> "you attack a person who found your comment too long and accuse him of not being able to read" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @05:42PM (#35993170)
> He apparently couldn't.
He didn't. That is not the same as he couldn't. You are wrong.
> "I hope you get better." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @04:14PM (#35992584)
> I endeavor to do so, every day of my existence...
> APK
Good. You might start, when someone points out that you are being childish, by not saying [paraphrasing] "at least I'm not a troll."
As to my showing, it was fine. I agree with your point that the hosts file, if used properly, can save some bandwidth. I do not think the bandwidth it saves is significant in all cases. You view my agreement with the first point as some sort of evidence I did not make a good showing. But real conversations are not binary. I can agree with your point and still have something else relevant to say which diminishes the importance of your point, as here.
> P.S.=> No troll here EVER "gets the best of me"... trolls lack the intelligence to do so is why! apk
Do you just mean that you never seem to lose an argument?
Then why are you posting as A/C? Why, when you were modded down, did you attack a person who found your comment too long and accuse him of not being able to read AND of being the same person who modded you down? Why do you repeatedly call people names? Why do you take quotes out of context and pretend that they state more or other than they do? Why do you pretend you are winning points in an argument when they are points on which we agree?
As the Wikipedia article points out, trolling is subjective. From your POV, I am a troll because you consider me off-topic. From my POV, you are a troll because you are insulting people and are generally not behaving in a way that is normal for the forum. But I do not go around calling you one, because it would not be helpful. I am not trying to fool anyone, I am suggesting that you think about the way you are talking. Your second to last point, about endeavoring to improve yourself every day of your existence, is by far the thing that makes you look best in your most recent response. Notice how it is not insulting anyone. When you go on to insult me in your PS, you look far worse. There is a lesson there. If you truly wish to improve, I suggest you take it.
>"BUT the bandwidth saved is small compared to broadband bandwidth. " - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:54PM (#35992466)
>"Oh, really? Then why did the U.S. Military do the same basic thing during the Fukishima crisis?? To SAVE BANDWIDTH"
The two statements are not incongruous.
Merely because something saves bandwidth, it does not necessarily save enough to be particularly useful in a given situation and with a given net usage pattern. You repeatedly ignore this point.
>"It WILL NOT come close to offsetting the theoretical bandwidth lost by a bandwidth cap, from full pipe 24/7 to capped, for even a 250KBps pipe. " - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:54PM (#35992466)
>You said it yourself above: Again - HOSTS can save a user bandwidth - & in doing that VERY THING? It helps you NOT have to hit that limit, sooner, by downloading adbanners!
>Period...
I never disagreed with that. What I say is that the improvement is not great. There is a difference between a fact and its importance.
Did you recommend noscript? Well, good. I did see you recommended layered security, but must have overlooked the noscript recommendation.
"Each time you say that, we get a bit further removed from the point." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:40PM (#35992406)
We do. Hello Pot, this is Kettle.
Ahem:
---
1.) Is the topic here about AT&T instituting bandwidth caps on users? Yes, it is.
2.) Do HOSTS files save you bandwidth by blocking out adbanners?? Yes, they do (you even said it yourself, for Pete's sake!)
---
Now, given those 2 points?
If you are NOT USING AS MUCH BANDWIDTH A MONTH ON ADBANNERS, YOU WILL BE OFFSETTING THAT BANDWIDTH CAP (lessening how fast you hit it, in other words).
Period!
---
You will be "lessening how fast you hit it" as you put it, yes. I never said otherwise. But the gain is limited because most website ads are small compared to video. But that discussion is in another thread.
"I clearly believe your responses have been inappropriate, as they include significant name-calling and derogatory remarks." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:40PM (#35992406)
I KNOW you've been "off topic" here nearly the ENTIRE time, and I blew you away above on the very point of this article & what I stated can lessen its effects (hosts files usage to block out adbanners).
APK
P.S.=>
(1) Yes, I know you believe that, for the first part. You've said it repeatedly. (2) You blew me away on the point of this article? Are you kidding? I never disagreed with the notion of the article. I pointed out limitations and suggested you not make ad hominem attacks. You have a very strange definition of blowing people away.
"Application of the term troll is subjective." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:40PM (#35992406)
LMAO - who are you trying to fool here? You came in here with some OFF TOPIC "writing style troll" post... and kept it up! That's TROLLING TO THE MAX, & the "oldest troll trick in the book"...
Funny how well you read my posts NOW though, eh?
Lastly - You weren't on topic until I pointed it out, and then when you tried to be "on topic"?? See the 1st paragraphs of this reply here... your showing??? Not good! apk
Nobody. You have driven them all away. I read your posts well in the beginning. They were insulting and childish, and remain so. I do not know why you are quoting "on topic." Since you complained about a lack of on-topicness, yes, I replied.
And my showing was fine. You keep quoting me and pretending that the quotes mean something other than what they do, or more than what they do. I am not sure whether it is because you believe it or because you are used to scoring cheap points.
Selective quotation of my words does not change what I said. You are again mischaracterizing my statements.
It will save bandwidth. BUT the bandwidth saved is small compared to broadband bandwidth. It WILL NOT come close to offsetting the theoretical bandwidth lost by a bandwidth cap, from full pipe 24/7 to capped, for even a 250KBps pipe. It WILL in at least certain circumstances save time. It WILL in at least some cases be more secure. NoScript helps more in that department.
