>>>People are (or at least I am) fed up with the exorbitant prices
Exboritant. I pay $15 for 250 GB from Verizon (wired). That's only 10 cents per gigabyte and not at all exorbitant. Basically 1.2 cents per ~120 MB television episode I download. That's cheap. Cheaper than water.
Wireless costs a little bit more, but then I would expect it too - electromagnetic spectrum is a much more limited resource than cables.
This was marked (0, Troll). Seriously? I'm re-reading my response and I don't see anything trolling about it. All I see is an individual expressing his opinion that the internet is no different from electricity usage, or natural gas usage, or gasoline usage - i.e. it makes sense for it to be metered. I'm sorry you don't like me opinion, but I'm not changing it just because you MISUSED your mod power to censor me into invisibility.
It's unlimited TIME, not unlimited data. It says that in the contract, if you bother to read it before signing. And no I don't think the speaker exaggerated. Just over 66 GB per month is not that high. I probably reach that point myself, what with TV watching and movie downloading.
What these companies should do, IMHO, is provide 1 GB per month and then if you want additional throughput, charge about 10 cents per extra gigabyte. If people want the data, they can pay for the extra burden on the network (extra electricity, et cetera).
>>>Time is pretty much the only thing in life which has no possibility of being unlimited.
That's cute, but I remember when using an ISP meant paying $10 for 10 hours, and therefore switching to an "unlimited time" ISP was a big improvement. You could be online 24 hours a day and not have to incur additional cost.
Personally I think that's a good part of the Constitution.
Without that compromise, a war between the North and South would have broken-out in 1786. Or maybe the U.S. would have been dissolved completely, and we'd have 13 independent States, all warring with one another (as frequently happened between the European states). Better to compromise now, and fix the imperfections later (1865 - slavery abolished), then to be stubborn and destroy a ten-year-old nation.
That's correct. The Cherokee that lived in South Carolina paid taxes, counted as whole free persons, obeyed the laws, and even appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court when their tribal lands were being confiscated by the State.
Unfortunately the U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of the Cherokee, that they could keep their homes, but a certain asshole president ignored the court's ruling and used the army to force the Cherokee to move to the western territories. If anybody should have been impeached, it should have been him - Andrew Jackson (D).
But because it was Indians, nobody cared enough to defend them, not even their own representatives. Kinda like how people turned a blind eye when innocent Americans were thrown-into concentration camps & their property confiscated by President FDR.
>>>The Constitution does discuss slavery as if it were a reasonable institution
Woah, hold on there. The Southern delegates wanted the slaves counted as full persons, even though they were not treated as persons. The Northern delegates said the southern delegates were being hypocritical, treating their slaves as both property and persons at the same. The Abolitionists and the Plantationists were butting heads and threatening to tear apart this just-born country.
The Constitution does Not treat slavery as reasonable. It treats it as Unreasonable which is why there's the illogic of counting slaves as 3/5 people. Rather than create a civil war in 1786, a compromise was reached. Else there'd be no United States today.
I think the Founders made the wise decision of letting the U.S. exist, and fix the imperfections later. Which is what we eventually did
It's unlimited TIME, not unlimited data. It says that in the contract, if you bother to read it before signing. And no I don't think the speaker exaggerated. Just over 66 GB per month is not that high. I probably reach that point myself, what with TV watching and movie downloading.
What these companies should do, IMHO, is provide 1 GB per month and then if you want additional throughput, charge about 10 cents per extra gigabyte. If people want the data, they can pay for the extra burden on the network (extra electricity, et cetera).
>>>No, you need to take the total cost of ownership (TCO) into account.
That's true. I've found that Ubuntu 9.0 has had a higher "cost" in terms of hours than Windows XP or Vista ever cost me. I like that Ubuntu Linux is free, but not that it's labor intensive.
>>>what the fuck is a netscape ISP? Is someone actually still giving free dialup out?
