>A MS Gripe: I seriously don't understand why I can't turn it off completely. With multiple GB of RAM dirt cheap, writing to a disk pagefile slows my system down-- It has to!
This has been an option since Windows 3.0 (possibly earlier, I've never experienced anything before that).
>By and pigeonholing women into tasks that take advantage of their supposed "intuition" and "social skills", like day-care center workers and elementary school teachers, while discouraging them from taking jobs, like science and programming, that require male rationality?
He didn't say that, and I would like to know how you read that into his comment. He simply is suggesting that when these differences exist, people should exploit them to the benefit of all mankind (including those being "exploited").
For example, the extra muscle men naturally have is put to good use when they build a house. This doesn't mean you discourage women from doing that job, it simply means that if you are a man you have the natural ability to do such a task, and you'd be a fool not to use it.
>How about this not-so-revolutionary idea, that's been touted by gender and race activists for decades: accept that differences, if any, exist only in the average case and that there is huge overlap in the spectrum of individuals.
Okay, and you want to be the person to print the 10,000 or so reports a study takes in a book and expect people to read them all rather than present a statistical (and therefore mathematically and scientifically valid) average of the population? Your idea is ludicrous and would lead to the lack of intelligence that brought us into the racism and hate you clearly despise so much.
I agree, race activists have said what you suggest they say. But they never expected anyone to take it to your extremes. The fact that there is an average and that it is statistically and scientifically valid must be acknowledged. Not to do so is foolhardy at best. At the same time as that is acknowledged, people should be reminded that there is overlap (in most all cases, in a very few there truly isn't any [ex: Men giving birth]), and therefore it isn't a reason to lock people out of options. I think that was done many comments ago, though, in this thread.
>Automatically assigning the average properties of a group to an individual is called stereotyping, and it is repellent and wrong.
No, stereotyping is only repellent and wrong when it is used to limit the options of others. Using stereotyping to enhance the options of others is fine in my book, and is fine in the books of 100% (minus you) of the people I know.
>But this is what you imply by your suggestion of "using those differences".
How did he imply it? I clearly didn't see him enslaving a population as you would seem to think he would.
They have. It's called the "$0.99" theater (which is now more like the "$3" theater).
You go there and see a movie that's 2, maybe 3 months old and just about ready to be released to VHS/DVD. The copy they have is usually worn beyond recognition, and while the theater has stereo sound it usually drops to mono because the iron ferrite is mostly scratched off. The seats feel like you're sitting in a Lada, and everyone in the theater is loud and boorish, and there's usually an annoying hole in the screen where a 13 year-old threw their milk dud.
>Who's supposed to pay for the plane ticket to get the alleged phone phreak into the US when the case goes to court?
If they're in Pakistan, well, you pay twice the stupidity tax because you were too dumb to block international collect calling. What kind of person would do something that silly?
In that case, the company is clearly so mismanaged they need to pay the entire bill to get a clue (or, preferrably, go out of business).
>I'm sure you could find whole offices running OpenOffice or StarOffice or even still using WordPerfect and 123 just so they can stay away from MS products. But they aren't the IBM's or Fords or Bank of America's of the world.
Perhaps Bank of America will be changing its tune after 13,000 of its ATMs were put out of service by Microsoft bugs. Or perhaps they're just stupid and masochistic? Either way, if they're still paying for M$-ware, I'd take a second look at whether I want to invest my money in a bank that doesn't put its money where its mouth is.
Ford, well, beats the hell out of me what they run.:)
Since it was a computer, and being you went to so much trouble, I assume it was reasonably much ($100 or more).
I'd just sue them in small claims. Quicker, faster, easier. If they offer to pay out of court (almost guaranteed they will if you kept detailed notes about what you've done to recover your rebate already) remind them that you require the cost of court fees as well (which will almost always be less than the cost of them driving a guy from Dell Canada to your city).
You win all around, and don't have to chase them about for your rebate.
>... and there's not just one magical rebate God that sends you all your rebate checks.
Actually, there almost is.
VERY few companies actually handle the rebates themselves. I'm guessing from personal experience with a truly fraudulent rebate here (this rebate didn't specifically limit quantity but the rebator refused to provide me with one rebate per item bought), but the reason they take so long is they are sent to a rebate processing company that handles hundreds, perhaps thousands of different rebates at the same time. Eventually yours is picked from a bin, entered into the computer, and, when the rebate is over (or, if the rebate availability is longer than the refund waiting period, when the "term" is up) a whole bunch of cheques are printed up and mailed en-masse, saving lots of people lots of money.
