You are comparing his statement to supporting rape? I think maybe you have a problem with blowing shit out of proportion.
No, I'm comparing his statement to blaming the victim, Like it's somehow my fault Verizon hasn't upgraded their infrastructure to support all the unlimited data plans they've sold. I think maybe you have a problem with reading comprehension.
As for not wanting you to use unlimited amounts of data, they don't, which is why they are changing the plan. They tried it, some people, probably you, used way too much data and wouldn't moderate usage, so they aren't selling unlimited plans anymore.
Yea, because it's my fault a heavily-taxpayer-subsidized, heavily-immune-from-prosecution telco sold a bunch of bandwidth they didn't have, meanwhile fought against upgrading their infrastructure, and I have the audacity to hold them to their promise of unlimited data. Right. That's a logical conclusion. Sure. And the Pope is an 80-story space lizard.
FYI, aside from the occasional ISO download, my usage typically falls into the 0-2GB/Mo. range. But some of us are principled people, and when someone sells us something with feature X, it better by-god have it, regardless of whether we plan on using it or not.
Unlimited to many reasonable people doesn't mean "No limits at all of any kind," it means "No specific or preset limits."
Ah, I see, didn't realize I was talking to Merriam Webster here, who apparently gets to define both the terms "reasonable" and "unlimited." My bad.
For those of us who don't write our own dictionaries, "unlimited" is defined as:
1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.
2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.
3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.
If that's not what Verizon meant to sell me when they sold me an unlimited data plan, that's their fuck up for not knowing English.
For example at work.. we have no traffic shaping, no port rate limits, you can use as much is available, which is a lot. However, it is shared among lots of people. If everyone tried to slam it 24/7 we'd get shit speeds. So you have to moderate your usage.
As a hypothetical employee, let's assume one whose function at the company is not networking related, why should I give 2 fucks about bandwidth usage? That's the network admin's problem, and if he's a useless slacker who can't figure out a load balancer from a hole in the ground that's his problem and fault, not mine.
Fail to do so and we'll notice, and come and talk to you, and if necessary cut your net off.
Riiiight, because the "admin" who can't figure out queuing and load balancing will totally be doing deep packet inspection and monitoring.
In that scenario, I would probably ask management why our IT folks have time to spy on everyone's usage, but not the time to make sure that everything works, and get their worthless asses fired.
It is "unlimited" in that we don't set any hard limits, but that doesn't mean you can use all of it all the time.
What you describe is known as a "conditional limitation, " (see definition 3 above), and thus is not unlimited.
The obvious difference is, at work I am not a customer, and thus have not signed a contract in which the company promises me unlimited data bandwidth in exchange for money, so yea, there's no obligation on the part of my employer to guarantee a specific amount of bandwidth and/or usage. Your example is non sequitur in that you ignore the world of difference between employer/employee and customer/vendor relationships.
That entitled attitude is precisely why companies have to start setting limits.
If they really, really want to let me out of my contract here in a month or two, so be it. T-mobile and Sprint still have unlimited plans, so I guess that's where I'll be heading
Seriously, you are like the archtypical obscenely fat glutton at the $9 all-you-can-eat-buffet threatening to take his business somewhere else.
They probably can't wait for you to leave.
Nice to see you possess an apparent magical ability to assess a person's entire personality based on 2 sentences.
Look, asshat, I'll make it reeeal simple - Verizon sold me an unlimited data plan. Regardless of how much data I actually use, if Verizon didn't want me to be able to use unlimited amounts of data, they shouldn't have offered me an unlimited data plan Trying to say it's somehow my fault that they can't (or won't) deliver shows you for the egocentric fuck you really are.
You strike me as the type who blames rape victims for wearing tight jeans. Why don't you do the world a favor and go fuck yourself. Hard.
I tether often, and I don't notice this on pages loaded on the tethered PC. It must be a forced proxy they have set up in the stock browser?
If that's the case, it's of no consequence to me - I use Dolphin HD.
