and I pay our webTube bills, the content providers pay their fatPipe bills, and the ISPs collectively sort out how much each of them owes the others for any traffic imbalance.
This idea of Time Warner billing Google for delivering their content would be like Sprint sending you a bill because you called one of their customers. Asinine.
With telcos there's the notion of "reciprocal compensation". It's essentially an arrangement whereby a telco that terminates a call gets paid by the telco that originated it. For example, when you (a pacbell customer) call me (a verizon customer), pacbell pays verizon some amount for delivering the call to me.
Perhaps large network infrastructure companies need a similar arrangement above and beyond simple peering relationships.
As an example: If Global Crossing is delivering many more of Verizon's packets than Verizon is delivering of Globx's then Verizon can shake down their own customers directly to cover what they have to pay Glbox for the imbalance. This would be much more fair and efficient than having every penny ante network provider on the planet trying to extort cash out of every content provider on the planet.
I do not understand the idea of random networks charging content providers for their bandwidth.
I already pay *my* ISP for my bandwidth.
Content providers already pay *their* ISPs for their bandwidth.
My ISP wants to charge the content providers for delivering their content?
So that means my intraweb tube becomes free for me, right?
I can't be the only one who'd rather pay a couple of bucks to watch without commercials...
I don't understand why net neutrality is even an issue.
I pay for my net connection. In fact, I'm already dealing with tiered pricing- if I want a faster connection I have to pay more for it. And if I were to transfer more than a certain amount of data I'd have to pay more for that too.
And sites that I go to pay for THEIR bandwidth.
So when I hit google apps, or nasioc, or wherever... it's already being paid for . Twice.
Is this about peering? ISP A feels like they should be compensated for shuffling a disproportionate amount of traffic between ISP B and C?
Or is this purely QoS? On top of charging more for bigger/faster pipes, they want to charge more in exchange for... not slowing things down? Through the pipes we're already paying for? Twice?
I bought an RCS TR15
The documentation (in PDF's on that page) was decent enough that it let me slap together a small Ruby script to control it in a very short while.
I've been using this thermostat with my script running out of cron for about six months now, and it's worked quite nicely.