Finally, you are not the only person spending money. Your downloading costs other people money too. Paywalls as locked doors are a poor answer because then you are requiring everyone to be inconvenienced. If everyone did what you are suggesting, it would eliminate much of the internet.
Each time you say that, we get a bit further removed from the point. As is clear, we disagree.
As to trolling, "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." [Wikipedia]
I clearly believe your responses have been inappropriate, as they include significant name-calling and derogatory remarks. You clearly believe my responses have been off-topic, as I have pointed out it might be more helpful not to go around calling people names. We disagree.
Also of interest from that article:
Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.
The military was probably concerned about it for low bandwidth applications, kind of like how CNN turned off all advertising and just used a text page on 9/11. But as compared to video streaming, it would be much less useful.
> So you DO concede that blocking adbanners will save bandwidth (to offset some of the capping being done by the likes of AT&T & others)... I don't blame you that, because it's UNDENIABLE, & quite a noticeable speed boost (as well as a potential security measure vs. maliciously scripted adbanners).
I agree that it will save some bandwidth. (Which is not a concession, but I suppose is close enough for government work.:)) I agree not because it is undeniable, but because it is true, as I said. It is also a speed boost, although whether it is a noticeable one depends on a lot of variables. Certainly on low end machines or with badly done advertising it can be. And it can theoretically help with security, although NoScript and the like will help more.
I do not think it will significantly offset capping. It will reduce bandwidth. If you characterize it as a loss of a theoretical full pipe... Even if you save 250K/page (I am not sure what the statistics show these days), it would take 600,000 page views to reach the AT&T cap. If movies are ~300 megs, you'd need 1200 page views per movie for the bandwidth savings to keep the movies from reaching the cap, assuming you were at the cap beforehand. So it can help, but if people are using netflix or other broadband sites and utilities it will be a bit of a drop in the bucket.
Even if you have only a 250KBps connection, 250*60*60*24*30/1024 ~= 630 GB, about four times AT&T's cap. If all you did was viewed pages, you would need to save about 15 GB worth of ad bandwidth a day to offset the lost amount. That's A LOT of advertisements, and connections tend to be a lot faster than that. So you save bandwidth, but it's a drop in the bucket.
You pay your ISP for your internet service. They have a huge advantage in negotiating power, but if they change the contract so it has a cap, and you continue to buy the service, you are paying for the service with a cap--not for the bandwidth without a cap. They may be engaging in false advertising by continuing to advertise by bandwidth, but you are getting what they are agreeing in the contract to sell you. If you don't like it, you have to find someone else to provide the service without a cap.
As to the idea that people don't care about content if they are depending on advertising revenue, think about that for a second. Almost all of television is paid for by advertising revenue. Facebook and Google are paid for by advertising revenue. Millions of people who care about content they produce are supported by advertising revenue.
There is also an argument that you steal what they are paying for. Companies have to pay for bandwidth too, and content, for you to look at their page. They provide you some bandwidth and the content as part of an integrated transaction in which you receive both content that you are looking for, to make the transaction worthwhile to you, and advertising they are selling, to make the transaction worthwhile to them. Even if you don't call this stealing, but only describe it economically, it is still a cost to society for ad-blocking.
Also, for all your concern about my off-topic-ness, you neither responded to nor acknowledged the part of my post that was directly on point, i.e. about the limitations of a hosts file in conserving bandwidth, choosing instead to attack other points for being off-topic and generally calling me not an expert despite the validity of the technical points I made.
In response to your point 1: You accuse me of avoiding a question by saying I only answer it "finally," and then claim it is off-topic to respond that that is not true. So it is all right when you accuse me of avoiding a question, but horrible off-topic trolling for me to point out that I didn't? Regarding "writing style forums" and "you're FAR from an authority" we have discussed the former, and you have already said the latter (without foundation aside, perhaps, from your beliefs about my posts). Our posts can speak for themselves.
In response to your point 2: You accused me of giving orders. I said I did not. You responded "Your constant being off topic & doing your blatantly OFF TOPIC writing style critiques makes you out to be the troll you clearly are... period." However, I was not criticizing your *writing style*. I was saying your claim--that I was giving orders--was simply *wrong*.
In response to your point 3: Again, I was not criticizing your writing style. I was saying your claims about what I had said were *wrong*.
In response to your point 4: Interesting. We have different ideas about the definition of bullshit, and about what it means to be off-topic, and about style v. content.
In response to your PS: Repeating your position does not make it less false or more true. You are still as wrong on the things you're wrong about and as right on the things you're right about. Calling me names won't change that. As to whether I am expert at "the subject," whether you are referring to bandwidth management or writing style or something in between, you are again making a claim without foundation.
>> You can quit giving orders. first of all. Secondly, you clearly trolling off topic fool, per this answer from you that finally answered my question of "is there an writing style critique forums here, and is the topic here on that much?":
> "No. There is not" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Saturday April 30, @03:45PM (#35986224)
>> See subject & your answer above, goof - you're off topic right off the bat, so take your trolling ass out of here please... because the rest of what you wrote? UTTER BULLSHIT, period.
Seriously?
1) I didn't answer the question "finally." I answered it when you asked.
2) I don't recall giving orders, although I did say that ad hominem attacks generally make you look bad.
