I think you need to do some more research on Switzerland before you use them as a model that guns in the home provides access. They do actually have very strict gun laws.
In Switzerland you have a gun, but you can't have ammunition. Ammunition is stored at central arsenals in case for some reason it's needed. When you go to a shooting range you buy your ammo there, but you have to use it all, you can't take it out with you. Also there's compulsory military service for all male Swiss citizens, where they're trained to use weapons properly, a cultural difference as you pointed out.
If military service was required in the US and there were sticker gun laws (like in Switzerland) school shootings would be a much less frequent occurrence, but merely suggesting either of those would get you shot, metaphorically, in the states.
I didn't read anything from the AC that said who or what should be held accountable, just that it's silly logic to say because X does Y and Z does Y we should ban Z. It's an obvious misdirection to take focus from whatever X is. In either case the person should be held accountable, all I said in my original statement was the parents should be held accountable in this situation because they were negligent by allowing their kid to have access to an unlocked gun.
I was blaming the gun owners, not the gun, but you felt the need to throw in some silly logic anyway. Someone left a box cutter out where a minor had access to it, same rule applies. It's negligence on the owner, or last user, of the box cutter and murder on the part of the teen.
If someone hot wired my car and stole it I wouldn't expect to be found guilty of negligence, but if I left the keys in my car and some teen jumped in it and started mowing people down should I not be charged with negligence for failing to properly secure my vehicle?
Same applies here, parents legally own a gun, fine and dandy. Parents leave said gun and ammo out where a minor that shouldn't have access to gun can get it. Minor kills people. Minor is guilty of murder, parents are guilty of negligence.
I think it was just last week a 14 year old shot another student, a teacher, then himself. Parents gun that wasn't properly stored or locked that a kid had access to. Negligence causing death, I hope it means jail time for both of the parents.
Although a cyclist might contribute the same amount of income tax as a motorist, there are far more motorist contributing taxes to roads as well as gas taxes used to maintain the roads. I doubt cyclist contribute nearly the amount required to build and maintain a separate road way, although I still think it would be a great idea.
I've lived in South Carolina, North Carolina, Maine, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Gillingham England and have seen the same reckless behaviour from cyclist everywhere. You point to a blog specifically for militant cyclist and one clip where a cyclist was in a transport trucks blind spot and claim cyclists are never at fault. LOL, please try again, actually don't bother I doubt anyone is going to read it after this point.
They should just build bike lanes over or under the streets in areas where there isn't room to expand out. Too bad it would cost a fortune, also too bad that cyclists don't contribute to gas taxes used to maintain roadways.
I always prefer to share the road with cars: they're more predictable and I get home sooner.
I actually find this really funny, because I couldn't have said it better and the reason you don't like sharing a bike lane on a sidewalk with pedestrians is the exact same reason most drivers don't like sharing the road with cyclist, and yet if you were to hit an unpredictable pedestrian it's unlikely either of you would be killed, possible seriously injured, but not dead, where as if an unpredictable cyclist got hit by a car it most certainly means death (maybe more deaths than just the cyclists) and all kinds of negative consequences for the driver.
Slow down there Tex, someone hit a soft spot. There are somethings that drivers can't control, the sun being one of them. Visibility can also expand to cyclist wearing dark clothing at night and cycling in the rain, it happens, and drivers can't be held responsible for the poor choices of a someone feeling entitled to use a section of pavement that was built to care motorized vehicles. It's as much the cyclists responsibility to make sure they can be seen as it is the drivers responsibility to make sure they can see. If you as a cyclist are doing your part to make sure you're following the rules and making yourself visible then I'm sure there isn't going to be a problem.
If you're in the SF bay area, let me know, I'll meet you for a weekend ride and show you that there are cyclists that *do* follow laws as much as they expect cars to respect them.
I don't think the problem here is that *some* cyclist follow the rules, the problem is that *most* don't. If you're one of the good ones more power to you, but the truth is it's the ones that aren't doing what they're suppose to that's causing hostility towards all cyclist.
bikes aren't slowing you down, they are reducing the number of cars in front of you.
I'd rather deal with another car in front of me than a cyclist weaving in and out of traffic randomly appearing next to or in front of me. I can predict the movements of other drivers for the most part in slow moving traffic, but you never know when a cyclist will come flying up on your right or left hand side when crawling.
Yes, some cyclists obey the law, some don't. Some car drivers obey the law, some don't.