Side note: how does T-Mobile treat tethering? Are they dicks about it like the big boys (Verizon locked me out by altering the wifi manager process, the evil fucks), or do they even care?
The shiny new phone that will only work on Verizon, non-US carriers after an unlocking, and the crappy regional CDMA carriers after an unlocking.
Only for the cellular radio. He can always use Wifi+Skype/Vonage/GTalk/Whatever for phone calls.
I can think of a few other ideas for a carrier-locked phone:
- install a pentesting distro like PwnExpress* and use it for, er, well, pentesting. - root-and-rom it, and give it to your kids to play with - App development: a dedicated device beats an emulated one any day of the week. - e-reader/web browser
.. and I'm sure there's a number of other uses I haven't thought of.
*Yes, I know PwnExpress is for SheevaPlugs and N900's. It's just an example, yo.
Kind of complicated: I share a plan with my wife, and for some reason I don't recall, she gets to "upgrade" her phone 2-3 months before I do, which she has already done. When she got her new phone we were grandfathered in on unlimited (with zero effort on our part - thank you Radioshack guy!), but I still have another month or two to wait before I can upgrade myself.
So, I decided to be fair (I know, a novel concept these days) and wait until they actually try and fuck me before I bail.
Best case scenario, they drop this stupid idea and get to keep my business, and in exchange I plunk down some serious moolah on the latest root-and-rom-able Android powerhouse.
Worst case scenario, I'm without a cell phone for a week or two during the transition, which, now that I think about it, really seems a blessing in disguise.
On chasing away a good portion of your customer base.
If they really, really want to let me out of my contract here in a month or two, so be it. T-mobile and Sprint still have unlimited plans, so I guess that's where I'll be heading.
Step 1: Change the subject: Let's not discuss X, let's discuss Y instead!
Step 2: Play the 'victim.' - waaa, those evil privacy advocates are ruining teh internetz!
Step 3: Point the finger - 'we may be bad, but we're not as bad as *gasp* Google!
Step 4: If all else fails, insult the audience - "This could also very well be the reasons why geeks are bullied - if you treat other like shit, you will be treated like shit."
So... Siri wasn't (recently) recommending the Nokia as a result to the question, "What's the best smartphone ever," and Apple did not (thereafter) change the result from the Nokia to "Wait... there are other smartphones?"
I ask, 'cuz TFA begs to differ.
What Apple did a year ago has no bearing on the current situation. While "that joke" may have been in the system for some time, it doesn't change the fact that Siri was recommending the Nokia phone, and that Apple did change the results so that Siri no longer recommends the Nokia phone.
Will it fix the wifi issues I've had since upgrading to LM12?
For those wondering, it's an older Dell 1545 with a Broadcom wireless card - worked fine until I upgraded to LM12, suddenly it won't connect to a network (sees them, but won't connect) unless I use the hardware (F2) button to disable it for 5-10 minutes... not a huge deal, I have a few USB dongles, but it has forced me to spend far more time in my Win7 box than I would prefer.
Apple Device Promotes Competition, So They "Fix" It.
Can't really blame them, though - if I were the wolf in charge of "protecting" the walled garden full of iSheep, I'd be hard pressed to not nosh on a few myself.
Do you not suspect that if the government were in charge of pharmaceuticals there would be all sorts of export restrictions?
I suspect things would work far differently than they do today, however I refuse to speculate as to how they would work, as my crystal ball is currently down for maintenance.
Socialized medicine delivery is going to be enough of a mess in the US when the government finally takes over all of it in a couple of years.
Without the dreaded "public option," there is no socialized medicine. The Affordable Care Act, AKA "Obamacare," is not socialized, it is mandatory pseudo-capitalist system designed to maximize profits.
The funny thing about those who decry the 'dangers' of socialism is that typically, they have no freaking clue what socialism actually is.
