This doesn't make much sense. I have a photo album full of prints created from a digital camera. The only difference is that I don't have a box full of negatives and other prints that are blurry, washed out, too dark, too light, or off center that I paid good money for.
It's not laziness so much as cost and convenience. I don't need to buy film or carry around multiple rolls so that I can take more than 24 pics at a time. I don't have to be concerned with blowing a shot (and using up one of the 24 pics) cause I can just delete it and shoot again. I don't have to bring the film someplace to be developed, I can just go home and print out the pictures I want.
And unlike negatives my digital files will never degrade (so long as I keep a decent backup).
Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against traditional film photography. But to say that people are lazy because we've largely abandoned it in favor of the much more convenient, cheap, and versatile digital technology it simply not accurate.
Cause I'm sure AT&T forced you to spend $3000 for cell phone service using mafioso-style tactics. Wait... you weren't forced into buying a $400 PHONE and spending another $100 a month to use it??? Better would be a law stopping people from whining about the astronomical prices they willingly pay for crap they don't really need. Now THAT'S a bill I would support.
Clearly it's a sign of the Apocalypse when an Apple fanboi isn't willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on substandard hardware with an asinine number of restrictions. Worse, he's not even thanking Apple and AT&T for the privilege!
My God, what's next?!?! Best Buy not charging 3x more than everyone else?!?!?! Microsoft selling Windows 7 for less than what you're entire computer system costs?!?!?!?! The RIAA being spanked by the US Supreme Court and forced to refund all the extortion money they've collected from innocent civilians?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Oh the HORROR!!! THE HORROR!!!
I think it's much more prevalent than you realize. 25 years ago the average executive salary was 40 times that of the average worker. Today it's over 400 times. This isn't in just the top 1% of corporations, it's a nationwide average.
I never said an executive should make as much as the office workers. They have more responsibility and naturally should have more compensation. BUT, and this is a big BUT, there should be a limit to said compensation; one that does not come at the expense of the "little people".
We read about it all the time. Massive corporation X needs to lay off thousands of workers in this time of financial crisis, yet can magically come up tens of millions of dollars to pay the executive bonuses and golden parachutes. Com'n now, I'm not saying anything you don't already know, and you can't really think this is right, can you?
Good point, as they are also part of the problem being the shareholders that corporate America uses as an excuse. But still the primary motivation is greed, plain and simple.
I disagree. When TWC announced their proposed changes many states, NY in particular, made it very clear they would fight such obvious predatory pricing by passing new laws to restrict or outright ban it. And TWC backed down.
While I generally don't trust politicians to do the right thing, on this they do seem to be looking out for the consumer. So I'm at least optimistic. If push does come to shove we very well might see things on a state-by-state basis, where TWC will be permitted to change their pricing in some states, while others make it illegal for them.
Of course the new FCC chief *could* step in and take care of the problem in one fell swoop. Who knows, stranger things have happened.
You answered your own question. I don't think many would argue the merit of caps if they were set high enough and priced accordingly. But this is not the case. Hence all the bitching and moaning.
We are also questioning the motivation. As you've pointed out, transfer caps have very little to do with bandwidth saturation. So while TWC is using this as their rationale, we who know better are calling bullsh*t.
And seriously, did you actually read the new TOS? Does anyone think it's okay to sign up for a service for an agreed upon price of $40 a month (based on connection speed, not transfer amount) only to get a bill for $150 because you went over some transfer cap? Where they don't actually disclose where that cap is nor give you tools to monitor your usage???
This would be like a getting a car lease, knowing you had a mileage limit but never being told what that limit is. Oh, and having your odometer removed. Or like a cell phone plan that you knew had a monthly minute restriction, but no idea what that restriction is or any way to find out how many minutes you've used.
If TWC wants to eliminate pricing by speed and switch to a transfer tiered system I don't have a problem with that. But the prices of the new tiers needs to be comparable to current offerings (not 3x what it is now like their proposed change), with full disclosure of the limits, and easy to use tools to monitor usage.
