I checked out the link. The data suggests to me that the men of London might be a bunch of poofs who are full of shit, but the men of New Castle got up early enough to take a dump before boarding the train. Glad I don't ride the trains in London, with all the poofs passing gas!
Horse shit. Did Europe have internet twenty years before the United States did? This seems to be what you are suggesting. Fact is, the US has fallen behind because our "business leaders" are to busy having huge circle jerks, trying to figure out how to use modern technology to rip off the consumer. Witness the number of lawsuits filed to prevent towns and counties from implementing internet service in areas that no corporation was interested in supplying service anyway.
Yes, look at how far behind we are today. And, think about how far behind we'll be in another ten years. Then, write you congressman to make things happen, and stop whining out your excuses for substandard performance on America's part.
Overselling seats on aircraft, buses, trains, or ISP's means that you are taking money for something that you don't have. Especially selling 70:1 - that is simply outrageous. I am the customer at one of those outback nowhere ISP's. There is no NEED for capping my bandwidth, because there IS NO BANDWIDTH for much of the day. 15 gig per month? I doubt it - allowing BitTorrent to run full time, with Wondershaper limiting the torrent to allow web surfing, it takes a week to download the latest 64 bit Debian full install ISO. Morally speaking, it's up to Congress to stop the over-development and cut-throat practices in the city, and extend some of that infrastructure out here into the boonies. I pay to much, for a very poor service, while the city people brag about speedy MB connections? Something is wrong here....
One glaring reason. It stifles innovation. Obvious uses of existing tech is exactly that - obvious. If some rich sumbitch patents the obvious, that means no one can use it. Talk about the dumbing down of America... let us suppose that the internal combustion engine (obligatory car post out of the way now) had been patented, then every obvious use were patented as well. We would STILL be putting around with the first two and four cylinder noisy, smoke belching, hand cranked engines. Good grief.
Well, a man has to get his priorities in order. At about age 13, I decided that I wanted to travel, and to see the world. I chose my first employer carefully, and he sent me to exotic places immediately. Great Lakes, Illinois, San Diego, Adak, Alaska, Scotland, England, France..... the list goes on and on. GO NAVY!
It doesn't MATTER what protocol was being used. It doesn't MATTER what AT&T or any other telephone company is doing, or not doing, or what price they might be charging. AT&T doesn't own Google's servers. The iApple store doesn't own Google's servers. Google provides a lot of free services, yes. But, only Google can determine WHICH free services it offers, and TO WHOM it offers them. Obviously, Google wasn't obligated to supply the SMS service to a third party application. If they yank ALL OF THEIR FREE SERVICES TOMORROW, big deal. It's not like they have signed a contract with me that obligates them to maintain my gmail account for the next hundred years, or anything. They can end it today, if they wish, or charge me for it, or limit my usage of it - it's all theirs.
This post, in particular? Of course not. Your use of the internet to view television shows? Yes, you probably should, if you wish to think of yourself as completely honest. You choose to watch television, without paying for it, which impacts on bandwidth usage. A mutual agreement might be arrived at, whereby you pay 5 or 10 percent extra for internet, without being charged for the unused television service. And, such a package SHOULD BE AVAILABLE for everyone. Discussing your digital activity on the interwebz with the post office is so absurd that no rational person would consider it as more than a joke. But, feel free to act on the idea, if you wish.
One more time: "Obviously, you haven't read the REST of my posts in this discussion. I have ALREADY admitted to being a thief." Where is this "imaginary non theiving world" to which you refer?
Nonsense. You can't see the forest for the trees. It is NOT a simple mathematical equation, as you suggest. You are being ripped off with every purchase of the overpriced stuff, to the tune of hundreds of dollars annually. They toss you a few cents every few months, and you feel good about it, because you don't realize that you are being ripped off. Figures don't lie, but liars figure. You need to look a little harder for the truth.