It's abnormal to see a cyclist *that is* obeying the law, it's abnormal to see a car *not* obeying the law, that's the fundamental difference. There are some drivers to do unpredictable and illegal things, but compared to the number of drivers on the road it's minuscule to the frequency that cyclist aren't following the law.
That's one of my biggest pet peeves - I can maintain a stopped trackstand for only a few seconds before i've got to unclip and put my feet down - when a car has the right of way at a stop sign, I wish they would just take it because then I can get through the intersection faster. Encouraging cyclists to take the right of way when they don't have right of way just further encourages them to not respect right of way laws
I understand your frustration here, but I hope you understand that if a cyclist goes out of turn and a car hits them, the driver is at fault and will be fined, published (not a misspelling) and possibly end up in jail. Sorry if it's inconvenient for you to have to wait your turn, but it's most certainly better to err on the side of caution and not do anything until you're sure what the other person is doing. If I pull up to a stop sign at the same time as another car pulls up to one I don't go until I'm sure they other guy isn't going, doing the same with a cyclist is only prudent.
I don't know, the last stats I read BB was still ahead of Windows Phone. I certainly wouldn't put it past MS to try and embarrass their competition. We all know how big MS is into reputation management, which may or may not also include hurting competitions reputation. In any case we all know BB is, one way or another, on it's way out.
I think you've pretty well hit the nail on the head. We have laws, licences and training to govern cars, but any two year old that can pump the pedals can ride a bike (or tricycle). Kids develop bad habits because they grow up riding irresponsibly and are likely the ones causing accidents that give cyclist a bad rap. I've seen serious riders that ware the proper reflective gear, mirror on helmet using caution and I appreciate that, but more often I see unpredictable people wearing all black on a dark morning weaving in and out of rush hour traffic offering no warning when they're going to turn or stop or burning through intersections without slowing down.
I still remember the time my wife swerved into on coming traffic just barely avoiding a black guy riding a black bike wearing all black at 9 PM in February. The only reason she noticed him at the last second was because of the tiny reflector on his pedal. I didn't even see him as we skidded past until my wife told me why she swerved and I took a good hard look in the passenger mirror an noticed his (or her I guess) silhouette against the snow banks.
It goes further than inattentiveness. I've seen cyclist take dangerous to a whole new level while cycling through traffic. There are situations where drivers are at fault for bike accidents, but I've seen cyclist get hit while blowing through stop signs, passing cars on the right after the car started to make a right turn, weaving in and out of slow moving traffic, riding perpendicularly across highways because it was the shorter than riding all the way down to an overpass and riding bikes in the dead of winter with three foot snow banks and ice on either side of a street barely wide enough for cars to travel on.
I witnessed an accident last winter where a cyclist passed me while I was waiting in traffic at a four way stop. He hit a patch of ice causing him to slide sideways under the car that was in front of me just as the driver has started pulling up to the stop sign. The driver was found to be at fault for not providing enough clearance* for the cyclist to pass safely. Unfortunately it's almost always the drivers that get blamed when there's an accident.
*Where I live we now have a 1 metre law. You can't pass a cyclist if you can't provide 1 metre (a little more than 1 yard) clearance while doing so, which is a real PITA when the cyclist is driving down the middle of a lane on a busy two lane street going up hill, but has also been the source of some heated debate when a car is stopped at a light or stop sign and cyclist use that as an opportunity to over take traffic, thus forcing cars to yield to them because of the clearance law.
I agree with the assertion that you can't call it xb1 or xbox1 because, you're right, it's too easily confused with the original xbox. I do read it as X-Bone, but mainly because of the anti-consumer traps MS was going to stick in it. The first time I read XBone was after the E3 revile around the time they were discussing (the phone home, phone home every 24 hours, no phone home at all) debacle. Unfortunately for MS by the time they pulled all that stuff out it was too late. XBone, which should be written as XBOne or XBO, was stuck.
Actually that's not really any better. XBO looks like an emoticon for an angry screaming 12 year old, which is the image MS is trying to get away from. Whoever they had in the marketing department that came up with the name should just be fired. There is no simple contraction for the consoles name that isn't confusing or have negative connotations.
Balls were dropped all over the place (works on so many levels) with this console.
That's an insightful and completely reasonable point to make, "Maybe the problem is regional" as opposed to, "Works for me, &#$%/. and the horse they rode in on <insert rant here>".
I read a couple of other posts were people had no issues, and I've read a few post from people that can confirm there are issues. So the conclusion I came to was maybe there's a "localized" issue, the question for me is how "localized" is it? Canada, North America, Eastern seaboard?