I can't imagine there's more than 50 or 100 of these companies in a country such as the US or Canada.
>If AT&T is in agreement that the individuals did not make these calls, then the only good business decision for AT&T to make is to not charge them for services they did not use. Otherwise, AT&T is a passive participant in the scamming of their customer's.
The real answer is to charge them, but help the user sue the scammers for the business' money back as part of the lawsuit AT&T will surely file.
Now AT&T gets paid for their losses, the business pays for their stupidity in losing a large sum for a year or two until the case is settled, and the scammers pay back what they owe.
However, evidence does suggest that directly smoking cigarettes, while still a known danger, may not be as bad as once thought, as it turns out the overall lifestyle of most smokers greatly contributes to the effects of smoking. This would explain the "My dad smoked for 40 years and could still run a marathon" outlandish claims you hear sometimes. Their healthy lifestyle (excepting the smoking) contributed to their body being able to deal with the one poor factor in their life.
However, even knowing this, cigarettes are still a leading cause of death among smokers. So don't go ahead and join them just yet!
>But it's thouroughly gratifying to have gone from childish to pompous in your view. I feel so much better now.
And you continue to wear it on your sleeve. Why, I really don't know.
>And you're pretty sure UPS isn't worried about what a pissant on Slashdot has to say.
No, not at all, really. I do know the 2/8 rule of business came true though -- at add up the comments. Another few thousand pissed off people like me and UPS is fucked. Not that they aren't already, considering their idiotic logo change. Taking the most memorable and successful logo on earth and destroying it questionable management, at best.
>You first....And back to childhood we go! I feel like I'm back in kindergarten! You second, you third! You infinity! You inifinity plus one!
>You still were inconsistent, having said that people don't have the right to expect good service from ISPs for consumer level prices, but demanding the same thing from UPS.
I paid them money for a CONTRACTED shipment that they GUARANTEED and never made good on. They broke contract law, plain and simple?
Is _that_ clear enough for you? I'd sue them, but why bother over $25? I'd rather just publically "libel" them, which it really isn't since I have the goods to back up my claim.
>is essentially just a paraphrase of what you said to me. So it seems (again) hypocritical of you to criticize it.
Whoopity. Perhaps if you bothered to read your sarcastic tone you'd realize what level of pompous asshole you were.
>I could care less how you "treated" me. I wouldn't call someone like you "Sir" if you had a loaded gun in my belly and demanded it.
Good, because I don't believe in guns. Now fuck off and stop wasting bandwidth.
You forgot to log in. I guess that makes us even on this point.
>2. You chided me for complaining about the level of service received for little money, while you had done the same thing yourself.
No, you seem to think that chalk and cheese are the same thing. What works for a capitalist society and what works for a communist society are two different things. The USPS is one of the few good socialist (ie: Communist service in a capitalistic world) ideas that actually work. However, because it is socialist it doesn't follow standard free-market economics. Why you don't understand this I have no clue, and I'm not an economics professor, and don't intend to be. Look up any more information you need on this topic yourself.
>3. When called on it, you lashed out with another ad hominem, while still not understanding that if you want to be an Ayn Rand-worshipping capitalist toady, you should at least be consistent.
I was only responding in kind. If you want to be treated as an adult, use an adult reply. If you wish to be treated at the child your original post (and method) have shown you to be, you simply needed to act as one, which you did (allow me to quote you, stalinist toady):
"Feel like a hypocrite yet?" "But they use the money from other customers who don't complain to subsidize whiners like you."
Since you would prefer to be treated as an adult rather than the child you made yourself out to be, allow me to say "Sir, please stop being such a hypocrite".
BTW: I certainly would like to see the USPS privatized, but as long as it isn't, I see no reason to apply free-market economics to it. Do you see it fit to apply incorrect economic models to various situations? It certainly seems you do.
Wow, you do get around, don't you moron? For the benefit of other readers, and because this rude asshole just doesn't get it, here's what he's referring to, which he childisly had to reply to with a particularly shitty reponse, proving he has nothing to add to the debate.
You see, had you taken economics 101 along with business 101 you'd have learned the difference between a socialist system and a free-market, or capitalist system. Here's a shitty Term Paper, as in a few years, when you take grade 10 business studies (if your shitty school offers it), you might just need it.