3) You are mischaracterizing my answers to your questions. As I said, there is not a separate forum here for critiques, but that does not mean critiques have no place. Also as I said, my answers are relevant to the conversation but not to the underlying topic of bandwidth caps.
4) In what way is it bullshit? Do you consider everything you disagree with or that criticizes you to be bullshit? Or do you simply consider it bullshit because you consider it off-topic, regardless of whether it is valid?
> "As to the the primary point, yes, having a hosts file that blocks certain ads can certainly help. It should cut the web browsing and DNS component of your bandwidth use. It will not help with Netflix, which is currently the elephant in the room, bandwidth-wise." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Saturday April 30, @03:45PM (#35986224)
> Aha, SO you DO concede my point that using HOSTS files CAN conserve bandwidth (after you doubtless read my posts in their entirety you couldn't HELP but realize that much)... good, a "point in my favor" right off the bat!
1) It is not conceding a point, it is agreeing with you, while recognizing some of the limits and costs of your suggestion. If you looked at my original post, I did not disagree with your point.
> The point here was to HELP PEOPLE CONSERVE BANDWIDTH, & you can speed up their access to NetFlix further even, by hardcoding the IP address of that site to your HOSTS as well (not just getting more of your money's worth by blocking out adbanners only).
A little bandwidth, in the case of Netflix--a DNS request is trivially tiny compared to the bandwidth you save on ads, and compared to Netflix bandwidth generally. It is also not clear that this is "your" money's worth. The advertisements pay for content on many web sites, and cutting into that revenue stream is a cost to society associated with your use of ad-blockers, since it takes away an incentive for content production. On the other hand, that also encourages companies to use less annoying ads, so that people won't bother to block them.
> Funniest part here, is, that recently? During the Fukishima incident in Japan?? The U.S. Military did the SAME IDEA - blocked out doubleclick adbanners to SAVE BANDWIDTH! They didn't use HOSTS for it, but they could have easily to the SAME EFFECT.
I fail to see how that is funny, although it is interesting.
---
> Wouldn't MATTER if you did, on 2 grounds here:... 1.) An English PHD? Worth shit... face it, it is. It's NOT going to "cure cancer" or anything that will TRULY improve the human condition... & I really don't want to hear some "mile long speech" on how it has or will, ok? It'd just be more OFF-TOPIC BULLSHIT outta you, period! 2.) I've eaten PHD's for lunch... easily, & especially on the topic of computer sciences, not just "english professors", either!
1) You are the one who brought up the English Ph.D. as something that might give my arguments more credibility. 2) English majors don't cure cancer, and a Ph.D. is a piece of paper showing you've done some work. People with doctorates can be good or bad, and smart or dumb. I never said otherwise. As to the human condition, the truth is far more complex than you give it credit for, but I will spare you the mile long speech. 3) I don't care who you've eaten for lunch.
> Ahem: Can you answer the question in my subject-line above, first??? A simple YES or NO, is all that is asked for in that regard.
Yes. I can. But not with a yes or no, because either answer would be slightly wrong. It is relevant the conversation. It is not relevant to bandwidth caps.
> Additionally - Is there a forums section here on 'writing style' critique????
No. There is not. We critique writing style as an integrated part of our discussions. This is because we are Nerds, and Nerds tend to like things that are done well.
> P.S.=> When you get YOUR PHD in English, maybe THEN, you'd actually be SOMEWHAT credible - but, it really wouldn't matter... why?
Funny how you assume I don't have one. Odd how you assume one might make me credible on this topic. An MFA might be more relevant, if you were looking for an appeal to authority. Or experience as a reporter, or a writer.
> Well, then again, you'd STILL BE OFF TOPIC no matter how you slice it & this isn't a paper for a grade in academia, nor is it a legal or business correspondence... it's computing oriented technical material, & it's ONLY A FORUMS (that again, has NO section on "writing style critique" either)...
Asking people to be courteous and restrain from ad hominem attacks is never off-topic. A critique may be genuinely helpful, if we are open-minded about them, reject the parts we disagree with, listen to what others think, and figure out how we should craft our message to better reach our audience. And yes, it is only a forum.
As to the the primary point, yes, having a hosts file that blocks certain ads can certainly help. It should cut the web browsing and DNS component of your bandwidth use. It will not help with Netflix, which is currently the elephant in the room, bandwidth-wise. It does have side benefits, as well as social costs.
>However, even IF you had a PHD in English, it'd be YOUR PROBLEM if you cannot gather the meanings of the words within the context in which they are used (which said context clearly seems to be "over your head", on computing)... apk
Having a Ph.D. in English is not relevant to understanding the meanings of words (with very, very rare exceptions, e.g. Old English roots if you happen to study it).
I have no problem. I am simply going out of my way for you in the hope that you make your points in ways which receive better reception in the future, in which case we will all be a little better off--you will make your points more effectively and perhaps be able to contribute to the community in a more positive way. Truthfully, it is not worth my time, but I thought to stop for a moment and help both you and, to a lesser degree, the person you attacked.
I know the meaning of words, and I know the context. Calling me stupid does not make that less true, and it certainly does not make me more likely to agree with you.
1) Notice how his "TL;DR" is a criticism of your article in the slashdot context. It is not in any way a nuanced criticism, but he found it too long for what he comes to slashdot for.