You don't get it: when I purchase a copyrighted book, I still own the copy that I purchased, and am free to do with it as I wish, save for making more copies of the book and selling them for profit; see First Sale doctrine. A car or house is the same: it doesn't matter whether the design and implementation processes can be copyrighted, I still own the car and house by virute of paying for them, and am allowed to do what I wish with them short of making copies.
To avoid a lengthy session of screaming at a wall - I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Actually, the main purpose of bullets is to be loaded into a firearm and discharged; however, only a simpleton with no imagination would honestly believe they serve only one purpose.
Also, "to kill" != murder, jackass.
If you didn't plan on killing anyone, why would you have bullets around?
Hunting, target practice, competition shooting, decoration, reloading, etc. etc. etc.
Again, only a fucking idiot would think that bullets exist for the sole purpose of 'killing people'... Well, OK, an idiot or a pussy. Take your pick; either way, not very flattering.
Hint: you're more likely to kill one of your family with those bullets than anyone else.
You, maybe. In my family, we teach respect and proper handling of firearms as early as age 6, have for generations, and have not once had an accidental discharge, let alone causing harm to someone without intent.
No, it's jackasses like you, who hate guns and gun owners until the day your dumb ass gets robbed, that negligently get their loved ones killed. Out of fear, you go out and buy a gun which you have no idea how to respect or use properly, fail to train yourself or your kin as to basic firearm safety, and end up leaving a loaded handgun out where your equally idiotic offspring can get ahold of it, then when the inevitable occurs and someone gets shot, you blame everyone but yourself for the incident, including the inanimate firearm.
What needs protection is development of the idea, clinical trials for drugs, safety testing for vehicles, marketing efforts that build brand value, these things are where the money goes, and will fail to go if there is no protection.
If you agree with that, then you wouldn't mind if your car and house became public property after 12 years of ownership protection.
There's a strawman argument if I ever saw one - cars and houses, unlike copyrights, are tangible assets that cannot be copied or redistributed. You're comparing apples to staplers here - the two have no relation whatsoever.
You can own land properties indefinitely.
No, you can't - someday, you'll die.
Of course, in the US at least, you never actually own "your" land. If you don't believe me, try not paying your property taxes for a few years and see what happens.
Why does no one pose the opposite question: why can't copyright be infinite years?
Probably because of the obvious fact that no person will live an infinite life, so giving something a copyright life that's longer than that of its creator just seems kind of silly.
As the GGGP said, there are things that have a long time horizon before one can possibly recoup R&D and other investment costs - many things take much longer than 5 years. And if you factor in a decent ROI that investors will require, I see a lot of ideas never making it to market or even developed because there's very little hope of reouping investment let alone making a return.
A greater argument for the socialization of pharmaceuticals, I have not heard.
If the government were in charge of the pharmaceutical industry, there would be no need for a "decent ROI," nor would there be incentive to "treat" illness as opposed to cure it.
Not-so-funny aside there - I can't understand these folks who actually believe that a for-profit drug manufacturer has any interest whatsoever in curing diseases they currently make billions off 'treating.'
The Crown alleged he had all the necessary ingredients to build a homemade bomb
I don't know anyone that DOESN'T.
This, a million times over; there isn't a homeowner in North America who doesn't possess materials capable of being combined for explosive effect, most of which reside under our kitchen sinks (or wherever you stash your cleaning supplies).
Claiming this as a valid rationale for prosecution is like claiming that owning bullets is intent to commit murder. It's not valid, it's just fucking stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
You are comparing his statement to supporting rape? I think maybe you have a problem with blowing shit out of proportion.
No, I'm comparing his statement to blaming the victim, Like it's somehow my fault Verizon hasn't upgraded their infrastructure to support all the unlimited data plans they've sold. I think maybe you have a problem with reading comprehension.
As for not wanting you to use unlimited amounts of data, they don't, which is why they are changing the plan. They tried it, some people, probably you, used way too much data and wouldn't moderate usage, so they aren't selling unlimited plans anymore.