I just jumped on to FB and tried to like a post to see if it was true. Interesting results I received a "Please try again - An error occurred. Please try again in a few minutes.", tried to post a "Test post to confirm Facebook is broken" message was met with a similar error message.
Seems like the report is easy verify. Were you just too lazy to try it yourself and would rather spend your time raging against/.?
Problem is it's the default browsers with windows, which is the default OS on almost any new PC sold. So anyone that's not technically savvy, that buys a new computer to play the facebook, doesn't know, and probably doesn't care, there are better browsers out there.
Unfortunately if forces us Web devs into building, and rebuilding, and again rebuilding sites so they work with specific or various versions of IE, which in-turn makes people think IE is ok or good enough. It costs my company a lot of money to constantly develop for all other browsers then retool our things to work with IE or write them for IE and retool them to work with everything else. Also unfortunate is non-tech savvy managers are the ones insisting on it, as someone else said what's the point in hiring an IT group to provide input to set policy if you're just going to ignore them anyway. If web devs stopped tooling sites to work specifically with IE it would die a pretty quick death.
I'm not religious and don't believe in a higher power anyway. I'm quite happy believing the universe is a completely freak accident. I'm pretty well in agreement with you that if there was a God, he/she/it probably wouldn't care about us or anyone person. All the things people attribute to God are things they made up or did themselves. "I got a good grade, must have been God", doesn't really fly with me, you studied and worked hard to get the grade you received or you made some good guesses. Sure things we can't explain happen, but rather than "we can't explain them" I prefer "we can't explain them yet".
I'm not religious, but I don't understand why evolution couldn't be a mechanism created by God?
Science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive. I had a science teacher who was religious when I lived in NC who told me the way he looked at it was God created the rules, but left it to us to figure them out. Science is just the method we use to do that.
Might be nice to protected the underside of your car as well. Here in Nova Scotia right on the Atlantic we get *a lot* of salt, a car in Nova Scotia will rust in five years what a car out west (say Alberta) will in 20 years. We've had undercoating every year and my seven year old car is still starting to look much more like it's 14.
I'd like to think a positive for having expensive parts would be people might be a little more careful driving if they knew it would cost them $10,000 to replace a scratch on a door, but, seeing as how most people don't put that kind of value on their own lives, I guess that would be too much to ask.
Also there are still those jerks that ram shopping carts into new cars in parking lots. I only had my new car for three months when I came out of the store to a huge dent in the back passenger side door. I was quoted $2500 to have fixed at three separate places, so I decided the dent might make the car look ghetto and be a detente for would be thieves. Kept the $2500 and the "security enhancement" and haven't had so much as another scratch in the seven years I've had the car.
I often wonder why anybody would want to run a commercial business venture off a home connection.
Probably not intentionally. I have a friend that started up a small consulting business in his spare time. He initially just used a FTP server to provide completed project files to his very small customer base (it started off as 3 people). After about six years he's pretty well doing his consulting full time, he had to hire on someone to help out with paper work and data entry and is now looking at having a commercial server since he's dealing with nearly a hundred clients. It's still not a big start up, but he's realized the number of files he serves has grown exponentially to the number of clients/projects he's taken on and is starting to feel the growing pains. All he needs now is for the ISP to step in and cut off his connection because he's using a server, so he's shopping around at the moment for a better option.
It was probably thrown in by lawyers that don't know the difference between a web server and a file server. My ISP has a similar clause, that I mostly ignore. My wife and I don't generate enough traffic to my home servers to even make a blip. What the ISPs are concerned with are people having commercial servers generating massive amounts of traffic and money, but the people running the servers are paying the residential rate instead of the much more expensive commercial rates. Essentially the ISP wants a cut of any money someone could be generating from a home server for the use of the extra bandwidth (that wouldn't be allocated otherwise).
All the signs point to that is what they're doing. Secure boot, App store, Metro interface, RT versions, making their own hardware. Also with the attitude they've taken in doubling down on stupidity and doing the opposite of what the majority their client base is screaming for. The evidence is there that they're planning on locking down the system in the near future.
Agreed, You know the only reason this is being introduced now is because the republican approval rating is circling the drain. Funny how they're all for freedom and following the constitution to the letter when there's a good chance the'll be unelectable in the next election, but they're willing to sell privacy and public rights to the highest bidder when they're the ones in power. The patriot act should have never been a law in the first place and should have been revoked long ago, one of Obama's biggest public disappointments was that it should have been the first thing he had done when he took over presidency when he actually had a majority in the house.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you need to do some more research on Switzerland before you use them as a model that guns in the home provides access. They do actually have very strict gun laws.