Your criticism, however, is to insult him. It makes you look worse and him look better, especially when dealing with an audience of professional and largely courteous people.
> why don't you TRY to technically disprove ANY of the 20 points I put up then, instead of doing the "TRUE ANONYMOUS COWARD" mod-down & run?
2) Why should he? Maybe he's busy.
3) You could have made your point much more simply, and it would have been more persuasive. "Using a good custom hosts file saves a large amount of bandwidth and reduces vulnerability to malware. This isn't perfect but helps in a lot of situations." You have a lot of subsidiary points, but they are not especially relevant to a slashdot audience, which already understands what a hosts file does and how it works.
> You had a keyboard? We didn't have one, we just tapped the two wires together in morse code to control the keypuncher monkey thing..
I once had a keyboard rained on while in the middle of the forest with no chance to get a replacement for a while. I took it apart and figured out the shorts I had to make in the controlling circuit board to enter the password with a paperclip...
Private lenders are being pushed out of the market by the treasury. Making loans subject to bankruptcy won't work because students could just rack up two hundred K in tuition, go bankrupt, and get a job. Colleges are price sensitive but only slightly. There is no incentive to limit lending, yes, because the government effectively allows students to borrow infinite money on student credit. Bankruptcy won't do the trick, though, and there are collective action problems preventing any good colleges from keeping prices down.
Keeping prices down means not improving programs as much as you peer schools, which will cost you good students and good faculty, ultimately degrading the quality of education you can give even more than the mere comparative degradation that occurs if everyone else is improving their programs and you aren't. Everyone recognizes there is a problem, but none of the schools feel they can do anything about it--at least none of the good ones. It's effectively a multilateral arms race.
Note that this is for the portion of cost rising above inflation--you also have the cost of inflation to cover, at least nominally.
> and 99% of all the stupid and retarded people I've encountered over the decades are just unmotivated, right?
No, but don't discount the value of motivation. (Although I have no idea what the particular book preaches. IQ tests are certainly limited in certain ways.)
The stupid people, most of them have limited intelligence as applied to the areas you were evaluating AND lacked motivation. Sucking at things makes most people not want to do them. Girls do better in CS classes taught by women, and it's not because they're smarter if they have female teachers.
For the retarded people, motivation is still relevant, but the primary factor in their ability is not motivation. (I am thinking of the profoundly retarded--there are certainly others who are only partially retarded and who can achieve as much as a less retarded person by working more.)
> Like if you were trying to get away with saying "black people commit more crimes," you might say "urban populations commit more crime." Urban means "lives in the city."
Urban doesn't mean black even then, unless someone doesn't speak English. The formal definition applies.
Urban people commit more crime because of simple math. More people closer together means more opportunities for crime, and a city means more laws.
I agree the statement "black people commit more crimes" is unacceptable, almost as a rule, due to the ambiguity inherent in the sentence. In addition, there is a perceived racism in the statement "black people commit more crimes," bolstered in legitimacy by a combination of factors: (1) black people are arrested disproportionately. For example, NYC spends ~$100M on arrests, largely of young black men, of people with small quantities of pot. However, studies show that white people use pot much more than black people do. (2) People of lower socioeconomic status commit more visible crimes, and they are disproportionately black, so saying black people implicitly creates a tenuous causal connection between "black people" and "crimes" in your statement. (3) On a related vein, "black people commit more crimes" is ambiguous. It could be either an empirical statement about the current state of affairs, or a truism. If the latter, it would be highly problematic for our entire notion of egalitarianism, and would be racist (even if racist with an empirical basis). (4) Even if true as a statement of the past, the statement would still be problematic because people will look to it as justification for racism--when we generalize, we give ammunition to people who hate others based on their affiliation or skin color or religion or political party. (Okay, the latter might be okay if it's the Nazis.)
They aren't inherently immoral, but generally there is an attempt to get people to pay something toward debt when it is no longer required that they pay it, to reset the statute of limitations. This is basically a trick, to make them legally responsible for paying the debt. This is immoral, because it is a practice done to make someone do something very much against their interests, in a way which punishes more moral behavior, under the pretext of doing something that is both morally preferable and that seems to be doing them a favor.
Similar to many police interrogation techniques. Like asking first offenders who don't know better not to admit their guilt, but to write apology letters which are then used to convict them. You may call these necessary evils, but they are not moral--they trick suspects and punish the more moral among them, who actually feel they've done something wrong.
Collections agencies behave immorally but legally, and companies sell to them because it gives them some money from past due accounts and the immorality is not directed at the company.
But Comcast sending its past-due customers to a collections agency and then refusing to pay its own bill (simplifying the facts but taking the alleged facts to be true) is the height of hypocrisy.
Slashdot Mirror
> "you attack a person who found your comment too long and accuse him of not being able to read" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @05:42PM (#35993170)
> He apparently couldn't.
He didn't. That is not the same as he couldn't. You are wrong.
> That'd be from the greatest authority there is, & that's the NORMAL PERSON'S POV: Mine ( &, not an off-topic trolls' opinion, which is yours)!
Hahahahaha.
> "I hope you get better." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @04:14PM (#35992584)
> I endeavor to do so, every day of my existence...
> APK
Good. You might start, when someone points out that you are being childish, by not saying [paraphrasing] "at least I'm not a troll."