Copyright infringement is a civil matter. New York Country Lawyer can help with understanding that. The FBI warning is FUD, disseminated by RIAA and their freinds. "Ric Hirsch, ESA, Senior Vice President of Intellectual Property Enforcement, said, "This new seal will serve as a clear and important reminder to consumers that piracy of game products is illegal and may be subject to criminal enforcement." http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel04/piracy021904.htm
Obviously, you haven't read the REST of my posts in this discussion. I have ALREADY admitted to being a thief. If your ISP offers both internet and television, and you purchase only one, then continue to make use of both, YES YOU ARE CONSCIOUSLY ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE THE SYSTEM. Did you read the TOS? Did you discuss your plan with the ISP? Were you completely open and honest with the ISP about your intentions? Did a salesman actually approve of your plans? Or, did you just sort of sneak around and put this thing together to your own satisfaction, hoping that no one would catch on and block you? I'm pretty sure we all know the answers to every question. But, go ahead. Surprise me if I'm wrong. Hell, just name the ISP company officer's name who approved of your idea. We can invite him here to advocate just such a plan.;)
Alright. We can be sticklers for semantics. Let us shut down every company that advertises "free" anything. My wife often takes advantage of "buy two, get one free" deals. And, it's a lie. They overcharged her for the first two, then gave her the third one to make her feel good about being overcharged. It WAS NOT FREE. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, it's really quite simple.
Speciousness is a common commodity these days. Why is it hard to comprehend that a "free service" - ESPECIALLY one that is in beta testing - can be arbitrarily shut down at any time, with or without notice, reason, justification, or whatever? One of the most common complaints about Google, is that nothing ever leaves beta testing, LMAO Check out this image, carefully: http://www.google.com/mail/help/images/logo1.gif
Bottom line question: who owns the resources used for these SMS exchanges? If Google owns them, and Google decides not to allow third party applications to use them, how has Google done anything wrong? It really doesn't MATTER what you or I think of it. If the resources have little or no value, then you have lost nothing. If the resources have enough value for people to whine over when they are gone, then they should be willing to pay for them. But, that is all really beside the point. I can send an SMS via my gmail account, if I want to. (no, I don't use SMS - it's pointless, since I can function for weeks at a time without "checking in" with dozens of freinds and family)
"free as in freedom"??? WTF? There is nothing subtle about the difference between free and opensource. Opensource is as good as my own property, for the taking, because I can do ANYTHING with it. Free software is something that I am permitted to use AS LONG AS I use it in a way approved of by the authors/owners. Subtle? Hardly.
Now, your second paragraph. I remind you - I am the honest thief. I know that I am ripping off every advertiser on the internet. I am quite willing to rip off any and all corporations who subsidize the internet. It is dishonest to use all the "free" stuff I can find, and at the same time prevent the owners from making any profit from it. taanstafl. Do you understand the concept? Less than half of/. seems to comprehend. "OOOHHH! Google USED TO allow us to use their resources, now they don't! OH! EVIL GOOGLE!"
Pure bullshit. Admit that you're a thief, and steal stuff, and you're cool with me. Stop whining and trying to rationalize your greed - that is NOT cool.
None of the above. By using the "free" web browser, you are viewing advertisements, you are supplying user data to data miners, etc. Those free browsers all have an established business model, whereby they recoup the money invested in them, and hopefully make a profit. Read the license or EULA supplied with your browser. Read the TOS of your ISP provider. Money is changing hands, and your use of a free browser facilitates some of that money moving around. UNLESS, of course, you are one of the few who have researched that cash flow thoroughly, and have turned off said cash flow. NOTE 1: you said "free", but did not specify "open source". May I assume that you are using Internet Explorer, or Opera? NOTE 2: I am the "honest thief". I don't view advertisements, and I am not tracked, and data miners glean precious little from my browser due to addons, hacks, and anonymity applications.:)
I might like methodological measurements. IF - and really really stress that big IF - there were a method that made any damned sense. In real life, the method amounts to some idiot twit freshly graduated from college playing around with numbers, then showing those numbers to a drunk boss after work, then extracting a promise from the drunk lard ass that he can apply those numbers on the job. Idiocy, yes, method, no.