In a socialist system, everyone enjoys the same level of service, or lack of it. In the case of the USPS (a clearly socialist institute, by definition) this has worked to its advantage, however in the case of other socialist systems, such as the medicare system your neighbours to the North enjoy, it's a serious disadvantage.
Normally, for services that are totally optional, in a free-market, or capitalist society bidding occurrs. Top bids get the job, low bids looks elsewhere until they meet up with someone who can provide them the service they want, normally at the expense of quality, quantity, or both.
Anything more I need to clear up for you before you graduate from primary school? If you would like I can define the terms over 5 letters, in case you have trouble with words like "elsewhere", "quality", and "disadvantage".
My only question, though, is how you ever learned to use a computer, yet were somehow unable to learn even the most basic concepts from our dictionary. Your type will remain a conundrum to me for some time, I'm afraid.
You'd be surprised at the new applications for a high speed processor.
Think software-based, real-time, HDTV decoding, for instance. Combine doing that with doing some other work at the same time and you've a lot of reason to use this speed.
>Please. I don't know what contact you're talking about, but my "bottom of the barrel internet access" contract doesn't say shit about my being allowed to run a mail server one way or another. Sounds to me like you're just another elitist slashdot BOFH wannabe who can't stand the idea of a mere "user" running his or her own servers. You might grow out of that someday.
You're clearly another whining person who hasn't grown up and seen the way business operates. Take business 101 course and run an ISP and learn just what the difference between a $20 a month account and a $100 a month account are.
Thick as a brick, most of you ACs are.
Because I'm a nice guy I'll explain it to you:
If your ISP didn't bother mentioning if you can run a server or not, it simply means they don't give a rats ass if you do. But they aren't about to set up a service contract to make sure the server that you are running can do everything their corporate clients' server can do. That's what they pay the extra dough (that you're not paying) for.
Do you not understand that? Is that too complicated for your microbrain to understand?
All people on the internet are "users". You're a user just as GM would be a user. The difference is they're paying $25,000 a month for internet access and you're paying $20. What does that mean? You're paying for lower grade service. With lower grade service comes less quality, or often no quality. If their internet goes down for even 10 minutes they threaten to leave and the ISP jumps into emergency mode. $25k a month pays their bread and butter. You phone up and bitch about not being able to run a server and you cost them money. The reason they don't boot you off just for wasting their money is that part of all of their cheap-bastard accounts goes into what is basically an "insurance fund" to pay the people that support idiots such as yourself. They log your complaint, and at the end of the month comb through them to see the cream that rises to the top. If the majority of their users are running servers, the complaints will mount up and something will be done. Otherwise, they'd rather drop your ass than have you phone back, and if I were running an ISP I'd do it in a heartbeat. Now, if you were on a $100 a month account, I'd listen and put it in the "To do this week" pile of jobs. If you were a $1k+ a month account you'd be in the "To do within 12 hours" pile, and if you were a $10k+ a month account I'd phone up a tech and haul his ass in to get the job done stat.
Without you grousing about how your $20 a month account doesn't work like a $100 a month account you'd be able to get the damn thing for $10 a month, and the ISP might be willing to offer you an enhanced service version for, say, $50 a month.
Example: If I buy a 100 pack of batteries made by super-sun-power-maxi-dragon-hsing-fan-tech-inc. for $5 and 50% of them last for 10 seconds, who can I complain to? If I do find someone to complain to, are they going to care? Will they even speak english? What if I sue? You'll be laughed the hell out of court, if you're lucky enough not to be arrested for chewing gum in their country. You bought super-low-grade garbage and got exactly what you paid for. If the batteries didn't destroy your stuff your complaint value is nil.
Go into the same store and buy a 4 pack of duracells and find they last 10 seconds and you'll end up with a new set of batteries. Says so right on the package. That's why they cost a hundred times more -- because they aren't bottom of the barrel garbage.
Idiots like you would want the government to make it illegal to sell the cheap batteries / internet, raising prices for everyone and leaving the economy poorer for it. Because there's no way in hell they could provide internet at residential prices while maintaining corporate support and quality. Not unless they're a charity case.
Also, because of ISP experiences with people such as yourself, I can't get decent internet out in the sticks. I'd pay upwards of $100 a month if someone would offer me decent residential highspeed, but because most users are cheap-asses such as yourself, I can't get it at all; never mind at a price that would actually cause them to turn a profit.