As to my showing, it was fine. I agree with your point that the hosts file, if used properly, can save some bandwidth. I do not think the bandwidth it saves is significant in all cases. You view my agreement with the first point as some sort of evidence I did not make a good showing. But real conversations are not binary. I can agree with your point and still have something else relevant to say which diminishes the importance of your point, as here.
> P.S.=> No troll here EVER "gets the best of me"... trolls lack the intelligence to do so is why! apk
Do you just mean that you never seem to lose an argument?
Then why are you posting as A/C? Why, when you were modded down, did you attack a person who found your comment too long and accuse him of not being able to read AND of being the same person who modded you down? Why do you repeatedly call people names? Why do you take quotes out of context and pretend that they state more or other than they do? Why do you pretend you are winning points in an argument when they are points on which we agree?
As the Wikipedia article points out, trolling is subjective. From your POV, I am a troll because you consider me off-topic. From my POV, you are a troll because you are insulting people and are generally not behaving in a way that is normal for the forum. But I do not go around calling you one, because it would not be helpful. I am not trying to fool anyone, I am suggesting that you think about the way you are talking. Your second to last point, about endeavoring to improve yourself every day of your existence, is by far the thing that makes you look best in your most recent response. Notice how it is not insulting anyone. When you go on to insult me in your PS, you look far worse. There is a lesson there. If you truly wish to improve, I suggest you take it.
>"BUT the bandwidth saved is small compared to broadband bandwidth. " - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:54PM (#35992466)
>"Oh, really? Then why did the U.S. Military do the same basic thing during the Fukishima crisis?? To SAVE BANDWIDTH"
The two statements are not incongruous.
Merely because something saves bandwidth, it does not necessarily save enough to be particularly useful in a given situation and with a given net usage pattern. You repeatedly ignore this point.
>"It WILL NOT come close to offsetting the theoretical bandwidth lost by a bandwidth cap, from full pipe 24/7 to capped, for even a 250KBps pipe. " - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:54PM (#35992466)
>You said it yourself above: Again - HOSTS can save a user bandwidth - & in doing that VERY THING? It helps you NOT have to hit that limit, sooner, by downloading adbanners!
>Period...
I never disagreed with that. What I say is that the improvement is not great. There is a difference between a fact and its importance.
Did you recommend noscript? Well, good. I did see you recommended layered security, but must have overlooked the noscript recommendation.
No, because your OWN WORDS made my point for me!
Not sure what you're responding to.
"Each time you say that, we get a bit further removed from the point." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:40PM (#35992406)
We do. Hello Pot, this is Kettle.
Ahem:
---
1.) Is the topic here about AT&T instituting bandwidth caps on users? Yes, it is.
2.) Do HOSTS files save you bandwidth by blocking out adbanners?? Yes, they do (you even said it yourself, for Pete's sake!)
---
Now, given those 2 points?
If you are NOT USING AS MUCH BANDWIDTH A MONTH ON ADBANNERS, YOU WILL BE OFFSETTING THAT BANDWIDTH CAP (lessening how fast you hit it, in other words).
Period!
---
You will be "lessening how fast you hit it" as you put it, yes. I never said otherwise. But the gain is limited because most website ads are small compared to video. But that discussion is in another thread.
"I clearly believe your responses have been inappropriate, as they include significant name-calling and derogatory remarks." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:40PM (#35992406)
I KNOW you've been "off topic" here nearly the ENTIRE time, and I blew you away above on the very point of this article & what I stated can lessen its effects (hosts files usage to block out adbanners).
APK
P.S.=>
(1) Yes, I know you believe that, for the first part. You've said it repeatedly.
(2) You blew me away on the point of this article? Are you kidding? I never disagreed with the notion of the article. I pointed out limitations and suggested you not make ad hominem attacks. You have a very strange definition of blowing people away.
"Application of the term troll is subjective." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:40PM (#35992406)
LMAO - who are you trying to fool here? You came in here with some OFF TOPIC "writing style troll" post... and kept it up! That's TROLLING TO THE MAX, & the "oldest troll trick in the book"...
Funny how well you read my posts NOW though, eh?
Lastly - You weren't on topic until I pointed it out, and then when you tried to be "on topic"?? See the 1st paragraphs of this reply here... your showing??? Not good! apk
Nobody. You have driven them all away. I read your posts well in the beginning. They were insulting and childish, and remain so. I do not know why you are quoting "on topic." Since you complained about a lack of on-topicness, yes, I replied.
And my showing was fine. You keep quoting me and pretending that the quotes mean something other than what they do, or more than what they do. I am not sure whether it is because you believe it or because you are used to scoring cheap points.
I hope you get better.
Selective quotation of my words does not change what I said. You are again mischaracterizing my statements.
It will save bandwidth. BUT the bandwidth saved is small compared to broadband bandwidth. It WILL NOT come close to offsetting the theoretical bandwidth lost by a bandwidth cap, from full pipe 24/7 to capped, for even a 250KBps pipe. It WILL in at least certain circumstances save time. It WILL in at least some cases be more secure. NoScript helps more in that department.
Finally, you are not the only person spending money. Your downloading costs other people money too. Paywalls as locked doors are a poor answer because then you are requiring everyone to be inconvenienced. If everyone did what you are suggesting, it would eliminate much of the internet.
