>>>each one after that is $1.99 - and this is National pricing.
Now this is interesting. First off, how would you know it's "national" pricing? I guess you'd only know that if you worked for Comcast, because your average customer wouldn't have any clue.
Second, you forgot that prices vary from town to town. In my home it costs $63 a month, but in Baltimore the basic Comcast is only $39.99. Likewise, the costs of the DTV boxes vary. The cost might very well be just $2 in Baltimore, but here in the sparsely-populated countryside they are asking $5.
My other bias is that I don't understand people who bend-over and polish the knobs of Corporations or Government politicians.
But then I recall the stories from the slavery era. Some slaves actually LOVED their masters, even though they were mistreated. ----- And of course some wives will insist they love their husbands, even after being beaten.
I suppose loving corporate abuse is the same deal. "Yeah I got fined by Comcast, and they raised my monthly rates from $25 to $70, but I still love 'em. They are a good company."
>>>It's quite well publicized that the download cap is 250GB per month
Bzzzz. Prior to 2008, the cap was unknown. Instead users would just get a call: "You are in the top 5% of highest users and we are yanking service." When asked to provide a specific number, Comcast never did. - Then the FCC stepped in and said "no no no" and comcast came-up with the 250GB number, only because they were caught.
.
>>>No, you are not forced to switch to Digital Cable -
I received a notice that I either switches to digital cable (i.e. one free DTV box, plus $5 per month for each additional box), or I will lose all channels above 15.
So yeah I guess technically you're right - I'm nott "forced" to upgrade. I just have no real choice. .
>>>Try getting your facts straight
My facts are correct. It's just that I don't share your opinion. And that makes you mad.:-) .
>>>if all, or even the vast majority of Comcast customer's had such horrible experience, they would be hemorrhaging subscribers >>>
What part of "monopoly" did you not understand? There's noplace to "flee" to.
I saw two members of my extended family waste ALL of their money gambling on my State Government's Lotto. They were left destitute. Why? Because they were addicted. Therefore I consider the government a criminal, just as surely as if the government had handed beer to alcoholics, or cocaine to a drug addict.
And because the government is "we the people", I am complicit in that crime. I don't enjoy feeling guilty about driving people into bankruptcy. I'd like to see the State Lotto banished, because from my viewpoint it serves no useful purpose except destruction of lives.
- The funds can be collected more fairly, and more evenly across the whole populace, via direct taxation.
The Catholic system has actually been perverted for some time. The era from circa 700 to 900 AD is called "the pornography" for a reason. They managed to restore the Church to a semblance of holiness, but they've never been perfect, either during ancient Roman times or the modern ages.
As for the Pope's speech, I heard it once before.
I don't remember the exact date but it was sometime around 1400, regarding the dangers of the printing press, and how it would be dangerous to let the common man have copies of the Bible that they could read themselves. He claimed that level of transparency was dangerous, because only the priests could properly explain the bible to illiterate commoners, and blah blah blah.
That's why I don't hang around with them. We have no common interests. I've got more in common with my coworkers (engineers/programmers/geeks who like scifi/technology/etc) and people I meet online, than the people in my hood.
Nothing. For example I'm using Firefox now to read slashdot, but of course without the image compression, pages take longer to load. The speed-up I get via IE (and the ISP software) is a nice bonus.
I have the option to visit the company website to get IE 7 installed, but like most users I never bothered. I suspect that inertia is true all across the business world - people just use whatever was given to them.
(Meanwhile back at home my ISP forces me to use IE. For some dumb reason it's the only browser that works with their web/image compression software.)
And what if those "compromising photos" came from a topless beach you frequent? Who is the REAL criminal here? You? No because you're not breaking the law. The photographer that captured the images? No because it's a public forum and he can capture whatever his eye sees.
I think the blame lies upon HR for expecting people to conform to Company rules during non-work hours. I would certainly never fire someone if I found their topless photo from their weekend beach visit. Of course if they were topless during the hours 8-to-5, then certainly I would can them, but what workers do on private time is NONE of the company's business. That's personal time.
- And governments should pass laws to that effect: Firing someone for actions during non-paid hours is illegal.
Also let's ban the ridiculous Human Resources moniker. I'm not a cattle or a laptop. "Personnel" is better and reminds HR people that the decisions they make affect PEOPLE not bland, cold, sterile "resources".