I'm sorry, but was this really that difficult to figure out? If I said "AOL ISP" or "Earthlink ISP", would you be confused what I meant? Then neither should you be confused when I say "Netscape ISP". It's self-explanatory. - And no it's not free. It's what I use when I'm bouncing from hotel-to-hotel room, and therefore don't have access to my home DSL service:
My PC, when I run the restore CD, installs both Vista and Microsoft Office and a few other useful programs. It's ready to use out of the box with no modifications needed for the typical office or home user.
>>>Which Linux?
Ubuntu 9.0 - every time I try to install Flash, it goes to the 90% mark and then generates an error about not having root privileges. I've tried multiple times to log-in as root, but I just keep getting the same error. At this point I'll probably just wipe it clean with a fresh Ubuntu 10.0 install
>>>you talk to your ISP
"Sorry we don't support any OS but Windows 98, XP, Vista, and Seven." No Mac. No Linux.
>>>Are you trying to say that downloading and using open source software is equivalent to mass copyright infringement of music, books, and movies?
Strawman argument.
>>>Proprietary software writers aren't "losing" money because somebody chooses a competitor
And again.
Please don't put words into my mouth I did not say. I was merely stating that when people can get stuff for free via download (whether it's movies or OS software) that will tend to drive down the wages of the people creating the product. It's the same way that wooden carriage makers' wages plummeted after most people switched to alternatives.
Why do you rate Windows the worst and Linux the best? What makes Windows so horrible to maintain? All you have to do is pop-in a CD and install. After that the system usually has everything the user needs (web browser, Microsoft Office, etc).
And what makes Linux so easy? In my experience it's a pain in the ass - for example my Linux laptop refuses to execute flash websites (like disney.com or tv.com). And I can't get it to talk to my Netscape ISP.
>>>the software is free, and the company pays for support.
What if I don't need support? That's why Red Hat and other liberated software companies will probably never see 1 billion. Bottom Line: A lot of us are cheapasses.;-)
I think you'll find the same thing is happening in the Media industry. People's ability to download movies, songs, books for free is devaluing the time and wages of the creators. The media companies won't completely disappear - they'll just earn 10-20% as much money as they did before 1999.
It appears to me the software industry is heading along the same path, and just like the RIAA, Microsoft is fighting it tooth-and-nail because they don't want to see their income reduced.
>>>Consider the alternative that you're suggesting. You suggest that people who get sick should have to pay for their care, as if it's a good/service that they're consuming. But the sick are in a situation where declining to visit the doctor can put a human life at risk! >>>
On the other hand a LOT of the sick people I've known were sick due to their OWN actions, such as overeating, overdrinking, shooting drugs, or living wreckless lives (driving 100mph down the interstate). WHY should I have to repair their self destruction? THEY made the decision to live high-risk behaviors - it's not my fault. Not my responsibility.
The only exception I would allow is for the destitute, such as those who receive food stamps. I think the rest of us with jobs/money should pay our own bills, same as we pay for the shiny Lexus in the drive, the $5000 gaming PC, or the ~$1500 a year cable/cellphone cost. .
>>>The thing that must be avoided at all cost is a financial disincentive to receive medical attention. That's the human rights part-
Okay. And what about death? At what point does a person stop having a right to receive medical attention. Or do we just keep the almost-dead tied to heart/lung machines indefinitely, even if it's costing $10,000 a day? Are taxpayers expected to cover the cost?
>>>This plan had a 50% copayment and only partial covered things like physicals
That's funny. Blue Cross quoted me $170 for high-deductible insurance. There's no reason you can't go for the same plan. - Or maybe move out of New York State, so you can have some other choices, instead of being stuck with a government that is Anti-Choice.
>>>So...in other words..insurance that's basically useless for: >>>A) Anyone who has a chronic health problem. >>>B) Anyone who occasionally visits a doctor for routine health care and check ups
I don't need my insurance company to pay for my annual $200 doctor visit, just as I don't need someone to pay my annual $700 cellphone bill or my annual $800 cable tv bill. DUH. (This should have been obvious if you'd just use the brain in your head)
The purpose of catastrophic insurance IS to cover chronic health problems. If for example I developed cancer, I'd pay the first $20,000 in costs and then the insurance company would cover all other costs above that amount, such as the weekly chemotherapy. The total bill might end-up being $100,000 but I wouldn't have to pay for dollars 20,001 through 100,000. The insurance company would.