In Switzerland you have a gun, but you can't have ammunition. Ammunition is stored at central arsenals in case for some reason it's needed. When you go to a shooting range you buy your ammo there, but you have to use it all, you can't take it out with you. Also there's compulsory military service for all male Swiss citizens, where they're trained to use weapons properly, a cultural difference as you pointed out.
If military service was required in the US and there were sticker gun laws (like in Switzerland) school shootings would be a much less frequent occurrence, but merely suggesting either of those would get you shot, metaphorically, in the states.
I didn't read anything from the AC that said who or what should be held accountable, just that it's silly logic to say because X does Y and Z does Y we should ban Z. It's an obvious misdirection to take focus from whatever X is. In either case the person should be held accountable, all I said in my original statement was the parents should be held accountable in this situation because they were negligent by allowing their kid to have access to an unlocked gun.
I was blaming the gun owners, not the gun, but you felt the need to throw in some silly logic anyway. Someone left a box cutter out where a minor had access to it, same rule applies. It's negligence on the owner, or last user, of the box cutter and murder on the part of the teen.
If someone hot wired my car and stole it I wouldn't expect to be found guilty of negligence, but if I left the keys in my car and some teen jumped in it and started mowing people down should I not be charged with negligence for failing to properly secure my vehicle?
Same applies here, parents legally own a gun, fine and dandy. Parents leave said gun and ammo out where a minor that shouldn't have access to gun can get it. Minor kills people. Minor is guilty of murder, parents are guilty of negligence.
I think it was just last week a 14 year old shot another student, a teacher, then himself. Parents gun that wasn't properly stored or locked that a kid had access to. Negligence causing death, I hope it means jail time for both of the parents.
Although a cyclist might contribute the same amount of income tax as a motorist, there are far more motorist contributing taxes to roads as well as gas taxes used to maintain the roads. I doubt cyclist contribute nearly the amount required to build and maintain a separate road way, although I still think it would be a great idea.
I've lived in South Carolina, North Carolina, Maine, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Gillingham England and have seen the same reckless behaviour from cyclist everywhere. You point to a blog specifically for militant cyclist and one clip where a cyclist was in a transport trucks blind spot and claim cyclists are never at fault. LOL, please try again, actually don't bother I doubt anyone is going to read it after this point.
They should just build bike lanes over or under the streets in areas where there isn't room to expand out. Too bad it would cost a fortune, also too bad that cyclists don't contribute to gas taxes used to maintain roadways.
I always prefer to share the road with cars: they're more predictable and I get home sooner.
I actually find this really funny, because I couldn't have said it better and the reason you don't like sharing a bike lane on a sidewalk with pedestrians is the exact same reason most drivers don't like sharing the road with cyclist, and yet if you were to hit an unpredictable pedestrian it's unlikely either of you would be killed, possible seriously injured, but not dead, where as if an unpredictable cyclist got hit by a car it most certainly means death (maybe more deaths than just the cyclists) and all kinds of negative consequences for the driver.
Slow down there Tex, someone hit a soft spot. There are somethings that drivers can't control, the sun being one of them. Visibility can also expand to cyclist wearing dark clothing at night and cycling in the rain, it happens, and drivers can't be held responsible for the poor choices of a someone feeling entitled to use a section of pavement that was built to care motorized vehicles. It's as much the cyclists responsibility to make sure they can be seen as it is the drivers responsibility to make sure they can see. If you as a cyclist are doing your part to make sure you're following the rules and making yourself visible then I'm sure there isn't going to be a problem.
If you're in the SF bay area, let me know, I'll meet you for a weekend ride and show you that there are cyclists that *do* follow laws as much as they expect cars to respect them.
I don't think the problem here is that *some* cyclist follow the rules, the problem is that *most* don't. If you're one of the good ones more power to you, but the truth is it's the ones that aren't doing what they're suppose to that's causing hostility towards all cyclist.
bikes aren't slowing you down, they are reducing the number of cars in front of you.
I'd rather deal with another car in front of me than a cyclist weaving in and out of traffic randomly appearing next to or in front of me. I can predict the movements of other drivers for the most part in slow moving traffic, but you never know when a cyclist will come flying up on your right or left hand side when crawling.
Yes, some cyclists obey the law, some don't. Some car drivers obey the law, some don't.