>>>And you think paper companies don't reuse their processing chemicals?
Okay clearly someone is not thinking. Which process burns fewer gallons of diesel in the Timber company's cranes & trucks & saws?
(a) Chopping down the tree, carrying it off, turning it to paper, transporting the new paper to the office, collecting the used paper, and then recycling it. (b) Not using the paper & therefore not needing to cut down the tree, or burn diesel.
The answer is b. NOT using the paper is the more environment-friendly option. If "young people" have developed the habit of passing documents electronically, without printing, then we should encourage them to continue that habit. Encouraging them to print just for the sake of printing as the Domtar CEO wants to do is worse for the environment. He's an idiot.
>>> I would rather stave off global warming, so if anyone needs me, I'll be outside emptying cans of hair spray, bug poison, and cooking oil into the atmosphere. >>>
A very short-sighted view. IMHO I'd rather live in a warm planet with clean air, than a non-warmed planet with poisonous air. Think of the benefits of a warmer planet: - Australia and Arabia will probably become tropical rather than desert, just as they were in the age of dinosaurs - The U.S. and EU will become near-tropical and experience little snow. - Canada will become warm enough to grow food, even in the far north - Siberia will become warm enough to grow food
Yeah actually I have, because I worked about 10 years in a minimum wage store. A lot of poor people. And hwat I observed is that government checks merely encourage them to spend more money..... like the lady who kept buying herself new dresses that she didn't really need. Or the man who was spending over $100/month on a cellphone plan with internet.
This is not what welfare is supposed to be for. These people didn't really need monetary assistance. What they needed was an education in how to stop being wasteful.
When Jeffrey Dalmer killed a bunch of children, his sins were his alone.
But when the U.S. Government killed a bunch of children, then those sins became MY sins. (As can be seen by the anti-american hate spreading across Europe and elsewhere.) The government needs to hold itself to the highest standard, not the bare minimum, because its actions reflect on ALL of us.
>>>You think its ok for private individuals to run gambling halls and give alcohol to gambling addicts and alcoholics......just not the government?
Donald Trump's gambling halls are his own sins. If he destroys lives, then it is HIS fault.
In contrast the government's sins reflect upon me. If the government destroys lives, then it reflects upon me as a "stupid American". That's why I think the government should be held to a higher standard. I see *nothing* good that comes out of the Government-run Lottos. I see destroyed lives, and I am responsible for them because it is my government that is doing the destruction.
>>>you object to gambling for the same reason you object to the sale of alcohol.
Good God there are a lot of people in this forum who can't read. I don't object to the sale of alcohol. I object to *my government* selling alcohol. Or cocaine. Or any other addictive product that destroys lives. I also object to my government killing human fetuses, or executing innocent Iraqi children (see recent leaked videos).
I don't think my stance is weird. I think it's perfectly logical...governments should be held to higher moral standards.
>>>You mean - If someone wants to run a gambling organization that is not subject to any regulation, that's cool?
No that is NOT what I said. Your reading comprehension sucks.
Now go back and re-read what I actually wrote, rather than using Strawman arguments (poor debating practice): "The government should not be running Lotteries to prey upon gambling addicts. I've seen a lot of lives destroyed via their addiction to the State Lotto."
The government doesn't have to outlaw gambling. It just needs to stop being the Pimp (i.e. stop selling Lotto tickets). The ends (funding programs) don't justify the means (sucking money from addicts). It's immoral.
Slashdot Mirror
Dialup works fine for everything except watching online tv (abc.com, syfy.com, et cetera). Which is why I jumped to higher speed service.
Not me. I haven't figured out how to use moderation.
>>>each one after that is $1.99 - and this is National pricing.
Now this is interesting. First off, how would you know it's "national" pricing? I guess you'd only know that if you worked for Comcast, because your average customer wouldn't have any clue.
Second, you forgot that prices vary from town to town. In my home it costs $63 a month, but in Baltimore the basic Comcast is only $39.99. Likewise, the costs of the DTV boxes vary. The cost might very well be just $2 in Baltimore, but here in the sparsely-populated countryside they are asking $5.
Whoever modded you troll lacks a sense of humor.
Either that or works for Comcast, Cox, Time-Warner, or some other cable monopoly.
My other bias is that I don't understand people who bend-over and polish the knobs of Corporations or Government politicians.