Each time you say that, we get a bit further removed from the point. As is clear, we disagree.
As to trolling, "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." [Wikipedia]
I clearly believe your responses have been inappropriate, as they include significant name-calling and derogatory remarks. You clearly believe my responses have been off-topic, as I have pointed out it might be more helpful not to go around calling people names. We disagree.
Also of interest from that article:
Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.
The military was probably concerned about it for low bandwidth applications, kind of like how CNN turned off all advertising and just used a text page on 9/11. But as compared to video streaming, it would be much less useful.
> So you DO concede that blocking adbanners will save bandwidth (to offset some of the capping being done by the likes of AT&T & others)... I don't blame you that, because it's UNDENIABLE, & quite a noticeable speed boost (as well as a potential security measure vs. maliciously scripted adbanners).
I agree that it will save some bandwidth. (Which is not a concession, but I suppose is close enough for government work. :)) I agree not because it is undeniable, but because it is true, as I said. It is also a speed boost, although whether it is a noticeable one depends on a lot of variables. Certainly on low end machines or with badly done advertising it can be. And it can theoretically help with security, although NoScript and the like will help more.
I do not think it will significantly offset capping. It will reduce bandwidth. If you characterize it as a loss of a theoretical full pipe... Even if you save 250K/page (I am not sure what the statistics show these days), it would take 600,000 page views to reach the AT&T cap. If movies are ~300 megs, you'd need 1200 page views per movie for the bandwidth savings to keep the movies from reaching the cap, assuming you were at the cap beforehand. So it can help, but if people are using netflix or other broadband sites and utilities it will be a bit of a drop in the bucket.
Even if you have only a 250KBps connection, 250*60*60*24*30/1024 ~= 630 GB, about four times AT&T's cap. If all you did was viewed pages, you would need to save about 15 GB worth of ad bandwidth a day to offset the lost amount. That's A LOT of advertisements, and connections tend to be a lot faster than that. So you save bandwidth, but it's a drop in the bucket.
You pay your ISP for your internet service. They have a huge advantage in negotiating power, but if they change the contract so it has a cap, and you continue to buy the service, you are paying for the service with a cap--not for the bandwidth without a cap. They may be engaging in false advertising by continuing to advertise by bandwidth, but you are getting what they are agreeing in the contract to sell you. If you don't like it, you have to find someone else to provide the service without a cap.
As to the idea that people don't care about content if they are depending on advertising revenue, think about that for a second. Almost all of television is paid for by advertising revenue. Facebook and Google are paid for by advertising revenue. Millions of people who care about content they produce are supported by advertising revenue.
There is also an argument that you steal what they are paying for. Companies have to pay for bandwidth too, and content, for you to look at their page. They provide you some bandwidth and the content as part of an integrated transaction in which you receive both content that you are looking for, to make the transaction worthwhile to you, and advertising they are selling, to make the transaction worthwhile to them. Even if you don't call this stealing, but only describe it economically, it is still a cost to society for ad-blocking.
Also, for all your concern about my off-topic-ness, you neither responded to nor acknowledged the part of my post that was directly on point, i.e. about the limitations of a hosts file in conserving bandwidth, choosing instead to attack other points for being off-topic and generally calling me not an expert despite the validity of the technical points I made.
In response to your point 1: You accuse me of avoiding a question by saying I only answer it "finally," and then claim it is off-topic to respond that that is not true. So it is all right when you accuse me of avoiding a question, but horrible off-topic trolling for me to point out that I didn't? Regarding "writing style forums" and "you're FAR from an authority" we have discussed the former, and you have already said the latter (without foundation aside, perhaps, from your beliefs about my posts). Our posts can speak for themselves.
In response to your point 2: You accused me of giving orders. I said I did not. You responded "Your constant being off topic & doing your blatantly OFF TOPIC writing style critiques makes you out to be the troll you clearly are... period." However, I was not criticizing your *writing style*. I was saying your claim--that I was giving orders--was simply *wrong*.
In response to your point 3: Again, I was not criticizing your writing style. I was saying your claims about what I had said were *wrong*.
In response to your point 4: Interesting. We have different ideas about the definition of bullshit, and about what it means to be off-topic, and about style v. content.
In response to your PS: Repeating your position does not make it less false or more true. You are still as wrong on the things you're wrong about and as right on the things you're right about. Calling me names won't change that. As to whether I am expert at "the subject," whether you are referring to bandwidth management or writing style or something in between, you are again making a claim without foundation.
=)
>> You can quit giving orders. first of all. Secondly, you clearly trolling off topic fool, per this answer from you that finally answered my question of "is there an writing style critique forums here, and is the topic here on that much?":
> "No. There is not" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Saturday April 30, @03:45PM (#35986224)
>> See subject & your answer above, goof - you're off topic right off the bat, so take your trolling ass out of here please... because the rest of what you wrote? UTTER BULLSHIT, period.
Seriously?
1) I didn't answer the question "finally." I answered it when you asked.
2) I don't recall giving orders, although I did say that ad hominem attacks generally make you look bad.
3) You are mischaracterizing my answers to your questions. As I said, there is not a separate forum here for critiques, but that does not mean critiques have no place. Also as I said, my answers are relevant to the conversation but not to the underlying topic of bandwidth caps.