Anyways, incidences of CJD are 1 in 1 million, so don't worry about it anyways. You're much more likely to die from exiting your home.:)
That and I do still think that by being selective about your meat you can avoid mad cow disease or anything similar. Up to now the FDA hasn't found a single case of Mad Cow Disease in any tested cows in the US (AFAIK).
>UPS or FEDEX are guaranteed to arrive, so they cost more.
Guarantees are worthless with service of this "caliber". With today's market, I refuse to do business with companies that won't ship via regular Mail. There's just positively no excuse to say no to that.
By the way, I never did receive a refund. So their guarantee is less than worthless -- it's a fraud.
>I personally think that there needs to be U.S. Federal laws made to protect the rights of Internet users.
I can see how these laws might help you with datanomix and UCF, but how are they going to help you to get mail to, I don't know, the other 95% of the planet?
Unless you want a "World Government" federal laws aren't going to help you all that much unless you live in India or China.
Because this is slashdot where we rant and rave about a lot of things that aren't all that important to many people.
If you _really_ want to serve mail from your domain, the only thing this does is increase the price barrier. You'll have to tell your ISP you want to use it for that, they'll charge you for the corporate account your TOS probably said you needed anyhow, and you'll be in business (your ISP will remove you from the dynip list).
Yes, it does suck that that's the way it is, but honestly, almost nobody ever expected bottom of the barrel internet service to be able to do specialty things.
Slashdot Mirror
>A MS Gripe: I seriously don't understand why I can't turn it off completely. With multiple GB of RAM dirt cheap, writing to a disk pagefile slows my system down-- It has to!
This has been an option since Windows 3.0 (possibly earlier, I've never experienced anything before that).
In windows XP, the swap can be disabled as such:
Start->Control Panel->System->Advanced->Performance (Settings)->Advanced->Virtual Memory (Change)->No Paging File->Set (etc, etc)
Unlike linux, windows apps normally throw a nice error when they're out of memory, rather than "Segmentation Fault" (Uggggh...)
>By and pigeonholing women into tasks that take advantage of their supposed "intuition" and "social skills", like day-care center workers and elementary school teachers, while discouraging them from taking jobs, like science and programming, that require male rationality?
He didn't say that, and I would like to know how you read that into his comment. He simply is suggesting that when these differences exist, people should exploit them to the benefit of all mankind (including those being "exploited").
For example, the extra muscle men naturally have is put to good use when they build a house. This doesn't mean you discourage women from doing that job, it simply means that if you are a man you have the natural ability to do such a task, and you'd be a fool not to use it.
>How about this not-so-revolutionary idea, that's been touted by gender and race activists for decades: accept that differences, if any, exist only in the average case and that there is huge overlap in the spectrum of individuals.
Okay, and you want to be the person to print the 10,000 or so reports a study takes in a book and expect people to read them all rather than present a statistical (and therefore mathematically and scientifically valid) average of the population? Your idea is ludicrous and would lead to the lack of intelligence that brought us into the racism and hate you clearly despise so much.
I agree, race activists have said what you suggest they say. But they never expected anyone to take it to your extremes. The fact that there is an average and that it is statistically and scientifically valid must be acknowledged. Not to do so is foolhardy at best. At the same time as that is acknowledged, people should be reminded that there is overlap (in most all cases, in a very few there truly isn't any [ex: Men giving birth]), and therefore it isn't a reason to lock people out of options. I think that was done many comments ago, though, in this thread.
>Automatically assigning the average properties of a group to an individual is called stereotyping, and it is repellent and wrong.
No, stereotyping is only repellent and wrong when it is used to limit the options of others. Using stereotyping to enhance the options of others is fine in my book, and is fine in the books of 100% (minus you) of the people I know.
>But this is what you imply by your suggestion of "using those differences".
How did he imply it? I clearly didn't see him enslaving a population as you would seem to think he would.
>The enlightened would see an untapped market.
They have. It's called the "$0.99" theater (which is now more like the "$3" theater).
You go there and see a movie that's 2, maybe 3 months old and just about ready to be released to VHS/DVD. The copy they have is usually worn beyond recognition, and while the theater has stereo sound it usually drops to mono because the iron ferrite is mostly scratched off. The seats feel like you're sitting in a Lada, and everyone in the theater is loud and boorish, and there's usually an annoying hole in the screen where a 13 year-old threw their milk dud.