I have NEVER, EVER seen broadband services advertised on the basis of data transferred, only speed. You buy your service based upon the speed of your connection, not by the amount of data you transfer.
The only exception to this is cellular broadband, which typically charges by the megabyte. What's worse, some providers actually advertise "unlimited data" plans while putting a cap in the fine print.
This is why they are amending their TOS to include transfer caps, because no such restriction was there previously. Hence, it's an unlimited service. They are certainly allowed to change the TOS, as customers are allowed to cancel their accounts if they do not agree with the changes, but the problem here is that in many places TWC is the only game in town. There is a reason why other local monopolies like phone and utility companies need regulatory approval to raise their rates -- because customers do not have choices and need to be protected from predatory pricing. It's the exact same thing, and the reason why so many states were threatening to pass legislation to protect consumers from this bullsh*t.
And notice how the TOS change only applies to people who exceed the caps. What about those that only move a tiny amount of data every month? Are they going to see their bill automatically reduced to accommodate their usage? Yeah, not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
So it's okay if you pay for a certain level of service and never come close to using it, but not okay if you take full advantage of what you've paid for. Riiiiiight...
Yes, and this is where the anti-competitive regulation come into play. Because TWC would essentially penalize you for using competitor's services instead of their own. And that's a big no-no.
Wow, how American of you. Idiot. If you look to the east you'll find dozens of countries in Europe that have amazing infrastructures, not to mention extremely cheap and very fast broadband. And their poverty to wealth ratio is a fraction of what it is here. How DO they do it???
The problem with a "free market" is that greed trumps all. This is fine when you're dealing with yachts, luxury homes, and bling, but not so much when it comes to basic and ubiquitous goods and services like homes, automobiles, healthcare, and yes, Internet.
There was once a time in this country when making a buck was not the end-all-be-all of running a business. Unfortunately that time has long passed. Instead we have corporations with no moral compass, no compassion, no sense of right and wrong, only the financial bottom line. And we excuse this behavior on the grounds that they are businesses who are beholden to shareholders, blah blah blah blah blah.
When a company lays off 500 people yet continues to pay their top executives $20+ million a year, how can anyone with half a brain think this is right? Axe one of those execs and you now have enough money to hire back those 500 people. Or cut their pay by 10% each (like they're really going to notice). But when was the last time that happened?
I'm tired of the all the excuses. A business can be profitable AND be socially conscious. They are not mutually exclusive. Until the people of this country stop buying corporate America's excuses as to why they can't do this we will continue to see the working Joes get beaten down while the wealthiest of wealthy keep getting richer and richer.
So yeah, explain to me how great the "free market" is again...
This is absurd. What in your mind constitutes an "abuser" of a service that is advertised as unlimited? "Completely legal"??? So you assume that people who are download "abusers" are also pirates? Ridiculous. With the popularity of Hulu, YouTube, and any number of proprietary video-on-demand sites (Amazon, Netflix, iTunes, and an assortment of TV sites) it's quite easy to rack up the gigabytes on a monthly basis, all of which are completely LEGAL. Don't forget VoIP, Steam, X-Box/PS3, MMOs, and other assorted on-line gaming resources, all of which also pack on the gigabytes, and again, all LEGAL.
By your rationale, people who watch only a few hours of cable TV a month should pay less than those watching hundreds of hours of cable TV, as they are essentially "abusers" of what is advertised and sold as an unlimited service. Total bullsh*t. Lets cut to the chase -- this has NOTHING to do with saturating bandwidth or degrading performance. Time Warner doesn't want you downloading movies from Netflix, using Skype to make free phone calls, and watching TV on Hulu. They want you to pay outrageous amounts of money for their crappy cable TV service, VoIP telephone service, and PPV movies on-demand service. They know it, we know it, and the feds know it. They're not fooling anyone.
