Why is that? What does "sophistication" have to do with the underlying crime? You either did something illegal, with an actual victim or you did not. How good you are at doing it should have nothing to do with your punishment. Consider it from the other perspective: just because someone is too stupid to use a proxy to cover their illegal activity means they should get a LOWER sentence? WTF? And what exactly is the purpose? It won't be a deterrent to the real crime. The future criminal is just as likely to attempt ID theft, hack a system, attempt to launder money, extort, etc etc regardless if they know using a proxy to do it is also illegal?
So what is the real intent... to inflate sentences with false logic because they know increasing the penalty on the actual crime committed (you know the one that actually had the victim) would stretch the limits of legitimacy and seem in and of itself excessive. Well too bad. Either make the case that the current penalty isn't enough or move on; but stop inventing crimes.
and of course none of this addressing the chilling effect such a law would have on 100% legal and legitimate uses... but uses for which the government might not like and so now they can charge you with 1) the dubious charge for the act they didn't like but isn't REALLY illegal, and 2) the sophistication charge (or modifier, whatever the more legal term would be). So now you are in a deeper pickle and are more likely to plead out since the "lesser charge" of using a proxy just might stick vice the bogus charge of [insert tin foil hat worthy activity here].
hmmm how is that working out for you? You know, being pithy?
No what we need to do is not use poor science. Radon emissions as a predicitive method is poor science. It isn't even untested science since it HAS been tested and it HAS shown no predictive value to date. Now as I said, perhaps with MORE research and MORE evidence it may turn out that there is a way to use Radon emissions as a predicitive indicator. But today, right now, the current state of the art, method, and evidence available indicate that Radon emmisions are not effective at prediciting seismic events. As such, using it before hand is about as effective as reading tea leaves, and referring to it after the fact is about as scientifically honest and saying your horoscope was right when it said today was going to be a bad hair day.
Actually we don't have to prove that it is NOT a good predictor, only NOT prove that it is. Until there is statistically significant evidence that radon release is an accurate predictor of seismic activity, then there is nothing else to say about it other than to perhaps continue to refine hypothesis until it starts to show some value as a predictive model.
Oh yeah and concerning your data set of one: the plural of anecdote is NOT evidence. A lot of thing happened on that same day, that doesn't make them effective predictors (hence the tea leaves comments). I'll give you another hint, there IS a larger data set out there that has not shown to have predictive value.
tea leaves = radon gas emission based predictions... And that is what everyone seems to be missing. Radon Gas emissions are not an accurate predictor for seismic activity. The fact that this "scientist" guessed right does not mean he predicted anything more effectively than if he had used tea leaves, the positions of the stars, or the pattern created by his dookie. Now before anyone tells me to show them the proof I'm going to save myself the time and tell YOU to show me the proof that radon emissions IS a scientifically viable method for prediction of seismic activity. If you can't, or are too lazy to do so, then please stop acting like it is.
How the is this Insightful. There was no stolen property. Nothing has been stolen. As for his review having financial impacts: I am willing to accept that reviewing an unfinished product, especially in a negative manner, is not fair since it is, *unfinished*. But let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with publishing a rewview that might have a direct financial impact... that is part and parcel of reviewing. But again, yes I do get that a negative review of an unfinished product isn't quite fair, especially when the owner hasn't put it out there to be reviewed in that format. As compared to software betas:O
Secondly the reason it's cool underground is because soil is generally a very good insulator. I would suggest that it's a really bad idea to put things that are going to get hot inside a huge lump of insulating material.
Why would you say that? If you are in a hot climate, where the outside temp is higher than the desired inside temp then you need to insulate the container to prevent heat transfer from the outside to the inside. That insulation can either be foam, fiberglass, vacuum sealed container, etc or [drum roll please] several feet of earth. Next be sure to exhaust the heat generated inside the container outside the insulating envelope; in the case of being buried that would be to the surface. That is pretty easy to do by piping the coolant to the condenser unit on the surface.