It's abnormal to see a cyclist *that is* obeying the law, it's abnormal to see a car *not* obeying the law, that's the fundamental difference. There are some drivers to do unpredictable and illegal things, but compared to the number of drivers on the road it's minuscule to the frequency that cyclist aren't following the law.
That's one of my biggest pet peeves - I can maintain a stopped trackstand for only a few seconds before i've got to unclip and put my feet down - when a car has the right of way at a stop sign, I wish they would just take it because then I can get through the intersection faster. Encouraging cyclists to take the right of way when they don't have right of way just further encourages them to not respect right of way laws
I understand your frustration here, but I hope you understand that if a cyclist goes out of turn and a car hits them, the driver is at fault and will be fined, published (not a misspelling) and possibly end up in jail. Sorry if it's inconvenient for you to have to wait your turn, but it's most certainly better to err on the side of caution and not do anything until you're sure what the other person is doing. If I pull up to a stop sign at the same time as another car pulls up to one I don't go until I'm sure they other guy isn't going, doing the same with a cyclist is only prudent.
I don't know, the last stats I read BB was still ahead of Windows Phone. I certainly wouldn't put it past MS to try and embarrass their competition. We all know how big MS is into reputation management, which may or may not also include hurting competitions reputation. In any case we all know BB is, one way or another, on it's way out.
I think you've pretty well hit the nail on the head. We have laws, licences and training to govern cars, but any two year old that can pump the pedals can ride a bike (or tricycle). Kids develop bad habits because they grow up riding irresponsibly and are likely the ones causing accidents that give cyclist a bad rap. I've seen serious riders that ware the proper reflective gear, mirror on helmet using caution and I appreciate that, but more often I see unpredictable people wearing all black on a dark morning weaving in and out of rush hour traffic offering no warning when they're going to turn or stop or burning through intersections without slowing down.
I still remember the time my wife swerved into on coming traffic just barely avoiding a black guy riding a black bike wearing all black at 9 PM in February. The only reason she noticed him at the last second was because of the tiny reflector on his pedal. I didn't even see him as we skidded past until my wife told me why she swerved and I took a good hard look in the passenger mirror an noticed his (or her I guess) silhouette against the snow banks.
It goes further than inattentiveness. I've seen cyclist take dangerous to a whole new level while cycling through traffic. There are situations where drivers are at fault for bike accidents, but I've seen cyclist get hit while blowing through stop signs, passing cars on the right after the car started to make a right turn, weaving in and out of slow moving traffic, riding perpendicularly across highways because it was the shorter than riding all the way down to an overpass and riding bikes in the dead of winter with three foot snow banks and ice on either side of a street barely wide enough for cars to travel on.
I witnessed an accident last winter where a cyclist passed me while I was waiting in traffic at a four way stop. He hit a patch of ice causing him to slide sideways under the car that was in front of me just as the driver has started pulling up to the stop sign. The driver was found to be at fault for not providing enough clearance* for the cyclist to pass safely. Unfortunately it's almost always the drivers that get blamed when there's an accident.
*Where I live we now have a 1 metre law. You can't pass a cyclist if you can't provide 1 metre (a little more than 1 yard) clearance while doing so, which is a real PITA when the cyclist is driving down the middle of a lane on a busy two lane street going up hill, but has also been the source of some heated debate when a car is stopped at a light or stop sign and cyclist use that as an opportunity to over take traffic, thus forcing cars to yield to them because of the clearance law.
I agree with the assertion that you can't call it xb1 or xbox1 because, you're right, it's too easily confused with the original xbox. I do read it as X-Bone, but mainly because of the anti-consumer traps MS was going to stick in it. The first time I read XBone was after the E3 revile around the time they were discussing (the phone home, phone home every 24 hours, no phone home at all) debacle. Unfortunately for MS by the time they pulled all that stuff out it was too late. XBone, which should be written as XBOne or XBO, was stuck.
Actually that's not really any better. XBO looks like an emoticon for an angry screaming 12 year old, which is the image MS is trying to get away from. Whoever they had in the marketing department that came up with the name should just be fired. There is no simple contraction for the consoles name that isn't confusing or have negative connotations.
Balls were dropped all over the place (works on so many levels) with this console.
That's an insightful and completely reasonable point to make, "Maybe the problem is regional" as opposed to, "Works for me, &#$% /. and the horse they rode in on <insert rant here>".
I read a couple of other posts were people had no issues, and I've read a few post from people that can confirm there are issues. So the conclusion I came to was maybe there's a "localized" issue, the question for me is how "localized" is it? Canada, North America, Eastern seaboard?