But the snacks are cut rate prices! W00T!
>Who's supposed to pay for the plane ticket to get the alleged phone phreak into the US when the case goes to court?
If they're in Pakistan, well, you pay twice the stupidity tax because you were too dumb to block international collect calling. What kind of person would do something that silly?
In that case, the company is clearly so mismanaged they need to pay the entire bill to get a clue (or, preferrably, go out of business).
Not to be sounding silly or trollish, but how is the gpc license all that much different from the license for xv, which slackware included for ages?
(I added the link for dramatics)
:)
>I'm sure you could find whole offices running OpenOffice or StarOffice or even still using WordPerfect and 123 just so they can stay away from MS products. But they aren't the IBM's or Fords or Bank of America's of the world.
Perhaps Bank of America will be changing its tune after 13,000 of its ATMs were put out of service by Microsoft bugs. Or perhaps they're just stupid and masochistic? Either way, if they're still paying for M$-ware, I'd take a second look at whether I want to invest my money in a bank that doesn't put its money where its mouth is.
Ford, well, beats the hell out of me what they run.
How much was the rebate for?
Since it was a computer, and being you went to so much trouble, I assume it was reasonably much ($100 or more).
I'd just sue them in small claims. Quicker, faster, easier. If they offer to pay out of court (almost guaranteed they will if you kept detailed notes about what you've done to recover your rebate already) remind them that you require the cost of court fees as well (which will almost always be less than the cost of them driving a guy from Dell Canada to your city).
You win all around, and don't have to chase them about for your rebate.
>... and there's not just one magical rebate God that sends you all your rebate checks.
Actually, there almost is.
VERY few companies actually handle the rebates themselves. I'm guessing from personal experience with a truly fraudulent rebate here (this rebate didn't specifically limit quantity but the rebator refused to provide me with one rebate per item bought), but the reason they take so long is they are sent to a rebate processing company that handles hundreds, perhaps thousands of different rebates at the same time. Eventually yours is picked from a bin, entered into the computer, and, when the rebate is over (or, if the rebate availability is longer than the refund waiting period, when the "term" is up) a whole bunch of cheques are printed up and mailed en-masse, saving lots of people lots of money.
I can't imagine there's more than 50 or 100 of these companies in a country such as the US or Canada.
>If AT&T is in agreement that the individuals did not make these calls, then the only good business decision for AT&T to make is to not charge them for services they did not use. Otherwise, AT&T is a passive participant in the scamming of their customer's.
The real answer is to charge them, but help the user sue the scammers for the business' money back as part of the lawsuit AT&T will surely file.
Now AT&T gets paid for their losses, the business pays for their stupidity in losing a large sum for a year or two until the case is settled, and the scammers pay back what they owe.
Seems simple enough to me.
Sorry, but the show was only discussing Environmental Tobacco Smoke (Second Hand Smoke).
However, evidence does suggest that directly smoking cigarettes, while still a known danger, may not be as bad as once thought, as it turns out the overall lifestyle of most smokers greatly contributes to the effects of smoking. This would explain the "My dad smoked for 40 years and could still run a marathon" outlandish claims you hear sometimes. Their healthy lifestyle (excepting the smoking) contributed to their body being able to deal with the one poor factor in their life.
However, even knowing this, cigarettes are still a leading cause of death among smokers. So don't go ahead and join them just yet!
>But it's thouroughly gratifying to have gone from childish to pompous in your view. I feel so much better now.
...And back to childhood we go! I feel like I'm back in kindergarten! You second, you third! You infinity! You inifinity plus one!
And you continue to wear it on your sleeve. Why, I really don't know.
>And you're pretty sure UPS isn't worried about what a pissant on Slashdot has to say.
No, not at all, really. I do know the 2/8 rule of business came true though -- at add up the comments. Another few thousand pissed off people like me and UPS is fucked. Not that they aren't already, considering their idiotic logo change. Taking the most memorable and successful logo on earth and destroying it questionable management, at best.
>You first.
You don't have MPD, perchance, do you?
>You still were inconsistent, having said that people don't have the right to expect good service from ISPs for consumer level prices, but demanding the same thing from UPS.
I paid them money for a CONTRACTED shipment that they GUARANTEED and never made good on. They broke contract law, plain and simple?
Is _that_ clear enough for you? I'd sue them, but why bother over $25? I'd rather just publically "libel" them, which it really isn't since I have the goods to back up my claim.