I'm not saying there might not be other issues with this setup, but thermal management is not one of them. Certainly not beyond the same sizing issues any IT company has when trying to keep cool in the US's Southwest, Southern Australia, etc. It is never a problem of capability but expense to build and power. And we are now full circle with respect to the benefits of solar power.
Oh yeah and if the power system is solar thermal vice solar electric you could even use the heat rejected from the container as a preheating stage [shrug].
While true that I missed that nuance in the OP's message (and I'm not actually conceding that nuance exists)... my answer would then be: incorrect again. I have been witness to plenty of OS upgrades on given hardware in my time in the military. From speaking with the IT guy that services our office I can expect to see it again as they roll-out Vista. The machine *I* actually use will be replaced because it is in fact a very old piece of kit, but my cube-mates machine will be swapped from XP to Vista. Of course what will actually happen is that his machine will be physically swapped with another machine that has already been imaged and then his machine will be returned to the back shop where it will be re-imaged and given to someone else. I know this because I asked him in my slack-jawed shock that the AF had decided to roll-out Vista so soon.
Oh and our machines don't typically ship with any OS since we have an enterprise license (or whatever they are called now) and it would be silly for us to contract for two sets of licenses.
Well the US Military for one. Every computer is imaged from a tested image for that particular hardware baseline. We do not allow a vendor install, with all the crapware no less, on our networks. And for anyone out there who wants to chime in with an anecdote of when this did happen... yeah no kidding, it CAN happen. Fortunatly if the network admins did their job right the machine won't be allowed to get an IP address and the person who did it got fired after it was discovered.
Any sufficiently large IT infrastructure such as the military networks would not just buy their boxrn with W7 installed. And I'm not talking about our secure side (SIPR), I'm talking about the unclass side (NIPR).
Oh make no mistake, I was not being an apologist... I was just trying to impart helpful info... this is a new tactic by google and took me forever to figure out why I couldn't shut it down for good. I am very annoyed by it and am tempted to just remove Google Earth. I don't need i THAT bad.
FYI, the trick for googleupdate in windows is that it is now an entry in/windows/tasks... so there is no service to kill, you have to remove the scheduled task.
That is why I've referred to layers. It is just one layer of defense to try to keep people off the network to start. And not just layers, but also protection against a specific attack vector... hopping on my network via wifi access vice punching through my firewall, or rooting my kit.
Sure it does... now instead of having the option either 1 free open anonymous wifi or a coffee house you only have the coffee house. A place that is KNOWN, and not exactly anonymous. Clearly this is not a 100% solution, but nothing is. The point here is to make it harder for baddies to get access without being noticed, tracked, or snooped. If you were law enforcement would you want to worry about a million access point, that you don't even know where they all are? or a few thousand/tens of thousands and are generally known? And then those can be better regulated as some other posters have mentioned in india you have to show ID. Sure it can be a fake ID but that means now you ALSO need a fake ID rather than just using any random open wifi.
Again, it is about making it harder, and easier to manage. Not about stopping it 100%. If every method of defense needed to be 100% we would do nothing. Millions of cars get stolen every year because it is pretty easy to smash a window and break the starter key lock. And yet we still lock doors and use keys for the starter. Why? Because a lot more cars would be stolen if the doors didn't lock and all cars started with just a button press. More importantly YOUR car will get stolen if YOURS isn't locked, has the keys on the seat, and everyone elses doesn't.
Well I don't want people on my network as yet another layer to prevent access to data shared on my network between the three computers I have on the network.
Or am I missing something here? and I mean that sincerely. If there is something I'm missing about protecting your data and the openness of my network please tell me.
Yes there are still going to be other ways for baddies to use the inter-tubes without being tracked, but limiting those access points can help. Instead of having a nearly limitless, and randomly distributed, source of connections they will now be funneled into a small set of access point which are also KNOWN access points.