I just jumped on to FB and tried to like a post to see if it was true. Interesting results I received a "Please try again - An error occurred. Please try again in a few minutes.", tried to post a "Test post to confirm Facebook is broken" message was met with a similar error message.
/.?
Seems like the report is easy verify. Were you just too lazy to try it yourself and would rather spend your time raging against
Problem is it's the default browsers with windows, which is the default OS on almost any new PC sold. So anyone that's not technically savvy, that buys a new computer to play the facebook, doesn't know, and probably doesn't care, there are better browsers out there.
Unfortunately if forces us Web devs into building, and rebuilding, and again rebuilding sites so they work with specific or various versions of IE, which in-turn makes people think IE is ok or good enough. It costs my company a lot of money to constantly develop for all other browsers then retool our things to work with IE or write them for IE and retool them to work with everything else. Also unfortunate is non-tech savvy managers are the ones insisting on it, as someone else said what's the point in hiring an IT group to provide input to set policy if you're just going to ignore them anyway. If web devs stopped tooling sites to work specifically with IE it would die a pretty quick death.
I'm not religious and don't believe in a higher power anyway. I'm quite happy believing the universe is a completely freak accident. I'm pretty well in agreement with you that if there was a God, he/she/it probably wouldn't care about us or anyone person. All the things people attribute to God are things they made up or did themselves. "I got a good grade, must have been God", doesn't really fly with me, you studied and worked hard to get the grade you received or you made some good guesses. Sure things we can't explain happen, but rather than "we can't explain them" I prefer "we can't explain them yet".
I'm not religious, but I don't understand why evolution couldn't be a mechanism created by God? Science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive. I had a science teacher who was religious when I lived in NC who told me the way he looked at it was God created the rules, but left it to us to figure them out. Science is just the method we use to do that.
Might be nice to protected the underside of your car as well. Here in Nova Scotia right on the Atlantic we get *a lot* of salt, a car in Nova Scotia will rust in five years what a car out west (say Alberta) will in 20 years. We've had undercoating every year and my seven year old car is still starting to look much more like it's 14.
I'd like to think a positive for having expensive parts would be people might be a little more careful driving if they knew it would cost them $10,000 to replace a scratch on a door, but, seeing as how most people don't put that kind of value on their own lives, I guess that would be too much to ask.
Also there are still those jerks that ram shopping carts into new cars in parking lots. I only had my new car for three months when I came out of the store to a huge dent in the back passenger side door. I was quoted $2500 to have fixed at three separate places, so I decided the dent might make the car look ghetto and be a detente for would be thieves. Kept the $2500 and the "security enhancement" and haven't had so much as another scratch in the seven years I've had the car.
You should try opening you're eyes more than once a day. :P
I often wonder why anybody would want to run a commercial business venture off a home connection.
Probably not intentionally. I have a friend that started up a small consulting business in his spare time. He initially just used a FTP server to provide completed project files to his very small customer base (it started off as 3 people). After about six years he's pretty well doing his consulting full time, he had to hire on someone to help out with paper work and data entry and is now looking at having a commercial server since he's dealing with nearly a hundred clients. It's still not a big start up, but he's realized the number of files he serves has grown exponentially to the number of clients/projects he's taken on and is starting to feel the growing pains. All he needs now is for the ISP to step in and cut off his connection because he's using a server, so he's shopping around at the moment for a better option.
It was probably thrown in by lawyers that don't know the difference between a web server and a file server. My ISP has a similar clause, that I mostly ignore. My wife and I don't generate enough traffic to my home servers to even make a blip. What the ISPs are concerned with are people having commercial servers generating massive amounts of traffic and money, but the people running the servers are paying the residential rate instead of the much more expensive commercial rates. Essentially the ISP wants a cut of any money someone could be generating from a home server for the use of the extra bandwidth (that wouldn't be allocated otherwise).
All the signs point to that is what they're doing. Secure boot, App store, Metro interface, RT versions, making their own hardware. Also with the attitude they've taken in doubling down on stupidity and doing the opposite of what the majority their client base is screaming for. The evidence is there that they're planning on locking down the system in the near future.
Agreed, You know the only reason this is being introduced now is because the republican approval rating is circling the drain. Funny how they're all for freedom and following the constitution to the letter when there's a good chance the'll be unelectable in the next election, but they're willing to sell privacy and public rights to the highest bidder when they're the ones in power. The patriot act should have never been a law in the first place and should have been revoked long ago, one of Obama's biggest public disappointments was that it should have been the first thing he had done when he took over presidency when he actually had a majority in the house.