But then I recall the stories from the slavery era. Some slaves actually LOVED their masters, even though they were mistreated. ----- And of course some wives will insist they love their husbands, even after being beaten.
I suppose loving corporate abuse is the same deal. "Yeah I got fined by Comcast, and they raised my monthly rates from $25 to $70, but I still love 'em. They are a good company."
Thank God I'm not like that.
You've been modded funny? Hmmm. Well antenna TV does work here, but internet is either Comcast or slow dialup. Not much of a choice.
By the way I admit bias -
I hate monopolies. Being a pro-choice kind of guy, I don't enjoy Not having choice. There shouldn't be a monopoly.
>>>It's quite well publicized that the download cap is 250GB per month
Bzzzz. Prior to 2008, the cap was unknown. Instead users would just get a call: "You are in the top 5% of highest users and we are yanking service." When asked to provide a specific number, Comcast never did. - Then the FCC stepped in and said "no no no" and comcast came-up with the 250GB number, only because they were caught.
.
>>>No, you are not forced to switch to Digital Cable -
I received a notice that I either switches to digital cable (i.e. one free DTV box, plus $5 per month for each additional box), or I will lose all channels above 15.
So yeah I guess technically you're right - I'm nott "forced" to upgrade. I just have no real choice.
.
>>>Try getting your facts straight
My facts are correct. It's just that I don't share your opinion. And that makes you mad. :-)
.
>>>if all, or even the vast majority of Comcast customer's had such horrible experience, they would be hemorrhaging subscribers
>>>
What part of "monopoly" did you not understand? There's noplace to "flee" to.
I saw two members of my extended family waste ALL of their money gambling on my State Government's Lotto. They were left destitute. Why? Because they were addicted. Therefore I consider the government a criminal, just as surely as if the government had handed beer to alcoholics, or cocaine to a drug addict.
And because the government is "we the people", I am complicit in that crime. I don't enjoy feeling guilty about driving people into bankruptcy. I'd like to see the State Lotto banished, because from my viewpoint it serves no useful purpose except destruction of lives.
- The funds can be collected more fairly, and more evenly across the whole populace, via direct taxation.
Why's this on idle. It should be front page news. If it were about Microsoft or Apple it would be front page.
Yep. Comcast is the worst. They also:
- kick off users for exceeding undefined GB download limits
- sell 25 Mbit/s lines that are actually only 5 Mbit/s - no better than DSL but twice as costly.
- force users to switch to Digital Cable which is incompatible with VCRs or DVRs
- And even if said boxes were compatible, the Digital boxes don't allow the user to tape one show while watching another live.
- Hold a Monopoly and bribe politicians to keep out competitors
- Bought out NBC Universal, so Comcast can censor any anti-comcast dissent from NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, USA, Bravo, Syfy, Telemundo, and so on.
Worst.
Company.
Ever.
By your reasoning the Government could start making cigarettes and selling them to children, and that would be just fine and dandy.
In contrast I do not think the government should be creating/selling products that destroy lives.
The Catholic system has actually been perverted for some time. The era from circa 700 to 900 AD is called "the pornography" for a reason. They managed to restore the Church to a semblance of holiness, but they've never been perfect, either during ancient Roman times or the modern ages.
As for the Pope's speech, I heard it once before.
I don't remember the exact date but it was sometime around 1400, regarding the dangers of the printing press, and how it would be dangerous to let the common man have copies of the Bible that they could read themselves. He claimed that level of transparency was dangerous, because only the priests could properly explain the bible to illiterate commoners, and blah blah blah.
Same old shit. Different century.
Actually I do know my neighbors.
That's why I don't hang around with them. We have no common interests. I've got more in common with my coworkers (engineers/programmers/geeks who like scifi/technology/etc) and people I meet online, than the people in my hood.
Nothing. For example I'm using Firefox now to read slashdot, but of course without the image compression, pages take longer to load. The speed-up I get via IE (and the ISP software) is a nice bonus.
Can you install both IE6 and IE7 at the same time? When I upgraded my PC, 7 overwrote 6.
I have the option to visit the company website to get IE 7 installed, but like most users I never bothered. I suspect that inertia is true all across the business world - people just use whatever was given to them.
(Meanwhile back at home my ISP forces me to use IE. For some dumb reason it's the only browser that works with their web/image compression software.)
