No, normal people think unlimited means use it like a normal person and don't worry about data caps. Normal people don't think unlimited means "consume as much as you can". Only neckbearded internet pedants believe that.
100% dedicated bandwidth is impossible. If you have a 1gb connection and they have 1000 similar customers, their backbone to the internet has to be 1000gb. Does that even exist? What happens if they get more customers?
You are vastly overestimating the customer service costs, and underestimating the infrastructure. You didn't account for, you know, any equipment past the last mile. That is where the cost is. Every customer doesn't call their ISP twice a year. A large majority of people never have to call, and when they do, it's an issue that can be solved over the phone or by a single truck roll to fix a whole neighborhood.
The PCs I support are mostly AMD now, and I've noticed the same thing. The numbers can say all they want, but they underperform compared to much older/slower/cheaper Intel CPUs.
Way back when dual core processors came out, the implication was that the processor was two independent processors in one package. That logic follows onto 4 and 8 core machines. The example being that Intel doesn't try to pass off hyperthreading as separate cores.
I'll agree with you that the pricing games they play certainly add to churn and whatnot. But I can't believe that infrastructure (and the maintenance thereof) isn't one of the biggest costs.
When they start selling 75 tb hard drives, maybe you could say they advertised improperly. If every user stuck to backing up their devices, this wouldn't have happened. Instead, a few eggheads decided to shit in the bed and ruin it for everyone. "Backing up" 75 tb is not reasonable. No normal, or even power, user could possibly generate 75tb of data. No, this data had to either be enterprises being cheap, or nerds storing their blueray collections. All 1500 of them, or $30,000 worth.
I'll say this, and everyone thinks I'm nuts. I love my office 365 subscription. For $10 a month, I can install Office on 5 computers and 5 other tablets, and each of those gets a 1 tb OneDrive. It takes me less time to earn that money than it does to pirate Office.
They aren't changing the terms of the current deal, they are changing the terms of any future business you might do with them. Is General Motors required to offer the same engine choices in a car model in perpetuity? No, of course not. MS is saying "next time you renew, these will be the new terms. Take them or leave them. You have a full year to decide." There is nothing at all unfair about that. They (presumably) stopped advertising unlimited space before they announced the policy change.
There is an agreement. The user agrees to the terms when they begin using the service. If they want something different, they can call Microsoft. Or use some different service.
So you believe that some douche from Long Island who got a 2 year degree in criminal justice and passed the test to get onto the NYPD is capable of running an XRay? Every other concern aside, these men and women have no idea what they are doing. You should be afraid of cops with XRay machines.
I kind of see it from another angle: the employer is paying out severence, which they don't have to. In exchange for that money, you are agreeing to answer thier calls. Nobody is making you take the severence or negotiating your own deal. But when the new guy wants to know where that binder is, they want to be reasonably sure you will tell them.
I'm not much of a gun nut, but there are three hundred million guns in the US. And only a million active duty military, the majority of whom are logistics folks who haven't shot a rifle since basic training.
Slashdot Mirror
No, normal people think unlimited means use it like a normal person and don't worry about data caps. Normal people don't think unlimited means "consume as much as you can". Only neckbearded internet pedants believe that.
I'm sure that will last.
They do, and they don't care. That's part of the cost of doing business running a pipeline. Everything leaks.
100% dedicated bandwidth is impossible. If you have a 1gb connection and they have 1000 similar customers, their backbone to the internet has to be 1000gb. Does that even exist? What happens if they get more customers?
You are vastly overestimating the customer service costs, and underestimating the infrastructure. You didn't account for, you know, any equipment past the last mile. That is where the cost is. Every customer doesn't call their ISP twice a year. A large majority of people never have to call, and when they do, it's an issue that can be solved over the phone or by a single truck roll to fix a whole neighborhood.
That thing is leaking constantly, there just aren't very many people around to notice.
The PCs I support are mostly AMD now, and I've noticed the same thing. The numbers can say all they want, but they underperform compared to much older/slower/cheaper Intel CPUs.
That's all well and good, but you can't call it multicore. You are correct in that it will be pretty hard to prove damages.
Way back when dual core processors came out, the implication was that the processor was two independent processors in one package. That logic follows onto 4 and 8 core machines. The example being that Intel doesn't try to pass off hyperthreading as separate cores.
I'll agree with you that the pricing games they play certainly add to churn and whatnot. But I can't believe that infrastructure (and the maintenance thereof) isn't one of the biggest costs.
Bandwidth is finite. Routers and switches cost money.
The technical reason is that infrastructure is expensive. Don't like it? Start your own ISP.
When they start selling 75 tb hard drives, maybe you could say they advertised improperly. If every user stuck to backing up their devices, this wouldn't have happened. Instead, a few eggheads decided to shit in the bed and ruin it for everyone. "Backing up" 75 tb is not reasonable. No normal, or even power, user could possibly generate 75tb of data. No, this data had to either be enterprises being cheap, or nerds storing their blueray collections. All 1500 of them, or $30,000 worth.
Exactly. Especially for something as trivial as hard drive space.
I'll say this, and everyone thinks I'm nuts. I love my office 365 subscription. For $10 a month, I can install Office on 5 computers and 5 other tablets, and each of those gets a 1 tb OneDrive. It takes me less time to earn that money than it does to pirate Office.
They aren't changing the terms of the current deal, they are changing the terms of any future business you might do with them. Is General Motors required to offer the same engine choices in a car model in perpetuity? No, of course not. MS is saying "next time you renew, these will be the new terms. Take them or leave them. You have a full year to decide." There is nothing at all unfair about that. They (presumably) stopped advertising unlimited space before they announced the policy change.
There is an agreement. The user agrees to the terms when they begin using the service. If they want something different, they can call Microsoft. Or use some different service.
Just stop.
It was a shotgun and there was a treeline. I doubt there was any danger. Not that it is a super safe thing to do, of course.
Abortion pills? Plan B?
Radar uses ionizing radiation?
I think the PATRIOT act changed that.
So you believe that some douche from Long Island who got a 2 year degree in criminal justice and passed the test to get onto the NYPD is capable of running an XRay? Every other concern aside, these men and women have no idea what they are doing. You should be afraid of cops with XRay machines.
I kind of see it from another angle: the employer is paying out severence, which they don't have to. In exchange for that money, you are agreeing to answer thier calls. Nobody is making you take the severence or negotiating your own deal. But when the new guy wants to know where that binder is, they want to be reasonably sure you will tell them.
And surprisingly strong.
I'm not much of a gun nut, but there are three hundred million guns in the US. And only a million active duty military, the majority of whom are logistics folks who haven't shot a rifle since basic training.