Does this mean I agree... I don't know yet... but as with all security measures (both cyber and safety related) there is no such thing as a 100% solution. But we all know defense should be in depth, and each layer should be effective in accomplishing what it is meant to do. In many cases we all read about here, the proposed solution is nothing more than security theater, but shutting down the plethora of open wifi access points IS an effective way to limit the ability of bad actors (terrorists, kid-touchers, black-hats, etc) to access the internet at will; not a solution, but a factor.
As for law abiding citizens, since most of us use our own account anyway or walk into a cyber-cafe, and I assume few bother trying to use an insecure wifi, it really doesn't impact that much (well except when I'm at my sister's place and she has inexplicably jacked her wifi router forcing me to use someone else's wifi:O ).
I'm still not thrilled with the idea of the gov riding around with netstumbler looking for open wifi and then knocking on my door, but the idea of wanting to limit open-wifi is, imo, a good one. The execution is another issue entirely.
Now if you REALLY want to have fun thinking about it... consider an area with known terrorists / suspects, you make sure all open wifi points are closed... then you open your own as a honeypot... BAM you get to see all their traffic... well anything that isn't encrypted beyond the wifi encryption. It is a very effective technique to shut down all method of comms except one in an effort to intercept all comms.
I think the balancing act here, and the point of the OP, is that suddenly ISP complaints about a "few bad players [cough pirates cough] sucking up all the bandwidth," starts to really lose its authority. Then it becomes a balance between the loss of a PR whipping boy (file sharers) and the need to control costs. I think the first casualty in this battle will be the ISP's ability to continue to sell "unlimited" capacity. They will be forced into a little more truth in advertising. Then they will have to price-out various cap levels. Heavy streamers will pay more, you standard 40yo streaming netflix only who keeps their cable/sat will pay the same, and grandma will be allowed to pay less for email. In essence it will turn into the cell phone minutes model where you pay for what you think you need and just a little more because the penalty per/GB for going over will be excessive.
At least that is where I see this going when you're average non-file sharer starts hitting the current caps for doing something "normal" like watching a bunch of netflix. Because no one is going to listen to this bullshit about file sharers at that point. Now, what they might start listening to again is conversations about a tiered internet with netflix being lionized.
I'm not sure this is what you're referring to but in either case your post got me thinking:
Wouldn't an effective phishing defense (but not MITM) be for the RSA key fobs to have two numbers displayed instad of one, such that when you log in with the first number displayed on your fob, the bank replys with the 2nd number. If they don't match its likely a bogus site.
I'm sure there are tehcnical issues to resolve to decouple the two keys to avoid a snooper / phisher from being able to guess the banks response etc etc. But in general, if we believe it is improved security to prove I am who I say I am, then could it work the other direction as well? I also realize that for the bank's part it isn't something they have but still something they know, but still at least it is something they know that changes such that a phisher won't know it [shrug]. I also get the feeling it might be more robust for the bank to provide a code first but the bank would still first need to know who you are (simple username I guess) to present the code spcific to your FOB, then you can feel confident that you are talking to your bank before you send out your code.
And perhaps this would help with a MITM attack since they might have to get the bank's response right as well [shrug].
And see now I "get" charging extra at 4 TV's since I would imagine the licensing agreement they have with the networks means they are charged more per TV. Of course that assumes that all 4 TV's can actually be used at once, but still there is logic to that given how content is licensed.
That is so cute that they now call it a "The monthly programming access fee"... gotta have a name for it so you can't complain about it. Back in 2006 the operator I spoke to just called it a fee for not having the phone line plugged in so that I could order PPV without having to call or use the internet.
Calling it a "The monthly programming access fee" is especially entertaining since it isn't like it actually costs them anymore to share programming data. I strongly doubt there is a licensing fee for that second tuner to access programming info.