>is essentially just a paraphrase of what you said to me. So it seems (again) hypocritical of you to criticize it.
Whoopity. Perhaps if you bothered to read your sarcastic tone you'd realize what level of pompous asshole you were.
>I could care less how you "treated" me. I wouldn't call someone like you "Sir" if you had a loaded gun in my belly and demanded it.
Good, because I don't believe in guns. Now fuck off and stop wasting bandwidth.
>1. You forgot to link up your shitty replies.
You forgot to log in. I guess that makes us even on this point.
>2. You chided me for complaining about the level of service received for little money, while you had done the same thing yourself.
No, you seem to think that chalk and cheese are the same thing. What works for a capitalist society and what works for a communist society are two different things. The USPS is one of the few good socialist (ie: Communist service in a capitalistic world) ideas that actually work. However, because it is socialist it doesn't follow standard free-market economics. Why you don't understand this I have no clue, and I'm not an economics professor, and don't intend to be. Look up any more information you need on this topic yourself.
>3. When called on it, you lashed out with another ad hominem, while still not understanding that if you want to be an Ayn Rand-worshipping capitalist toady, you should at least be consistent.
I was only responding in kind. If you want to be treated as an adult, use an adult reply. If you wish to be treated at the child your original post (and method) have shown you to be, you simply needed to act as one, which you did (allow me to quote you, stalinist toady):
"Feel like a hypocrite yet?"
"But they use the money from other customers who don't complain to subsidize whiners like you."
Since you would prefer to be treated as an adult rather than the child you made yourself out to be, allow me to say "Sir, please stop being such a hypocrite".
BTW: I certainly would like to see the USPS privatized, but as long as it isn't, I see no reason to apply free-market economics to it. Do you see it fit to apply incorrect economic models to various situations? It certainly seems you do.
Wow, you do get around, don't you moron? For the benefit of other readers, and because this rude asshole just doesn't get it, here's what he's referring to, which he childisly had to reply to with a particularly shitty reponse, proving he has nothing to add to the debate.
You see, had you taken economics 101 along with business 101 you'd have learned the difference between a socialist system and a free-market, or capitalist system. Here's a shitty Term Paper, as in a few years, when you take grade 10 business studies (if your shitty school offers it), you might just need it.
In a socialist system, everyone enjoys the same level of service, or lack of it. In the case of the USPS (a clearly socialist institute, by definition) this has worked to its advantage, however in the case of other socialist systems, such as the medicare system your neighbours to the North enjoy, it's a serious disadvantage.
Normally, for services that are totally optional, in a free-market, or capitalist society bidding occurrs. Top bids get the job, low bids looks elsewhere until they meet up with someone who can provide them the service they want, normally at the expense of quality, quantity, or both.
Anything more I need to clear up for you before you graduate from primary school? If you would like I can define the terms over 5 letters, in case you have trouble with words like "elsewhere", "quality", and "disadvantage".
My only question, though, is how you ever learned to use a computer, yet were somehow unable to learn even the most basic concepts from our dictionary. Your type will remain a conundrum to me for some time, I'm afraid.
Not in this case. The block diagram clearly shows the SATA controller gets 150 MB/s bandwidth, 12% more than the PCI bus.
You'd be surprised at the new applications for a high speed processor.
Think software-based, real-time, HDTV decoding, for instance. Combine doing that with doing some other work at the same time and you've a lot of reason to use this speed.
>Please. I don't know what contact you're talking about, but my "bottom of the barrel internet access" contract doesn't say shit about my being allowed to run a mail server one way or another. Sounds to me like you're just another elitist slashdot BOFH wannabe who can't stand the idea of a mere "user" running his or her own servers. You might grow out of that someday.
You're clearly another whining person who hasn't grown up and seen the way business operates. Take business 101 course and run an ISP and learn just what the difference between a $20 a month account and a $100 a month account are.
Thick as a brick, most of you ACs are.
Because I'm a nice guy I'll explain it to you:
If your ISP didn't bother mentioning if you can run a server or not, it simply means they don't give a rats ass if you do. But they aren't about to set up a service contract to make sure the server that you are running can do everything their corporate clients' server can do. That's what they pay the extra dough (that you're not paying) for.
Do you not understand that? Is that too complicated for your microbrain to understand?