4) In what way is it bullshit? Do you consider everything you disagree with or that criticizes you to be bullshit? Or do you simply consider it bullshit because you consider it off-topic, regardless of whether it is valid?
> "As to the the primary point, yes, having a hosts file that blocks certain ads can certainly help. It should cut the web browsing and DNS component of your bandwidth use. It will not help with Netflix, which is currently the elephant in the room, bandwidth-wise." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Saturday April 30, @03:45PM (#35986224)
> Aha, SO you DO concede my point that using HOSTS files CAN conserve bandwidth (after you doubtless read my posts in their entirety you couldn't HELP but realize that much)... good, a "point in my favor" right off the bat!
1) It is not conceding a point, it is agreeing with you, while recognizing some of the limits and costs of your suggestion. If you looked at my original post, I did not disagree with your point.
> The point here was to HELP PEOPLE CONSERVE BANDWIDTH, & you can speed up their access to NetFlix further even, by hardcoding the IP address of that site to your HOSTS as well (not just getting more of your money's worth by blocking out adbanners only).
A little bandwidth, in the case of Netflix--a DNS request is trivially tiny compared to the bandwidth you save on ads, and compared to Netflix bandwidth generally. It is also not clear that this is "your" money's worth. The advertisements pay for content on many web sites, and cutting into that revenue stream is a cost to society associated with your use of ad-blockers, since it takes away an incentive for content production. On the other hand, that also encourages companies to use less annoying ads, so that people won't bother to block them.
> Funniest part here, is, that recently? During the Fukishima incident in Japan?? The U.S. Military did the SAME IDEA - blocked out doubleclick adbanners to SAVE BANDWIDTH! They didn't use HOSTS for it, but they could have easily to the SAME EFFECT.
I fail to see how that is funny, although it is interesting.
---
> Wouldn't MATTER if you did, on 2 grounds here: ... 1.) An English PHD? Worth shit... face it, it is. It's NOT going to "cure cancer" or anything that will TRULY improve the human condition... & I really don't want to hear some "mile long speech" on how it has or will, ok? It'd just be more OFF-TOPIC BULLSHIT outta you, period! 2.) I've eaten PHD's for lunch... easily, & especially on the topic of computer sciences, not just "english professors", either!
1) You are the one who brought up the English Ph.D. as something that might give my arguments more credibility.
2) English majors don't cure cancer, and a Ph.D. is a piece of paper showing you've done some work. People with doctorates can be good or bad, and smart or dumb. I never said otherwise. As to the human condition, the truth is far more complex than you give it credit for, but I will spare you the mile long speech.
3) I don't care who you've eaten for lunch.
It's very much a fun-once-or-twice kind of thing. :)
> Ahem: Can you answer the question in my subject-line above, first??? A simple YES or NO, is all that is asked for in that regard.
Yes. I can. But not with a yes or no, because either answer would be slightly wrong. It is relevant the conversation. It is not relevant to bandwidth caps.
> Additionally - Is there a forums section here on 'writing style' critique????
No. There is not. We critique writing style as an integrated part of our discussions. This is because we are Nerds, and Nerds tend to like things that are done well.
> P.S.=> When you get YOUR PHD in English, maybe THEN, you'd actually be SOMEWHAT credible - but, it really wouldn't matter... why?
Funny how you assume I don't have one. Odd how you assume one might make me credible on this topic. An MFA might be more relevant, if you were looking for an appeal to authority. Or experience as a reporter, or a writer.
> Well, then again, you'd STILL BE OFF TOPIC no matter how you slice it & this isn't a paper for a grade in academia, nor is it a legal or business correspondence... it's computing oriented technical material, & it's ONLY A FORUMS (that again, has NO section on "writing style critique" either)...
Asking people to be courteous and restrain from ad hominem attacks is never off-topic. A critique may be genuinely helpful, if we are open-minded about them, reject the parts we disagree with, listen to what others think, and figure out how we should craft our message to better reach our audience. And yes, it is only a forum.
As to the the primary point, yes, having a hosts file that blocks certain ads can certainly help. It should cut the web browsing and DNS component of your bandwidth use. It will not help with Netflix, which is currently the elephant in the room, bandwidth-wise. It does have side benefits, as well as social costs.
>However, even IF you had a PHD in English, it'd be YOUR PROBLEM if you cannot gather the meanings of the words within the context in which they are used (which said context clearly seems to be "over your head", on computing)... apk
Having a Ph.D. in English is not relevant to understanding the meanings of words (with very, very rare exceptions, e.g. Old English roots if you happen to study it).
I have no problem. I am simply going out of my way for you in the hope that you make your points in ways which receive better reception in the future, in which case we will all be a little better off--you will make your points more effectively and perhaps be able to contribute to the community in a more positive way. Truthfully, it is not worth my time, but I thought to stop for a moment and help both you and, to a lesser degree, the person you attacked.
I know the meaning of words, and I know the context. Calling me stupid does not make that less true, and it certainly does not make me more likely to agree with you.
> if reading is "too much '4U'"?
1) Notice how his "TL;DR" is a criticism of your article in the slashdot context. It is not in any way a nuanced criticism, but he found it too long for what he comes to slashdot for.
Your criticism, however, is to insult him. It makes you look worse and him look better, especially when dealing with an audience of professional and largely courteous people.