Mind you I'm not calling you out or anything [I just realized it might sound like I am]... I'm calling Dish out for what amounts to dishonesty. Call it what it is, a way to track viewing and allow for,as someone else called it, impulse PPV purchases. I have no doubt there is more PPV revenue from households with a phone line/network hooked in than those without.
Here is your citation... me. They charged me the first month I had it in 2006, I complained, they waived it for 3 months; I even got the woman to admit that yes, I was being charged $5 for the right NOT to be tracked and as a PENALTY for not being able to spend money on PPV. At the end of 3 months I complained, they did nothing, I was lazy, and even with the $5 it was the best deal I had given that cable was not available and DirectTV cost more. Then I moved and used their dish mover deal because cable cost WAY more and I wasn't in the mood to switch to DirectTV which was no cheaper anyway (I also don't like their DVD UI). Funny thing though, the nice man on the other end of the line when I set up the install at my new place removed the $5 completely and that was that.
So I wonder if they have stopped that fee? In the end I would never have hooked it up anyway but I also don't have a landline so it wasn't even an option... never will either in all likelyhood.
Absolutely... hence that the increased market would drive investment into truly viable solutions. Viable in this case does include solutions that don't generate tons of heavy metal waste; be it through greener tech in the storage solution itself (notice I didn't say battery) or at least something that is primarily recyclable. But you're point is not lost at all, and the best part is that there are people, like you, who will ask the question in an attempt to avoid those unintended consequences.
I was about to say the same thing... so here I am doing it:) But seriously you are right. The first thing I thought of was, "hmmm a bigger UPS would certainly solve the problem." Although I'd need to size it even bigger for constant charge/discharge cycles or it will die a quick death, but still the point remains... the market for On-site power storage would skyrocket which would also help that same market in its support for things like Wind and Solar. By increasing the market for local energy storage we are more likely to see an increase in investment for new-tech and a reduction in consumer cost as R&D/fixed-production costs can be amortized across more units.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is that? What does "sophistication" have to do with the underlying crime? You either did something illegal, with an actual victim or you did not. How good you are at doing it should have nothing to do with your punishment. Consider it from the other perspective: just because someone is too stupid to use a proxy to cover their illegal activity means they should get a LOWER sentence? WTF? And what exactly is the purpose? It won't be a deterrent to the real crime. The future criminal is just as likely to attempt ID theft, hack a system, attempt to launder money, extort, etc etc regardless if they know using a proxy to do it is also illegal?
So what is the real intent ... to inflate sentences with false logic because they know increasing the penalty on the actual crime committed (you know the one that actually had the victim) would stretch the limits of legitimacy and seem in and of itself excessive. Well too bad. Either make the case that the current penalty isn't enough or move on; but stop inventing crimes.
and of course none of this addressing the chilling effect such a law would have on 100% legal and legitimate uses ... but uses for which the government might not like and so now they can charge you with 1) the dubious charge for the act they didn't like but isn't REALLY illegal, and 2) the sophistication charge (or modifier, whatever the more legal term would be). So now you are in a deeper pickle and are more likely to plead out since the "lesser charge" of using a proxy just might stick vice the bogus charge of [insert tin foil hat worthy activity here].
hmmm how is that working out for you? You know, being pithy?
No what we need to do is not use poor science. Radon emissions as a predicitive method is poor science. It isn't even untested science since it HAS been tested and it HAS shown no predictive value to date. Now as I said, perhaps with MORE research and MORE evidence it may turn out that there is a way to use Radon emissions as a predicitive indicator. But today, right now, the current state of the art, method, and evidence available indicate that Radon emmisions are not effective at prediciting seismic events. As such, using it before hand is about as effective as reading tea leaves, and referring to it after the fact is about as scientifically honest and saying your horoscope was right when it said today was going to be a bad hair day.
Actually we don't have to prove that it is NOT a good predictor, only NOT prove that it is. Until there is statistically significant evidence that radon release is an accurate predictor of seismic activity, then there is nothing else to say about it other than to perhaps continue to refine hypothesis until it starts to show some value as a predictive model.