AS I SAID *after* the war had ended, so too had the killings. To label Lenin a murderer because he killed people during his Civil War, means you'd also have to label George Washington and other U.S. Founders as murderers during their own civil war (1775-83).
The connection to Obama is that he wants the Government to be the single payer for Trains, Mail service, Retirement savings, Hospitals, Internet hookups, and so on. Or if he can't have that, he wants government to run the private corporations board room, as is the case with GM. i.e. It's a centralized government-run economy that he desires. Not all once of course, but that's his ultimate goal over the next ten years.
>>>In the absence of some outside restraining force, how do you avoid the inevitable natural concentration of power when everything is left to its own forces?
A government is restrained by a constitution which only gives it certain, limited powers. All other powers are reserved to the People.
Corporations would not exist, if the government had not given them a license. My solution would be to revoke all corporate licenses inside the U.S. and oblige companies to operate as proprietorships, where the owners are directly responsible for their company's actions (like bribery, accidental manslaughter, et cetera). A proprietor has much less power than a corporation.
I would also get rid of Government Monopolies like Amtrak. People should have multiple choices when they spend their money.
Just because the Republicans became extremist for a short period (from 9/11 to 2006) doesn't mean you should completely abandon them. They did pass the Contract for America in 1994. They did balance the budget for the first time since the 1920s (the years 1998 and 1999 had a surplus). They did take a stand against the creation of a new Government Monopoly in 2008 and 2009. Yes they made a bunch of stupid mistakes for 4 years (2002-6), but then, doesn't everyone make mistakes from time to time?
I do not think 4 out of ~50 years of generally good libertarian policies is enough reason for me to abandon the Republicans and join the Communo-Democrats.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>People are (or at least I am) fed up with the exorbitant prices
Exboritant. I pay $15 for 250 GB from Verizon (wired). That's only 10 cents per gigabyte and not at all exorbitant. Basically 1.2 cents per ~120 MB television episode I download. That's cheap. Cheaper than water.
Wireless costs a little bit more, but then I would expect it too - electromagnetic spectrum is a much more limited resource than cables.
This was marked (0, Troll). Seriously? I'm re-reading my response and I don't see anything trolling about it. All I see is an individual expressing his opinion that the internet is no different from electricity usage, or natural gas usage, or gasoline usage - i.e. it makes sense for it to be metered. I'm sorry you don't like me opinion, but I'm not changing it just because you MISUSED your mod power to censor me into invisibility.
It's unlimited TIME, not unlimited data. It says that in the contract, if you bother to read it before signing. And no I don't think the speaker exaggerated. Just over 66 GB per month is not that high. I probably reach that point myself, what with TV watching and movie downloading.
What these companies should do, IMHO, is provide 1 GB per month and then if you want additional throughput, charge about 10 cents per extra gigabyte. If people want the data, they can pay for the extra burden on the network (extra electricity, et cetera).
>>>Time is pretty much the only thing in life which has no possibility of being unlimited.
That's cute, but I remember when using an ISP meant paying $10 for 10 hours, and therefore switching to an "unlimited time" ISP was a big improvement. You could be online 24 hours a day and not have to incur additional cost.
Personally I think that's a good part of the Constitution.
Without that compromise, a war between the North and South would have broken-out in 1786. Or maybe the U.S. would have been dissolved completely, and we'd have 13 independent States, all warring with one another (as frequently happened between the European states). Better to compromise now, and fix the imperfections later (1865 - slavery abolished), then to be stubborn and destroy a ten-year-old nation.
That's correct. The Cherokee that lived in South Carolina paid taxes, counted as whole free persons, obeyed the laws, and even appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court when their tribal lands were being confiscated by the State.
Unfortunately the U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of the Cherokee, that they could keep their homes, but a certain asshole president ignored the court's ruling and used the army to force the Cherokee to move to the western territories. If anybody should have been impeached, it should have been him - Andrew Jackson (D).
But because it was Indians, nobody cared enough to defend them, not even their own representatives. Kinda like how people turned a blind eye when innocent Americans were thrown-into concentration camps & their property confiscated by President FDR.