As anonymous already stated, you ARE incapable of reaching a meaningful conclusion. It costs someone to maintain Google's servers, pay the bandwidth, etc etc etc. Offering a service which is demonstrably open to abuse will have to be paid for, by someone. Since most customers don't believe that it is their responsibility to pay for the service, we'll just have to wait and see if AT&T and Sprint and the rest of the telcos are going to cut some kind of deal with Google on your behalf. I rather doubt it. Stop sniveling, and pay for the messaging service provided by your own telco, or stop messaging.
So, don't buy the freaking service. Dump AT&T, and TELL THEM WHY! Don't try to free ride on Google, or some other service profider. You pay AT&T, so make your money talk for you. Tell them that you want unlimited SMS, or you are taking your business elsewhere. If that doesn't work out for you, then stop sending so damned many stupid assed SMS messages. (would someone please tell me why in the HELL any individual needs to send and recieve hundreds of messages per day - it simply defies reason)
taanstafl, stupid. taanstafl. Everything costs, pull your head out of your butt and think about it. There is no such thing as unlimited anything, unless it is the vacuum of space, or maybe the vacuum between some people's ears.
Wrong analogy. At your local shopping mall, Restaurant A has an all you can eat. You pay for their buffet, and notice that Restaurant B has some enticing deserts. You snitch a couple deserts after gorging on Restaurant A's buffet. The owner of B notices you taking his desserts, and puts up a wall to prevent future abuse. Now, people are whining about the wall, they want those yummy deserts, for which they did NOT PAY.
Telecommunications cost someone, somewhere, somehow. We all know this, and it is made obvious by the fact that the telecom companies make their living off of our communications. It is abuse to take advantage of some free service, thereby circumventing the telecom's charges. Google's "free" offerings are meant to entice users and customers to sign up for other Google services. Google Heinlein, and "taanstafl". Pretending ignorance doesn't impress anyone. If you are going to steal Google's (or anyone else's) services, at least admit that you are thieving. We might respect an honest thief.
Slashdot Mirror
I checked out the link. The data suggests to me that the men of London might be a bunch of poofs who are full of shit, but the men of New Castle got up early enough to take a dump before boarding the train. Glad I don't ride the trains in London, with all the poofs passing gas!
You ask the damned cat yourelf! I'm afraid that if I open the box, I'll be the one to drop dead!
Maybe an arm, a leg, and the second born child? Hey, the ISP might be willing to barter!
Horse shit. Did Europe have internet twenty years before the United States did? This seems to be what you are suggesting. Fact is, the US has fallen behind because our "business leaders" are to busy having huge circle jerks, trying to figure out how to use modern technology to rip off the consumer. Witness the number of lawsuits filed to prevent towns and counties from implementing internet service in areas that no corporation was interested in supplying service anyway. Yes, look at how far behind we are today. And, think about how far behind we'll be in another ten years. Then, write you congressman to make things happen, and stop whining out your excuses for substandard performance on America's part.
Overselling seats on aircraft, buses, trains, or ISP's means that you are taking money for something that you don't have. Especially selling 70:1 - that is simply outrageous. I am the customer at one of those outback nowhere ISP's. There is no NEED for capping my bandwidth, because there IS NO BANDWIDTH for much of the day. 15 gig per month? I doubt it - allowing BitTorrent to run full time, with Wondershaper limiting the torrent to allow web surfing, it takes a week to download the latest 64 bit Debian full install ISO. Morally speaking, it's up to Congress to stop the over-development and cut-throat practices in the city, and extend some of that infrastructure out here into the boonies. I pay to much, for a very poor service, while the city people brag about speedy MB connections? Something is wrong here....
One glaring reason. It stifles innovation. Obvious uses of existing tech is exactly that - obvious. If some rich sumbitch patents the obvious, that means no one can use it. Talk about the dumbing down of America... let us suppose that the internal combustion engine (obligatory car post out of the way now) had been patented, then every obvious use were patented as well. We would STILL be putting around with the first two and four cylinder noisy, smoke belching, hand cranked engines. Good grief.