Oh yeah and concerning your data set of one: the plural of anecdote is NOT evidence. A lot of thing happened on that same day, that doesn't make them effective predictors (hence the tea leaves comments). I'll give you another hint, there IS a larger data set out there that has not shown to have predictive value.
tea leaves = radon gas emission based predictions ... And that is what everyone seems to be missing. Radon Gas emissions are not an accurate predictor for seismic activity. The fact that this "scientist" guessed right does not mean he predicted anything more effectively than if he had used tea leaves, the positions of the stars, or the pattern created by his dookie. Now before anyone tells me to show them the proof I'm going to save myself the time and tell YOU to show me the proof that radon emissions IS a scientifically viable method for prediction of seismic activity. If you can't, or are too lazy to do so, then please stop acting like it is.
How the is this Insightful. There was no stolen property. Nothing has been stolen. As for his review having financial impacts: I am willing to accept that reviewing an unfinished product, especially in a negative manner, is not fair since it is, *unfinished*. But let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with publishing a rewview that might have a direct financial impact ... that is part and parcel of reviewing. But again, yes I do get that a negative review of an unfinished product isn't quite fair, especially when the owner hasn't put it out there to be reviewed in that format. As compared to software betas :O
Secondly the reason it's cool underground is because soil is generally a very good insulator. I would suggest that it's a really bad idea to put things that are going to get hot inside a huge lump of insulating material.
Why would you say that? If you are in a hot climate, where the outside temp is higher than the desired inside temp then you need to insulate the container to prevent heat transfer from the outside to the inside. That insulation can either be foam, fiberglass, vacuum sealed container, etc or [drum roll please] several feet of earth. Next be sure to exhaust the heat generated inside the container outside the insulating envelope; in the case of being buried that would be to the surface. That is pretty easy to do by piping the coolant to the condenser unit on the surface.
I'm not saying there might not be other issues with this setup, but thermal management is not one of them. Certainly not beyond the same sizing issues any IT company has when trying to keep cool in the US's Southwest, Southern Australia, etc. It is never a problem of capability but expense to build and power. And we are now full circle with respect to the benefits of solar power.
Oh yeah and if the power system is solar thermal vice solar electric you could even use the heat rejected from the container as a preheating stage [shrug].
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,615608,00.html
And her therapy ... and no I'm not kidding.
While true that I missed that nuance in the OP's message (and I'm not actually conceding that nuance exists)... my answer would then be: incorrect again. I have been witness to plenty of OS upgrades on given hardware in my time in the military. From speaking with the IT guy that services our office I can expect to see it again as they roll-out Vista. The machine *I* actually use will be replaced because it is in fact a very old piece of kit, but my cube-mates machine will be swapped from XP to Vista. Of course what will actually happen is that his machine will be physically swapped with another machine that has already been imaged and then his machine will be returned to the back shop where it will be re-imaged and given to someone else. I know this because I asked him in my slack-jawed shock that the AF had decided to roll-out Vista so soon.
Oh and our machines don't typically ship with any OS since we have an enterprise license (or whatever they are called now) and it would be silly for us to contract for two sets of licenses.
Well the US Military for one. Every computer is imaged from a tested image for that particular hardware baseline. We do not allow a vendor install, with all the crapware no less, on our networks. And for anyone out there who wants to chime in with an anecdote of when this did happen ... yeah no kidding, it CAN happen. Fortunatly if the network admins did their job right the machine won't be allowed to get an IP address and the person who did it got fired after it was discovered.
Any sufficiently large IT infrastructure such as the military networks would not just buy their boxrn with W7 installed. And I'm not talking about our secure side (SIPR), I'm talking about the unclass side (NIPR).
Oh make no mistake, I was not being an apologist... I was just trying to impart helpful info ... this is a new tactic by google and took me forever to figure out why I couldn't shut it down for good. I am very annoyed by it and am tempted to just remove Google Earth. I don't need i THAT bad.