>>>The Constitution does discuss slavery as if it were a reasonable institution
Woah, hold on there. The Southern delegates wanted the slaves counted as full persons, even though they were not treated as persons. The Northern delegates said the southern delegates were being hypocritical, treating their slaves as both property and persons at the same. The Abolitionists and the Plantationists were butting heads and threatening to tear apart this just-born country.
The Constitution does Not treat slavery as reasonable. It treats it as Unreasonable which is why there's the illogic of counting slaves as 3/5 people. Rather than create a civil war in 1786, a compromise was reached. Else there'd be no United States today.
I think the Founders made the wise decision of letting the U.S. exist, and fix the imperfections later. Which is what we eventually did
Well said.
Also what's the deal with calling the Constitution "classic"? It is a PRESENT document that still have the full force of law.
The market is not free because the government won't allow it to be free. The government hands-out exclusive monopolies to ISPs. That needs to stop.
It's unlimited TIME, not unlimited data. It says that in the contract, if you bother to read it before signing. And no I don't think the speaker exaggerated. Just over 66 GB per month is not that high. I probably reach that point myself, what with TV watching and movie downloading.
What these companies should do, IMHO, is provide 1 GB per month and then if you want additional throughput, charge about 10 cents per extra gigabyte. If people want the data, they can pay for the extra burden on the network (extra electricity, et cetera).
>>>No, you need to take the total cost of ownership (TCO) into account.
That's true. I've found that Ubuntu 9.0 has had a higher "cost" in terms of hours than Windows XP or Vista ever cost me. I like that Ubuntu Linux is free, but not that it's labor intensive.
>>>Why would Apple not be considered an "open source"
Where did I say it wasn't?
>>>what the fuck is a netscape ISP? Is someone actually still giving free dialup out?
I'm sorry, but was this really that difficult to figure out? If I said "AOL ISP" or "Earthlink ISP", would you be confused what I meant? Then neither should you be confused when I say "Netscape ISP". It's self-explanatory. - And no it's not free. It's what I use when I'm bouncing from hotel-to-hotel room, and therefore don't have access to my home DSL service:
http://www.getnetscape.com/
My PC, when I run the restore CD, installs both Vista and Microsoft Office and a few other useful programs. It's ready to use out of the box with no modifications needed for the typical office or home user.
>>>Which Linux?
Ubuntu 9.0 - every time I try to install Flash, it goes to the 90% mark and then generates an error about not having root privileges. I've tried multiple times to log-in as root, but I just keep getting the same error. At this point I'll probably just wipe it clean with a fresh Ubuntu 10.0 install
>>>you talk to your ISP
"Sorry we don't support any OS but Windows 98, XP, Vista, and Seven." No Mac. No Linux.
>>>Are you trying to say that downloading and using open source software is equivalent to mass copyright infringement of music, books, and movies?
Strawman argument.
>>>Proprietary software writers aren't "losing" money because somebody chooses a competitor
And again.
Please don't put words into my mouth I did not say. I was merely stating that when people can get stuff for free via download (whether it's movies or OS software) that will tend to drive down the wages of the people creating the product. It's the same way that wooden carriage makers' wages plummeted after most people switched to alternatives.
>>>The P2P demographic is young adult male. Geek.
I don't agree. Please provide proof to back-up your claim that downloading free movies, music, books is male only. And geek only
Why do you rate Windows the worst and Linux the best? What makes Windows so horrible to maintain? All you have to do is pop-in a CD and install. After that the system usually has everything the user needs (web browser, Microsoft Office, etc).
And what makes Linux so easy? In my experience it's a pain in the ass - for example my Linux laptop refuses to execute flash websites (like disney.com or tv.com). And I can't get it to talk to my Netscape ISP.
>>>the software is free, and the company pays for support.
What if I don't need support? That's why Red Hat and other liberated software companies will probably never see 1 billion. Bottom Line: A lot of us are cheapasses. ;-)
I think you'll find the same thing is happening in the Media industry. People's ability to download movies, songs, books for free is devaluing the time and wages of the creators. The media companies won't completely disappear - they'll just earn 10-20% as much money as they did before 1999.