Well, a man has to get his priorities in order. At about age 13, I decided that I wanted to travel, and to see the world. I chose my first employer carefully, and he sent me to exotic places immediately. Great Lakes, Illinois, San Diego, Adak, Alaska, Scotland, England, France..... the list goes on and on. GO NAVY!
It doesn't MATTER what protocol was being used. It doesn't MATTER what AT&T or any other telephone company is doing, or not doing, or what price they might be charging. AT&T doesn't own Google's servers. The iApple store doesn't own Google's servers. Google provides a lot of free services, yes. But, only Google can determine WHICH free services it offers, and TO WHOM it offers them. Obviously, Google wasn't obligated to supply the SMS service to a third party application. If they yank ALL OF THEIR FREE SERVICES TOMORROW, big deal. It's not like they have signed a contract with me that obligates them to maintain my gmail account for the next hundred years, or anything. They can end it today, if they wish, or charge me for it, or limit my usage of it - it's all theirs.
This post, in particular? Of course not. Your use of the internet to view television shows? Yes, you probably should, if you wish to think of yourself as completely honest. You choose to watch television, without paying for it, which impacts on bandwidth usage. A mutual agreement might be arrived at, whereby you pay 5 or 10 percent extra for internet, without being charged for the unused television service. And, such a package SHOULD BE AVAILABLE for everyone. Discussing your digital activity on the interwebz with the post office is so absurd that no rational person would consider it as more than a joke. But, feel free to act on the idea, if you wish.
One more time: "Obviously, you haven't read the REST of my posts in this discussion. I have ALREADY admitted to being a thief." Where is this "imaginary non theiving world" to which you refer?
Nonsense. You can't see the forest for the trees. It is NOT a simple mathematical equation, as you suggest. You are being ripped off with every purchase of the overpriced stuff, to the tune of hundreds of dollars annually. They toss you a few cents every few months, and you feel good about it, because you don't realize that you are being ripped off. Figures don't lie, but liars figure. You need to look a little harder for the truth.
Copyright infringement is a civil matter. New York Country Lawyer can help with understanding that. The FBI warning is FUD, disseminated by RIAA and their freinds. "Ric Hirsch, ESA, Senior Vice President of Intellectual Property Enforcement, said, "This new seal will serve as a clear and important reminder to consumers that piracy of game products is illegal and may be subject to criminal enforcement." http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel04/piracy021904.htm
Obviously, you haven't read the REST of my posts in this discussion. I have ALREADY admitted to being a thief. If your ISP offers both internet and television, and you purchase only one, then continue to make use of both, YES YOU ARE CONSCIOUSLY ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE THE SYSTEM. Did you read the TOS? Did you discuss your plan with the ISP? Were you completely open and honest with the ISP about your intentions? Did a salesman actually approve of your plans? Or, did you just sort of sneak around and put this thing together to your own satisfaction, hoping that no one would catch on and block you? I'm pretty sure we all know the answers to every question. But, go ahead. Surprise me if I'm wrong. Hell, just name the ISP company officer's name who approved of your idea. We can invite him here to advocate just such a plan. ;)
Alright. We can be sticklers for semantics. Let us shut down every company that advertises "free" anything. My wife often takes advantage of "buy two, get one free" deals. And, it's a lie. They overcharged her for the first two, then gave her the third one to make her feel good about being overcharged. It WAS NOT FREE. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, it's really quite simple.