> why don't you TRY to technically disprove ANY of the 20 points I put up then, instead of doing the "TRUE ANONYMOUS COWARD" mod-down & run?
2) Why should he? Maybe he's busy.
3) You could have made your point much more simply, and it would have been more persuasive. "Using a good custom hosts file saves a large amount of bandwidth and reduces vulnerability to malware. This isn't perfect but helps in a lot of situations." You have a lot of subsidiary points, but they are not especially relevant to a slashdot audience, which already understands what a hosts file does and how it works.
4) [Omitted.]
> You had a keyboard? We didn't have one, we just tapped the two wires together in morse code to control the keypuncher monkey thing..
I once had a keyboard rained on while in the middle of the forest with no chance to get a replacement for a while. I took it apart and figured out the shorts I had to make in the controlling circuit board to enter the password with a paperclip...
> Don't you mean "read yourself when you type" ?
Unless you are Q, that sounds... confusing.
Private lenders are being pushed out of the market by the treasury. Making loans subject to bankruptcy won't work because students could just rack up two hundred K in tuition, go bankrupt, and get a job. Colleges are price sensitive but only slightly. There is no incentive to limit lending, yes, because the government effectively allows students to borrow infinite money on student credit. Bankruptcy won't do the trick, though, and there are collective action problems preventing any good colleges from keeping prices down.
Keeping prices down means not improving programs as much as you peer schools, which will cost you good students and good faculty, ultimately degrading the quality of education you can give even more than the mere comparative degradation that occurs if everyone else is improving their programs and you aren't. Everyone recognizes there is a problem, but none of the schools feel they can do anything about it--at least none of the good ones. It's effectively a multilateral arms race.
Note that this is for the portion of cost rising above inflation--you also have the cost of inflation to cover, at least nominally.
> ->Paramount, Fox and Disney declined to join
> And nothing of value was lost.
Star Trek?
Classic Disney Movies? Animated Robin Hood? Treasure Island? 20,000 leagues under the Sea? Marvel Entertainment?
Emily Deschanel?
> and 99% of all the stupid and retarded people I've encountered over the decades are just unmotivated, right?
No, but don't discount the value of motivation. (Although I have no idea what the particular book preaches. IQ tests are certainly limited in certain ways.)
The stupid people, most of them have limited intelligence as applied to the areas you were evaluating AND lacked motivation. Sucking at things makes most people not want to do them. Girls do better in CS classes taught by women, and it's not because they're smarter if they have female teachers.
For the retarded people, motivation is still relevant, but the primary factor in their ability is not motivation. (I am thinking of the profoundly retarded--there are certainly others who are only partially retarded and who can achieve as much as a less retarded person by working more.)
> Maybe this troll and/or its lawyer can get disbarred by a Federal judge
I don't like copyright trolls.
But the idea of having an actual troll who has passed the bar...
is kind of awesome.
Maybe it's this one.
> The fact that "Righthaven" are even allowed into court any more, in any jurisdiction, is proof positive that the justice system is broken.
Wrong.
Although their lawyers may be sanctioned for something like this, depending on whether they have any meritorious legal arguments.
> Like if you were trying to get away with saying "black people commit more crimes," you might say "urban populations commit more crime." Urban means "lives in the city."
Urban doesn't mean black even then, unless someone doesn't speak English. The formal definition applies.
Urban people commit more crime because of simple math. More people closer together means more opportunities for crime, and a city means more laws.
I agree the statement "black people commit more crimes" is unacceptable, almost as a rule, due to the ambiguity inherent in the sentence. In addition, there is a perceived racism in the statement "black people commit more crimes," bolstered in legitimacy by a combination of factors: (1) black people are arrested disproportionately. For example, NYC spends ~$100M on arrests, largely of young black men, of people with small quantities of pot. However, studies show that white people use pot much more than black people do. (2) People of lower socioeconomic status commit more visible crimes, and they are disproportionately black, so saying black people implicitly creates a tenuous causal connection between "black people" and "crimes" in your statement. (3) On a related vein, "black people commit more crimes" is ambiguous. It could be either an empirical statement about the current state of affairs, or a truism. If the latter, it would be highly problematic for our entire notion of egalitarianism, and would be racist (even if racist with an empirical basis). (4) Even if true as a statement of the past, the statement would still be problematic because people will look to it as justification for racism--when we generalize, we give ammunition to people who hate others based on their affiliation or skin color or religion or political party. (Okay, the latter might be okay if it's the Nazis.)
They aren't inherently immoral, but generally there is an attempt to get people to pay something toward debt when it is no longer required that they pay it, to reset the statute of limitations. This is basically a trick, to make them legally responsible for paying the debt. This is immoral, because it is a practice done to make someone do something very much against their interests, in a way which punishes more moral behavior, under the pretext of doing something that is both morally preferable and that seems to be doing them a favor.
Similar to many police interrogation techniques. Like asking first offenders who don't know better not to admit their guilt, but to write apology letters which are then used to convict them. You may call these necessary evils, but they are not moral--they trick suspects and punish the more moral among them, who actually feel they've done something wrong.
Agreed.
Collections agencies behave immorally but legally, and companies sell to them because it gives them some money from past due accounts and the immorality is not directed at the company.
But Comcast sending its past-due customers to a collections agency and then refusing to pay its own bill (simplifying the facts but taking the alleged facts to be true) is the height of hypocrisy.