All people on the internet are "users". You're a user just as GM would be a user. The difference is they're paying $25,000 a month for internet access and you're paying $20. What does that mean? You're paying for lower grade service. With lower grade service comes less quality, or often no quality. If their internet goes down for even 10 minutes they threaten to leave and the ISP jumps into emergency mode. $25k a month pays their bread and butter. You phone up and bitch about not being able to run a server and you cost them money. The reason they don't boot you off just for wasting their money is that part of all of their cheap-bastard accounts goes into what is basically an "insurance fund" to pay the people that support idiots such as yourself. They log your complaint, and at the end of the month comb through them to see the cream that rises to the top. If the majority of their users are running servers, the complaints will mount up and something will be done. Otherwise, they'd rather drop your ass than have you phone back, and if I were running an ISP I'd do it in a heartbeat. Now, if you were on a $100 a month account, I'd listen and put it in the "To do this week" pile of jobs. If you were a $1k+ a month account you'd be in the "To do within 12 hours" pile, and if you were a $10k+ a month account I'd phone up a tech and haul his ass in to get the job done stat.
Without you grousing about how your $20 a month account doesn't work like a $100 a month account you'd be able to get the damn thing for $10 a month, and the ISP might be willing to offer you an enhanced service version for, say, $50 a month.
Example: If I buy a 100 pack of batteries made by super-sun-power-maxi-dragon-hsing-fan-tech-inc. for $5 and 50% of them last for 10 seconds, who can I complain to? If I do find someone to complain to, are they going to care? Will they even speak english? What if I sue? You'll be laughed the hell out of court, if you're lucky enough not to be arrested for chewing gum in their country. You bought super-low-grade garbage and got exactly what you paid for. If the batteries didn't destroy your stuff your complaint value is nil.
Go into the same store and buy a 4 pack of duracells and find they last 10 seconds and you'll end up with a new set of batteries. Says so right on the package. That's why they cost a hundred times more -- because they aren't bottom of the barrel garbage.
Idiots like you would want the government to make it illegal to sell the cheap batteries / internet, raising prices for everyone and leaving the economy poorer for it. Because there's no way in hell they could provide internet at residential prices while maintaining corporate support and quality. Not unless they're a charity case.
Also, because of ISP experiences with people such as yourself, I can't get decent internet out in the sticks. I'd pay upwards of $100 a month if someone would offer me decent residential highspeed, but because most users are cheap-asses such as yourself, I can't get it at all; never mind at a price that would actually cause them to turn a profit.
Anyways, incidences of CJD are 1 in 1 million, so don't worry about it anyways. You're much more likely to die from exiting your home. :)
That and I do still think that by being selective about your meat you can avoid mad cow disease or anything similar. Up to now the FDA hasn't found a single case of Mad Cow Disease in any tested cows in the US (AFAIK).
>UPS or FEDEX are guaranteed to arrive, so they cost more.
Guarantees are worthless with service of this "caliber". With today's market, I refuse to do business with companies that won't ship via regular Mail. There's just positively no excuse to say no to that.
By the way, I never did receive a refund. So their guarantee is less than worthless -- it's a fraud.
If you fear the rest of the world you have already lost.
-- Me
>'Car' doesn't mean what it did in the 19th century either.
And that's why we must fight to stop bad corporations (like the RIAA) from rewriting our language.
>You mean the people paying for "bottom of the barrel internet access" dare suggest that they actually be able to use Internet protocols?
You mean that people should DARE to read their contracts and renegotiate or quit if they don't like them?
The sheer audacity of not needing the government to babysit you! My God, what's next, no free diapers?
>I personally think that there needs to be U.S. Federal laws made to protect the rights of Internet users.
I can see how these laws might help you with datanomix and UCF, but how are they going to help you to get mail to, I don't know, the other 95% of the planet?
Unless you want a "World Government" federal laws aren't going to help you all that much unless you live in India or China.
Because this is slashdot where we rant and rave about a lot of things that aren't all that important to many people.
If you _really_ want to serve mail from your domain, the only thing this does is increase the price barrier. You'll have to tell your ISP you want to use it for that, they'll charge you for the corporate account your TOS probably said you needed anyhow, and you'll be in business (your ISP will remove you from the dynip list).
Yes, it does suck that that's the way it is, but honestly, almost nobody ever expected bottom of the barrel internet service to be able to do specialty things.
How many people do you really think use their own SMTP servers, apart from spammers and people with viruses?
We have to be talking in the low-thousands here...