It appears to me the software industry is heading along the same path, and just like the RIAA, Microsoft is fighting it tooth-and-nail because they don't want to see their income reduced.
>>>Consider the alternative that you're suggesting. You suggest that people who get sick should have to pay for their care, as if it's a good/service that they're consuming. But the sick are in a situation where declining to visit the doctor can put a human life at risk!
>>>
On the other hand a LOT of the sick people I've known were sick due to their OWN actions, such as overeating, overdrinking, shooting drugs, or living wreckless lives (driving 100mph down the interstate). WHY should I have to repair their self destruction? THEY made the decision to live high-risk behaviors - it's not my fault. Not my responsibility.
The only exception I would allow is for the destitute, such as those who receive food stamps. I think the rest of us with jobs/money should pay our own bills, same as we pay for the shiny Lexus in the drive, the $5000 gaming PC, or the ~$1500 a year cable/cellphone cost.
.
>>>The thing that must be avoided at all cost is a financial disincentive to receive medical attention. That's the human rights part-
Okay. And what about death? At what point does a person stop having a right to receive medical attention. Or do we just keep the almost-dead tied to heart/lung machines indefinitely, even if it's costing $10,000 a day? Are taxpayers expected to cover the cost?
>>>This plan had a 50% copayment and only partial covered things like physicals
That's funny. Blue Cross quoted me $170 for high-deductible insurance. There's no reason you can't go for the same plan. - Or maybe move out of New York State, so you can have some other choices, instead of being stuck with a government that is Anti-Choice.
>>>So...in other words..insurance that's basically useless for:
>>>A) Anyone who has a chronic health problem.
>>>B) Anyone who occasionally visits a doctor for routine health care and check ups
I don't need my insurance company to pay for my annual $200 doctor visit, just as I don't need someone to pay my annual $700 cellphone bill or my annual $800 cable tv bill. DUH. (This should have been obvious if you'd just use the brain in your head)
The purpose of catastrophic insurance IS to cover chronic health problems. If for example I developed cancer, I'd pay the first $20,000 in costs and then the insurance company would cover all other costs above that amount, such as the weekly chemotherapy. The total bill might end-up being $100,000 but I wouldn't have to pay for dollars 20,001 through 100,000. The insurance company would.
AS I SAID *after* the war had ended, so too had the killings. To label Lenin a murderer because he killed people during his Civil War, means you'd also have to label George Washington and other U.S. Founders as murderers during their own civil war (1775-83).
The connection to Obama is that he wants the Government to be the single payer for Trains, Mail service, Retirement savings, Hospitals, Internet hookups, and so on. Or if he can't have that, he wants government to run the private corporations board room, as is the case with GM. i.e. It's a centralized government-run economy that he desires. Not all once of course, but that's his ultimate goal over the next ten years.
>>>In the absence of some outside restraining force, how do you avoid the inevitable natural concentration of power when everything is left to its own forces?
A government is restrained by a constitution which only gives it certain, limited powers. All other powers are reserved to the People.
Corporations would not exist, if the government had not given them a license. My solution would be to revoke all corporate licenses inside the U.S. and oblige companies to operate as proprietorships, where the owners are directly responsible for their company's actions (like bribery, accidental manslaughter, et cetera). A proprietor has much less power than a corporation.
I would also get rid of Government Monopolies like Amtrak. People should have multiple choices when they spend their money.
>>>So much freedom you can't even get married to someone if they happen to be the same gender.
You can't do that in Democrat-run states (like Maryland) either, so how are they any better?
Just because the Republicans became extremist for a short period (from 9/11 to 2006) doesn't mean you should completely abandon them. They did pass the Contract for America in 1994. They did balance the budget for the first time since the 1920s (the years 1998 and 1999 had a surplus). They did take a stand against the creation of a new Government Monopoly in 2008 and 2009. Yes they made a bunch of stupid mistakes for 4 years (2002-6), but then, doesn't everyone make mistakes from time to time?
I do not think 4 out of ~50 years of generally good libertarian policies is enough reason for me to abandon the Republicans and join the Communo-Democrats.