FYI, the trick for googleupdate in windows is that it is now an entry in /windows/tasks ... so there is no service to kill, you have to remove the scheduled task.
... at a picture of my dog.
That is why I've referred to layers. It is just one layer of defense to try to keep people off the network to start. And not just layers, but also protection against a specific attack vector ... hopping on my network via wifi access vice punching through my firewall, or rooting my kit.
Sure it does ... now instead of having the option either 1 free open anonymous wifi or a coffee house you only have the coffee house. A place that is KNOWN, and not exactly anonymous. Clearly this is not a 100% solution, but nothing is. The point here is to make it harder for baddies to get access without being noticed, tracked, or snooped. If you were law enforcement would you want to worry about a million access point, that you don't even know where they all are? or a few thousand/tens of thousands and are generally known? And then those can be better regulated as some other posters have mentioned in india you have to show ID. Sure it can be a fake ID but that means now you ALSO need a fake ID rather than just using any random open wifi.
Again, it is about making it harder, and easier to manage. Not about stopping it 100%. If every method of defense needed to be 100% we would do nothing. Millions of cars get stolen every year because it is pretty easy to smash a window and break the starter key lock. And yet we still lock doors and use keys for the starter. Why? Because a lot more cars would be stolen if the doors didn't lock and all cars started with just a button press. More importantly YOUR car will get stolen if YOURS isn't locked, has the keys on the seat, and everyone elses doesn't.
Well I don't want people on my network as yet another layer to prevent access to data shared on my network between the three computers I have on the network.
Or am I missing something here? and I mean that sincerely. If there is something I'm missing about protecting your data and the openness of my network please tell me.
Yes there are still going to be other ways for baddies to use the inter-tubes without being tracked, but limiting those access points can help. Instead of having a nearly limitless, and randomly distributed, source of connections they will now be funneled into a small set of access point which are also KNOWN access points.
Does this mean I agree ... I don't know yet ... but as with all security measures (both cyber and safety related) there is no such thing as a 100% solution. But we all know defense should be in depth, and each layer should be effective in accomplishing what it is meant to do. In many cases we all read about here, the proposed solution is nothing more than security theater, but shutting down the plethora of open wifi access points IS an effective way to limit the ability of bad actors (terrorists, kid-touchers, black-hats, etc) to access the internet at will; not a solution, but a factor.
As for law abiding citizens, since most of us use our own account anyway or walk into a cyber-cafe, and I assume few bother trying to use an insecure wifi, it really doesn't impact that much (well except when I'm at my sister's place and she has inexplicably jacked her wifi router forcing me to use someone else's wifi :O ).
I'm still not thrilled with the idea of the gov riding around with netstumbler looking for open wifi and then knocking on my door, but the idea of wanting to limit open-wifi is, imo, a good one. The execution is another issue entirely.
Now if you REALLY want to have fun thinking about it ... consider an area with known terrorists / suspects, you make sure all open wifi points are closed ... then you open your own as a honeypot ... BAM you get to see all their traffic ... well anything that isn't encrypted beyond the wifi encryption. It is a very effective technique to shut down all method of comms except one in an effort to intercept all comms.
I think the balancing act here, and the point of the OP, is that suddenly ISP complaints about a "few bad players [cough pirates cough] sucking up all the bandwidth," starts to really lose its authority. Then it becomes a balance between the loss of a PR whipping boy (file sharers) and the need to control costs. I think the first casualty in this battle will be the ISP's ability to continue to sell "unlimited" capacity. They will be forced into a little more truth in advertising. Then they will have to price-out various cap levels. Heavy streamers will pay more, you standard 40yo streaming netflix only who keeps their cable/sat will pay the same, and grandma will be allowed to pay less for email. In essence it will turn into the cell phone minutes model where you pay for what you think you need and just a little more because the penalty per/GB for going over will be excessive.