At best it's anti-competitive, at worst it's extortion. The feds need to come in and smack TWC back in line.
Still using my IBM PS/2 keyboard from 1989. I simply cannot fathom using anything else. Windows key be damned!
I also have an IBM PC/AT circa 1986 around here somewhere, complete with monitor. It's been a long time since I fired it up tho.
As for non-computer equipment I have a Singer sewing machine from 1964 and an Electrolux vacuum cleaner, also from the 60s, both of which still work flawlessly. Come to think of it I think I still have a 60s clothes iron around here someplace (like I iron clothes BWAHAHAHAHAH!)
I haven't owned a motherboard with integrated video in over 5-6 years. And while I admit I often buy "enthusiast" boards, they are not necessarily expensive (ASRock was my brand of choice for many years). I don't go out of my way to avoid them -- the boards I choose just don't happen to have them.
I just replaced my 8800GTS 320 with an HD4770 and couldn't be happier with my little $100 powerhouse. I mostly play MMOs these days, so I don't need to keep up with the FPS crowd.
For what I play the HD4770 runs fine at 1920x1080 with a lot more eye candy than the 8800GTS could handle. For me it's more important to have smooth gameplay than eye candy, but with the Radeon I now have both:)
What kind of conclusion is the Radeon 4770 as the best for its price for cards under $150? It's discontinued and you can't buy it from Newegg, Mwave, or ZipZoomFly. That seems to be a very poor suggestion to recommend a discontinued card that is probably only available used...
LOL, it's not discontinued. It just came out. You can't buy it from these retailers cause it's SOLD OUT. That's right, selling like hotcakes. But I gots mine .
And these guys are calling $250 a *BUDGET* card? Are they INSANE?
Slashdot Mirror
I never said the *medium* lasts forever. But the data that makes up the picture does not degrade.
Oh, and for the record I have many 5.25" floppies from the late 80s that still work.
If the images are important enough you'll reburn them every 10 years or so. I've already started to do this with CDs from the early to mid 90s.
This doesn't make much sense. I have a photo album full of prints created from a digital camera. The only difference is that I don't have a box full of negatives and other prints that are blurry, washed out, too dark, too light, or off center that I paid good money for.
It's not laziness so much as cost and convenience. I don't need to buy film or carry around multiple rolls so that I can take more than 24 pics at a time. I don't have to be concerned with blowing a shot (and using up one of the 24 pics) cause I can just delete it and shoot again. I don't have to bring the film someplace to be developed, I can just go home and print out the pictures I want.
And unlike negatives my digital files will never degrade (so long as I keep a decent backup).
Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against traditional film photography. But to say that people are lazy because we've largely abandoned it in favor of the much more convenient, cheap, and versatile digital technology it simply not accurate.
Cause I'm sure AT&T forced you to spend $3000 for cell phone service using mafioso-style tactics. Wait... you weren't forced into buying a $400 PHONE and spending another $100 a month to use it??? Better would be a law stopping people from whining about the astronomical prices they willingly pay for crap they don't really need. Now THAT'S a bill I would support.
Clearly it's a sign of the Apocalypse when an Apple fanboi isn't willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on substandard hardware with an asinine number of restrictions. Worse, he's not even thanking Apple and AT&T for the privilege!
My God, what's next?!?! Best Buy not charging 3x more than everyone else?!?!?! Microsoft selling Windows 7 for less than what you're entire computer system costs?!?!?!?! The RIAA being spanked by the US Supreme Court and forced to refund all the extortion money they've collected from innocent civilians?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Oh the HORROR!!! THE HORROR!!!
I think it's much more prevalent than you realize. 25 years ago the average executive salary was 40 times that of the average worker. Today it's over 400 times. This isn't in just the top 1% of corporations, it's a nationwide average.
I never said an executive should make as much as the office workers. They have more responsibility and naturally should have more compensation. BUT, and this is a big BUT, there should be a limit to said compensation; one that does not come at the expense of the "little people".