Yea, because it's my fault a heavily-taxpayer-subsidized, heavily-immune-from-prosecution telco sold a bunch of bandwidth they didn't have, meanwhile fought against upgrading their infrastructure, and I have the audacity to hold them to their promise of unlimited data. Right. That's a logical conclusion. Sure. And the Pope is an 80-story space lizard.
FYI, aside from the occasional ISO download, my usage typically falls into the 0-2GB/Mo. range. But some of us are principled people, and when someone sells us something with feature X, it better by-god have it, regardless of whether we plan on using it or not.
Unlimited to many reasonable people doesn't mean "No limits at all of any kind," it means "No specific or preset limits."
Ah, I see, didn't realize I was talking to Merriam Webster here, who apparently gets to define both the terms "reasonable" and "unlimited." My bad.
For those of us who don't write our own dictionaries, "unlimited" is defined as:
1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.
2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.
3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.
If that's not what Verizon meant to sell me when they sold me an unlimited data plan, that's their fuck up for not knowing English.
For example at work.. we have no traffic shaping, no port rate limits, you can use as much is available, which is a lot. However, it is shared among lots of people. If everyone tried to slam it 24/7 we'd get shit speeds. So you have to moderate your usage.
As a hypothetical employee, let's assume one whose function at the company is not networking related, why should I give 2 fucks about bandwidth usage? That's the network admin's problem, and if he's a useless slacker who can't figure out a load balancer from a hole in the ground that's his problem and fault, not mine.
Fail to do so and we'll notice, and come and talk to you, and if necessary cut your net off.
Riiiight, because the "admin" who can't figure out queuing and load balancing will totally be doing deep packet inspection and monitoring.
In that scenario, I would probably ask management why our IT folks have time to spy on everyone's usage, but not the time to make sure that everything works, and get their worthless asses fired.
It is "unlimited" in that we don't set any hard limits, but that doesn't mean you can use all of it all the time.
What you describe is known as a "conditional limitation, " (see definition 3 above), and thus is not unlimited.
The obvious difference is, at work I am not a customer, and thus have not signed a contract in which the company promises me unlimited data bandwidth in exchange for money, so yea, there's no obligation on the part of my employer to guarantee a specific amount of bandwidth and/or usage. Your example is non sequitur in that you ignore the world of difference between employer/employee and customer/vendor relationships.
That entitled attitude is precisely why companies have to start setting limits.
If they really, really want to let me out of my contract here in a month or two, so be it. T-mobile and Sprint still have unlimited plans, so I guess that's where I'll be heading
Seriously, you are like the archtypical obscenely fat glutton at the $9 all-you-can-eat-buffet threatening to take his business somewhere else.
They probably can't wait for you to leave.
Nice to see you possess an apparent magical ability to assess a person's entire personality based on 2 sentences.
Look, asshat, I'll make it reeeal simple - Verizon sold me an unlimited data plan. Regardless of how much data I actually use, if Verizon didn't want me to be able to use unlimited amounts of data, they shouldn't have offered me an unlimited data plan Trying to say it's somehow my fault that they can't (or won't) deliver shows you for the egocentric fuck you really are.
You strike me as the type who blames rape victims for wearing tight jeans. Why don't you do the world a favor and go fuck yourself. Hard.
What an absolute fucking douchebag this guy is...
Also, judging from the picture in TFA, very likely a comic book supervillian as well...
Dr. Douche? Fagneto? Somebody help me out here...
I tether often, and I don't notice this on pages loaded on the tethered PC. It must be a forced proxy they have set up in the stock browser?
If that's the case, it's of no consequence to me - I use Dolphin HD.
Side note: how does T-Mobile treat tethering? Are they dicks about it like the big boys (Verizon locked me out by altering the wifi manager process, the evil fucks), or do they even care?
The shiny new phone that will only work on Verizon, non-US carriers after an unlocking, and the crappy regional CDMA carriers after an unlocking.
Only for the cellular radio. He can always use Wifi+Skype/Vonage/GTalk/Whatever for phone calls.