And what if those "compromising photos" came from a topless beach you frequent? Who is the REAL criminal here? You? No because you're not breaking the law. The photographer that captured the images? No because it's a public forum and he can capture whatever his eye sees.
I think the blame lies upon HR for expecting people to conform to Company rules during non-work hours. I would certainly never fire someone if I found their topless photo from their weekend beach visit. Of course if they were topless during the hours 8-to-5, then certainly I would can them, but what workers do on private time is NONE of the company's business. That's personal time.
- And governments should pass laws to that effect:
Firing someone for actions during non-paid hours is illegal.
Also let's ban the ridiculous Human Resources moniker. I'm not a cattle or a laptop. "Personnel" is better and reminds HR people that the decisions they make affect PEOPLE not bland, cold, sterile "resources".
>>>And you think paper companies don't reuse their processing chemicals?
Okay clearly someone is not thinking. Which process burns fewer gallons of diesel in the Timber company's cranes & trucks & saws?
(a) Chopping down the tree, carrying it off, turning it to paper, transporting the new paper to the office, collecting the used paper, and then recycling it.
(b) Not using the paper & therefore not needing to cut down the tree, or burn diesel.
The answer is b. NOT using the paper is the more environment-friendly option. If "young people" have developed the habit of passing documents electronically, without printing, then we should encourage them to continue that habit. Encouraging them to print just for the sake of printing as the Domtar CEO wants to do is worse for the environment. He's an idiot.
>>> I would rather stave off global warming, so if anyone needs me, I'll be outside emptying cans of hair spray, bug poison, and cooking oil into the atmosphere.
>>>
A very short-sighted view. IMHO I'd rather live in a warm planet with clean air, than a non-warmed planet with poisonous air. Think of the benefits of a warmer planet:
- Australia and Arabia will probably become tropical rather than desert, just as they were in the age of dinosaurs
- The U.S. and EU will become near-tropical and experience little snow.
- Canada will become warm enough to grow food, even in the far north
- Siberia will become warm enough to grow food
Now think of the benefits of poisoned air:
-
-
-
Yeah I can't think of any either.
Yeah actually I have, because I worked about 10 years in a minimum wage store. A lot of poor people. And hwat I observed is that government checks merely encourage them to spend more money..... like the lady who kept buying herself new dresses that she didn't really need. Or the man who was spending over $100/month on a cellphone plan with internet.
This is not what welfare is supposed to be for. These people didn't really need monetary assistance. What they needed was an education in how to stop being wasteful.
P.S.
Similarly:
When Jeffrey Dalmer killed a bunch of children, his sins were his alone.
But when the U.S. Government killed a bunch of children, then those sins became MY sins. (As can be seen by the anti-american hate spreading across Europe and elsewhere.) The government needs to hold itself to the highest standard, not the bare minimum, because its actions reflect on ALL of us.
>>>You think its ok for private individuals to run gambling halls and give alcohol to gambling addicts and alcoholics......just not the government?
Donald Trump's gambling halls are his own sins. If he destroys lives, then it is HIS fault.
In contrast the government's sins reflect upon me. If the government destroys lives, then it reflects upon me as a "stupid American". That's why I think the government should be held to a higher standard. I see *nothing* good that comes out of the Government-run Lottos. I see destroyed lives, and I am responsible for them because it is my government that is doing the destruction.
>>>you object to gambling for the same reason you object to the sale of alcohol.
Good God there are a lot of people in this forum who can't read. I don't object to the sale of alcohol. I object to *my government* selling alcohol. Or cocaine. Or any other addictive product that destroys lives. I also object to my government killing human fetuses, or executing innocent Iraqi children (see recent leaked videos).
I don't think my stance is weird. ...governments should be held to higher moral standards.
I think it's perfectly logical
>>>You mean - If someone wants to run a gambling organization that is not subject to any regulation, that's cool?
No that is NOT what I said.
Your reading comprehension sucks.
Now go back and re-read what I actually wrote, rather than using Strawman arguments (poor debating practice): "The government should not be running Lotteries to prey upon gambling addicts. I've seen a lot of lives destroyed via their addiction to the State Lotto."
The government doesn't have to outlaw gambling. It just needs to stop being the Pimp (i.e. stop selling Lotto tickets). The ends (funding programs) don't justify the means (sucking money from addicts). It's immoral.