We read about it all the time. Massive corporation X needs to lay off thousands of workers in this time of financial crisis, yet can magically come up tens of millions of dollars to pay the executive bonuses and golden parachutes. Com'n now, I'm not saying anything you don't already know, and you can't really think this is right, can you?
Good point, as they are also part of the problem being the shareholders that corporate America uses as an excuse. But still the primary motivation is greed, plain and simple.
I disagree. When TWC announced their proposed changes many states, NY in particular, made it very clear they would fight such obvious predatory pricing by passing new laws to restrict or outright ban it. And TWC backed down.
While I generally don't trust politicians to do the right thing, on this they do seem to be looking out for the consumer. So I'm at least optimistic. If push does come to shove we very well might see things on a state-by-state basis, where TWC will be permitted to change their pricing in some states, while others make it illegal for them.
Of course the new FCC chief *could* step in and take care of the problem in one fell swoop. Who knows, stranger things have happened.
You answered your own question. I don't think many would argue the merit of caps if they were set high enough and priced accordingly. But this is not the case. Hence all the bitching and moaning.
We are also questioning the motivation. As you've pointed out, transfer caps have very little to do with bandwidth saturation. So while TWC is using this as their rationale, we who know better are calling bullsh*t.
And seriously, did you actually read the new TOS? Does anyone think it's okay to sign up for a service for an agreed upon price of $40 a month (based on connection speed, not transfer amount) only to get a bill for $150 because you went over some transfer cap? Where they don't actually disclose where that cap is nor give you tools to monitor your usage???
This would be like a getting a car lease, knowing you had a mileage limit but never being told what that limit is. Oh, and having your odometer removed. Or like a cell phone plan that you knew had a monthly minute restriction, but no idea what that restriction is or any way to find out how many minutes you've used.
If TWC wants to eliminate pricing by speed and switch to a transfer tiered system I don't have a problem with that. But the prices of the new tiers needs to be comparable to current offerings (not 3x what it is now like their proposed change), with full disclosure of the limits, and easy to use tools to monitor usage.
I have NEVER, EVER seen broadband services advertised on the basis of data transferred, only speed. You buy your service based upon the speed of your connection, not by the amount of data you transfer.
The only exception to this is cellular broadband, which typically charges by the megabyte. What's worse, some providers actually advertise "unlimited data" plans while putting a cap in the fine print.
This is why they are amending their TOS to include transfer caps, because no such restriction was there previously. Hence, it's an unlimited service. They are certainly allowed to change the TOS, as customers are allowed to cancel their accounts if they do not agree with the changes, but the problem here is that in many places TWC is the only game in town. There is a reason why other local monopolies like phone and utility companies need regulatory approval to raise their rates -- because customers do not have choices and need to be protected from predatory pricing. It's the exact same thing, and the reason why so many states were threatening to pass legislation to protect consumers from this bullsh*t.
And notice how the TOS change only applies to people who exceed the caps. What about those that only move a tiny amount of data every month? Are they going to see their bill automatically reduced to accommodate their usage? Yeah, not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
So it's okay if you pay for a certain level of service and never come close to using it, but not okay if you take full advantage of what you've paid for. Riiiiiight...
Welcome to the American "free market" system. Enjoy your stay...
Yes, and this is where the anti-competitive regulation come into play. Because TWC would essentially penalize you for using competitor's services instead of their own. And that's a big no-no.
Wow, how American of you. Idiot. If you look to the east you'll find dozens of countries in Europe that have amazing infrastructures, not to mention extremely cheap and very fast broadband. And their poverty to wealth ratio is a fraction of what it is here. How DO they do it???
The problem with a "free market" is that greed trumps all. This is fine when you're dealing with yachts, luxury homes, and bling, but not so much when it comes to basic and ubiquitous goods and services like homes, automobiles, healthcare, and yes, Internet.