I can think of a few other ideas for a carrier-locked phone:
- install a pentesting distro like PwnExpress* and use it for, er, well, pentesting.
- root-and-rom it, and give it to your kids to play with
- App development: a dedicated device beats an emulated one any day of the week.
- e-reader/web browser
.. and I'm sure there's a number of other uses I haven't thought of.
*Yes, I know PwnExpress is for SheevaPlugs and N900's. It's just an example, yo.
Kind of complicated: I share a plan with my wife, and for some reason I don't recall, she gets to "upgrade" her phone 2-3 months before I do, which she has already done. When she got her new phone we were grandfathered in on unlimited (with zero effort on our part - thank you Radioshack guy!), but I still have another month or two to wait before I can upgrade myself.
So, I decided to be fair (I know, a novel concept these days) and wait until they actually try and fuck me before I bail.
Best case scenario, they drop this stupid idea and get to keep my business, and in exchange I plunk down some serious moolah on the latest root-and-rom-able Android powerhouse.
Worst case scenario, I'm without a cell phone for a week or two during the transition, which, now that I think about it, really seems a blessing in disguise.
On chasing away a good portion of your customer base.
If they really, really want to let me out of my contract here in a month or two, so be it. T-mobile and Sprint still have unlimited plans, so I guess that's where I'll be heading.
I guess facebook will do okay. After all, money from dumb people is still money.
Hi, you must be new here:
Welcome to "capitalism!" Iz goot zyztem, eh comrade?
only explanation is that google buys up auto registration/sale data, matches it up with your IP and internet subscriber data to target ads
Even though the vast majority of broadband customers have dynamically assigned IP's?
I've got it - witchcraft! We must burn Google at teh stake!
Step 1: Change the subject: Let's not discuss X, let's discuss Y instead!
Step 2: Play the 'victim.' - waaa, those evil privacy advocates are ruining teh internetz!
Step 3: Point the finger - 'we may be bad, but we're not as bad as *gasp* Google!
Step 4: If all else fails, insult the audience - "This could also very well be the reasons why geeks are bullied - if you treat other like shit, you will be treated like shit."
Well played, sir, well played...
Except that they didn't.
So... Siri wasn't (recently) recommending the Nokia as a result to the question, "What's the best smartphone ever," and Apple did not (thereafter) change the result from the Nokia to "Wait... there are other smartphones?"
I ask, 'cuz TFA begs to differ.
What Apple did a year ago has no bearing on the current situation. While "that joke" may have been in the system for some time, it doesn't change the fact that Siri was recommending the Nokia phone, and that Apple did change the results so that Siri no longer recommends the Nokia phone.
Will it fix the wifi issues I've had since upgrading to LM12?
For those wondering, it's an older Dell 1545 with a Broadcom wireless card - worked fine until I upgraded to LM12, suddenly it won't connect to a network (sees them, but won't connect) unless I use the hardware (F2) button to disable it for 5-10 minutes... not a huge deal, I have a few USB dongles, but it has forced me to spend far more time in my Win7 box than I would prefer.
Sounds like your boss qualifies as a proof to the theorum, "It's not what you know, but who you know."
I can top that:
The Liar's Paradox- This statement is false.
Apple Device Promotes Competition, So They "Fix" It.
Can't really blame them, though - if I were the wolf in charge of "protecting" the walled garden full of iSheep, I'd be hard pressed to not nosh on a few myself.
Do you not suspect that if the government were in charge of pharmaceuticals there would be all sorts of export restrictions?
I suspect things would work far differently than they do today, however I refuse to speculate as to how they would work, as my crystal ball is currently down for maintenance.
Socialized medicine delivery is going to be enough of a mess in the US when the government finally takes over all of it in a couple of years.
Without the dreaded "public option," there is no socialized medicine. The Affordable Care Act, AKA "Obamacare," is not socialized, it is mandatory pseudo-capitalist system designed to maximize profits.