Speciousness is a common commodity these days. Why is it hard to comprehend that a "free service" - ESPECIALLY one that is in beta testing - can be arbitrarily shut down at any time, with or without notice, reason, justification, or whatever? One of the most common complaints about Google, is that nothing ever leaves beta testing, LMAO Check out this image, carefully: http://www.google.com/mail/help/images/logo1.gif
Bottom line question: who owns the resources used for these SMS exchanges? If Google owns them, and Google decides not to allow third party applications to use them, how has Google done anything wrong? It really doesn't MATTER what you or I think of it. If the resources have little or no value, then you have lost nothing. If the resources have enough value for people to whine over when they are gone, then they should be willing to pay for them. But, that is all really beside the point. I can send an SMS via my gmail account, if I want to. (no, I don't use SMS - it's pointless, since I can function for weeks at a time without "checking in" with dozens of freinds and family)
"free as in freedom"??? WTF? There is nothing subtle about the difference between free and opensource. Opensource is as good as my own property, for the taking, because I can do ANYTHING with it. Free software is something that I am permitted to use AS LONG AS I use it in a way approved of by the authors/owners. Subtle? Hardly. Now, your second paragraph. I remind you - I am the honest thief. I know that I am ripping off every advertiser on the internet. I am quite willing to rip off any and all corporations who subsidize the internet. It is dishonest to use all the "free" stuff I can find, and at the same time prevent the owners from making any profit from it. taanstafl. Do you understand the concept? Less than half of /. seems to comprehend. "OOOHHH! Google USED TO allow us to use their resources, now they don't! OH! EVIL GOOGLE!"
Pure bullshit. Admit that you're a thief, and steal stuff, and you're cool with me. Stop whining and trying to rationalize your greed - that is NOT cool.
None of the above. By using the "free" web browser, you are viewing advertisements, you are supplying user data to data miners, etc. Those free browsers all have an established business model, whereby they recoup the money invested in them, and hopefully make a profit. Read the license or EULA supplied with your browser. Read the TOS of your ISP provider. Money is changing hands, and your use of a free browser facilitates some of that money moving around. UNLESS, of course, you are one of the few who have researched that cash flow thoroughly, and have turned off said cash flow. NOTE 1: you said "free", but did not specify "open source". May I assume that you are using Internet Explorer, or Opera? NOTE 2: I am the "honest thief". I don't view advertisements, and I am not tracked, and data miners glean precious little from my browser due to addons, hacks, and anonymity applications. :)
I might like methodological measurements. IF - and really really stress that big IF - there were a method that made any damned sense. In real life, the method amounts to some idiot twit freshly graduated from college playing around with numbers, then showing those numbers to a drunk boss after work, then extracting a promise from the drunk lard ass that he can apply those numbers on the job. Idiocy, yes, method, no.
As anonymous already stated, you ARE incapable of reaching a meaningful conclusion. It costs someone to maintain Google's servers, pay the bandwidth, etc etc etc. Offering a service which is demonstrably open to abuse will have to be paid for, by someone. Since most customers don't believe that it is their responsibility to pay for the service, we'll just have to wait and see if AT&T and Sprint and the rest of the telcos are going to cut some kind of deal with Google on your behalf. I rather doubt it. Stop sniveling, and pay for the messaging service provided by your own telco, or stop messaging.
Obviously, very few Americans, and precious few /. members. ;)
So, don't buy the freaking service. Dump AT&T, and TELL THEM WHY! Don't try to free ride on Google, or some other service profider. You pay AT&T, so make your money talk for you. Tell them that you want unlimited SMS, or you are taking your business elsewhere. If that doesn't work out for you, then stop sending so damned many stupid assed SMS messages. (would someone please tell me why in the HELL any individual needs to send and recieve hundreds of messages per day - it simply defies reason)
taanstafl, stupid. taanstafl. Everything costs, pull your head out of your butt and think about it. There is no such thing as unlimited anything, unless it is the vacuum of space, or maybe the vacuum between some people's ears.
Wrong analogy. At your local shopping mall, Restaurant A has an all you can eat. You pay for their buffet, and notice that Restaurant B has some enticing deserts. You snitch a couple deserts after gorging on Restaurant A's buffet. The owner of B notices you taking his desserts, and puts up a wall to prevent future abuse. Now, people are whining about the wall, they want those yummy deserts, for which they did NOT PAY.
Telecommunications cost someone, somewhere, somehow. We all know this, and it is made obvious by the fact that the telecom companies make their living off of our communications. It is abuse to take advantage of some free service, thereby circumventing the telecom's charges. Google's "free" offerings are meant to entice users and customers to sign up for other Google services. Google Heinlein, and "taanstafl". Pretending ignorance doesn't impress anyone. If you are going to steal Google's (or anyone else's) services, at least admit that you are thieving. We might respect an honest thief.