At least that is where I see this going when you're average non-file sharer starts hitting the current caps for doing something "normal" like watching a bunch of netflix. Because no one is going to listen to this bullshit about file sharers at that point. Now, what they might start listening to again is conversations about a tiered internet with netflix being lionized.
I'm not sure this is what you're referring to but in either case your post got me thinking:
Wouldn't an effective phishing defense (but not MITM) be for the RSA key fobs to have two numbers displayed instad of one, such that when you log in with the first number displayed on your fob, the bank replys with the 2nd number. If they don't match its likely a bogus site.
I'm sure there are tehcnical issues to resolve to decouple the two keys to avoid a snooper / phisher from being able to guess the banks response etc etc. But in general, if we believe it is improved security to prove I am who I say I am, then could it work the other direction as well? I also realize that for the bank's part it isn't something they have but still something they know, but still at least it is something they know that changes such that a phisher won't know it [shrug]. I also get the feeling it might be more robust for the bank to provide a code first but the bank would still first need to know who you are (simple username I guess) to present the code spcific to your FOB, then you can feel confident that you are talking to your bank before you send out your code.
And perhaps this would help with a MITM attack since they might have to get the bank's response right as well [shrug].
Is it the logic that escapes you or the irony that does not?
And see now I "get" charging extra at 4 TV's since I would imagine the licensing agreement they have with the networks means they are charged more per TV. Of course that assumes that all 4 TV's can actually be used at once, but still there is logic to that given how content is licensed.
That is so cute that they now call it a "The monthly programming access fee" ... gotta have a name for it so you can't complain about it. Back in 2006 the operator I spoke to just called it a fee for not having the phone line plugged in so that I could order PPV without having to call or use the internet.
Calling it a "The monthly programming access fee" is especially entertaining since it isn't like it actually costs them anymore to share programming data. I strongly doubt there is a licensing fee for that second tuner to access programming info.
Mind you I'm not calling you out or anything [I just realized it might sound like I am] ... I'm calling Dish out for what amounts to dishonesty. Call it what it is, a way to track viewing and allow for,as someone else called it, impulse PPV purchases. I have no doubt there is more PPV revenue from households with a phone line/network hooked in than those without.
Here is your citation ... me. They charged me the first month I had it in 2006, I complained, they waived it for 3 months; I even got the woman to admit that yes, I was being charged $5 for the right NOT to be tracked and as a PENALTY for not being able to spend money on PPV. At the end of 3 months I complained, they did nothing, I was lazy, and even with the $5 it was the best deal I had given that cable was not available and DirectTV cost more. Then I moved and used their dish mover deal because cable cost WAY more and I wasn't in the mood to switch to DirectTV which was no cheaper anyway (I also don't like their DVD UI). Funny thing though, the nice man on the other end of the line when I set up the install at my new place removed the $5 completely and that was that.
So I wonder if they have stopped that fee? In the end I would never have hooked it up anyway but I also don't have a landline so it wasn't even an option ... never will either in all likelyhood.
Absolutely ... hence that the increased market would drive investment into truly viable solutions. Viable in this case does include solutions that don't generate tons of heavy metal waste; be it through greener tech in the storage solution itself (notice I didn't say battery) or at least something that is primarily recyclable. But you're point is not lost at all, and the best part is that there are people, like you, who will ask the question in an attempt to avoid those unintended consequences.
I was about to say the same thing ... so here I am doing it :) But seriously you are right. The first thing I thought of was, "hmmm a bigger UPS would certainly solve the problem." Although I'd need to size it even bigger for constant charge/discharge cycles or it will die a quick death, but still the point remains ... the market for On-site power storage would skyrocket which would also help that same market in its support for things like Wind and Solar. By increasing the market for local energy storage we are more likely to see an increase in investment for new-tech and a reduction in consumer cost as R&D/fixed-production costs can be amortized across more units.