There was once a time in this country when making a buck was not the end-all-be-all of running a business. Unfortunately that time has long passed. Instead we have corporations with no moral compass, no compassion, no sense of right and wrong, only the financial bottom line. And we excuse this behavior on the grounds that they are businesses who are beholden to shareholders, blah blah blah blah blah.
When a company lays off 500 people yet continues to pay their top executives $20+ million a year, how can anyone with half a brain think this is right? Axe one of those execs and you now have enough money to hire back those 500 people. Or cut their pay by 10% each (like they're really going to notice). But when was the last time that happened?
I'm tired of the all the excuses. A business can be profitable AND be socially conscious. They are not mutually exclusive. Until the people of this country stop buying corporate America's excuses as to why they can't do this we will continue to see the working Joes get beaten down while the wealthiest of wealthy keep getting richer and richer.
So yeah, explain to me how great the "free market" is again...
This is absurd. What in your mind constitutes an "abuser" of a service that is advertised as unlimited? "Completely legal"??? So you assume that people who are download "abusers" are also pirates? Ridiculous. With the popularity of Hulu, YouTube, and any number of proprietary video-on-demand sites (Amazon, Netflix, iTunes, and an assortment of TV sites) it's quite easy to rack up the gigabytes on a monthly basis, all of which are completely LEGAL. Don't forget VoIP, Steam, X-Box/PS3, MMOs, and other assorted on-line gaming resources, all of which also pack on the gigabytes, and again, all LEGAL.
By your rationale, people who watch only a few hours of cable TV a month should pay less than those watching hundreds of hours of cable TV, as they are essentially "abusers" of what is advertised and sold as an unlimited service. Total bullsh*t. Lets cut to the chase -- this has NOTHING to do with saturating bandwidth or degrading performance. Time Warner doesn't want you downloading movies from Netflix, using Skype to make free phone calls, and watching TV on Hulu. They want you to pay outrageous amounts of money for their crappy cable TV service, VoIP telephone service, and PPV movies on-demand service. They know it, we know it, and the feds know it. They're not fooling anyone.
At best it's anti-competitive, at worst it's extortion. The feds need to come in and smack TWC back in line.
Hmmm... same thing with my 8800GTS from 2 years ago. Apparently their definition of "lifetime" is "less than 2 years"
Still using my IBM PS/2 keyboard from 1989. I simply cannot fathom using anything else. Windows key be damned!
I also have an IBM PC/AT circa 1986 around here somewhere, complete with monitor. It's been a long time since I fired it up tho.
As for non-computer equipment I have a Singer sewing machine from 1964 and an Electrolux vacuum cleaner, also from the 60s, both of which still work flawlessly. Come to think of it I think I still have a 60s clothes iron around here someplace (like I iron clothes BWAHAHAHAHAH!)
I haven't owned a motherboard with integrated video in over 5-6 years. And while I admit I often buy "enthusiast" boards, they are not necessarily expensive (ASRock was my brand of choice for many years). I don't go out of my way to avoid them -- the boards I choose just don't happen to have them. I just replaced my 8800GTS 320 with an HD4770 and couldn't be happier with my little $100 powerhouse. I mostly play MMOs these days, so I don't need to keep up with the FPS crowd. For what I play the HD4770 runs fine at 1920x1080 with a lot more eye candy than the 8800GTS could handle. For me it's more important to have smooth gameplay than eye candy, but with the Radeon I now have both :)
What kind of conclusion is the Radeon 4770 as the best for its price for cards under $150? It's discontinued and you can't buy it from Newegg, Mwave, or ZipZoomFly. That seems to be a very poor suggestion to recommend a discontinued card that is probably only available used...
LOL, it's not discontinued. It just came out. You can't buy it from these retailers cause it's SOLD OUT. That's right, selling like hotcakes. But I gots mine . And these guys are calling $250 a *BUDGET* card? Are they INSANE?