The funny thing about those who decry the 'dangers' of socialism is that typically, they have no freaking clue what socialism actually is.
With all due respect, according to your sig I shouldn't believe a word you've said, as it's likely you're deliberately misleading me.
You don't get it: when I purchase a copyrighted book, I still own the copy that I purchased, and am free to do with it as I wish, save for making more copies of the book and selling them for profit; see First Sale doctrine. A car or house is the same: it doesn't matter whether the design and implementation processes can be copyrighted, I still own the car and house by virute of paying for them, and am allowed to do what I wish with them short of making copies.
To avoid a lengthy session of screaming at a wall - I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Bullets have one and one purpose only - to kill.
Actually, the main purpose of bullets is to be loaded into a firearm and discharged; however, only a simpleton with no imagination would honestly believe they serve only one purpose.
Also, "to kill" != murder, jackass.
If you didn't plan on killing anyone, why would you have bullets around?
Hunting, target practice, competition shooting, decoration, reloading, etc. etc. etc.
Again, only a fucking idiot would think that bullets exist for the sole purpose of 'killing people'... Well, OK, an idiot or a pussy. Take your pick; either way, not very flattering.
Hint: you're more likely to kill one of your family with those bullets than anyone else.
You, maybe. In my family, we teach respect and proper handling of firearms as early as age 6, have for generations, and have not once had an accidental discharge, let alone causing harm to someone without intent.
No, it's jackasses like you, who hate guns and gun owners until the day your dumb ass gets robbed, that negligently get their loved ones killed. Out of fear, you go out and buy a gun which you have no idea how to respect or use properly, fail to train yourself or your kin as to basic firearm safety, and end up leaving a loaded handgun out where your equally idiotic offspring can get ahold of it, then when the inevitable occurs and someone gets shot, you blame everyone but yourself for the incident, including the inanimate firearm.
How do you know if a supplier is trusted?
The same way we modern consumers make almost every other purchase decision: peer review.
What needs protection is development of the idea, clinical trials for drugs, safety testing for vehicles, marketing efforts that build brand value, these things are where the money goes, and will fail to go if there is no protection.
Already covered by patents and trademarks.
If you agree with that, then you wouldn't mind if your car and house became public property after 12 years of ownership protection.
There's a strawman argument if I ever saw one - cars and houses, unlike copyrights, are tangible assets that cannot be copied or redistributed. You're comparing apples to staplers here - the two have no relation whatsoever.
You can own land properties indefinitely.
No, you can't - someday, you'll die.
Of course, in the US at least, you never actually own "your" land. If you don't believe me, try not paying your property taxes for a few years and see what happens.
Why does no one pose the opposite question: why can't copyright be infinite years?
Probably because of the obvious fact that no person will live an infinite life, so giving something a copyright life that's longer than that of its creator just seems kind of silly.
As the GGGP said, there are things that have a long time horizon before one can possibly recoup R&D and other investment costs - many things take much longer than 5 years. And if you factor in a decent ROI that investors will require, I see a lot of ideas never making it to market or even developed because there's very little hope of reouping investment let alone making a return.
A greater argument for the socialization of pharmaceuticals, I have not heard.
If the government were in charge of the pharmaceutical industry, there would be no need for a "decent ROI," nor would there be incentive to "treat" illness as opposed to cure it.
Not-so-funny aside there - I can't understand these folks who actually believe that a for-profit drug manufacturer has any interest whatsoever in curing diseases they currently make billions off 'treating.'
This almost seems like justice is being served. What's the catch?
The Murdoch family gets away with it, scott-free.
The Crown alleged he had all the necessary ingredients to build a homemade bomb
I don't know anyone that DOESN'T.
This, a million times over; there isn't a homeowner in North America who doesn't possess materials capable of being combined for explosive effect, most of which reside under our kitchen sinks (or wherever you stash your cleaning supplies).
Claiming this as a valid rationale for prosecution is like claiming that owning bullets is intent to commit murder. It's not valid, it's just fucking stupid.