My ISP rate is $3/GB. If a big player pay less than that amount, then net neutrality is not respected.
Anyway I don't think Wikipedia is paying for its traffic in Pakistan therefore you can't say that the data is being paid for.
Then I don't agree with your definition. I define Net Neutrality just like wikipedia:
Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.
Charging differently is a violation of net neutrality.
Yeah well what if google, netflix and facebook paid the alleged "bandwidth costs you would otherwise incur" and that the rest of the Internet is capped at 1GB / month? I call that a violation of net neutrality, because they are not going to pay the same $3/GB overcharge as I do.
A low bandwidth cap for a specific web site is effectively the same thing as dropping packets for the same web site. It might not have anything to do with real cost. ISP A could choose to cap web site B to a ridiculously low level because it is owned by ISP C which is their competitor.
The problem is that cellular data is not free. Spectrum, towers, antenna cost money. If a provider allows Wikipedia for free, then it will raise costs for the rest of the Internet. The provider is not going to loose money just to please Wikipedia.
Therefore yes, it violates net neutrality.
2TB hard drives that could be bought for $55-70 back then weren't WD Black drives. Even cheap regular and green drives had a 5 years warranty a few years ago.
10 years ago it was different but today there is no point in going above 7200 rpm for hard drives. Either get a slow hard drive with plenty of storage or a fast SSD.
We already have a free certificate autority: CAcert. The problem is that their root certificate is not included by default in major web browsers. Why would that be any different? I guess since Mozilla is involved Firefox will get it. But why don't just they allow CAcert? And what about Google and Microsoft?
Funny thing. In Japan they tax cars based on engine sizes. You have the minimally taxed "Kei" class cars (660cc and less), then you got the 500 plated cars (2000cc and less), then the cars with over 2000cc. They all pay a "road tax" every year based on that engine size. The bigger the car, the larger the tax. Makes sense to me.
And what if that large car burns less oil than a small one? Why not tax gas instead?
Small cars might not damage the road. But they cause traffic congestion. If there were less small cars on the road, that 4 lanes highway might need only 1.
So yes, small car usage should be taxed. The best way to do it is to tax gas. Much less bureaucratic than having tolls.
Pretty sure HP isn't a majority Mac place... especially since they have their own PC line. Not sure about Cisco, but hey, if a random user on slashdot says it, it must be true isn't it?
And yes, it is still anecdotal and isn't enough to conclude anything about "corporate America". Even less about the whole corporate world.
Slashdot Mirror
Since my computer is on their network, will ISPs start delaying Windows Update too?
Yeah, a couple rockets of nuclear waste crashing on a metropolis would do very little damage. Oh wait...
My ISP rate is $3/GB. If a big player pay less than that amount, then net neutrality is not respected. Anyway I don't think Wikipedia is paying for its traffic in Pakistan therefore you can't say that the data is being paid for.
Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.
Charging differently is a violation of net neutrality.
Yeah well what if google, netflix and facebook paid the alleged "bandwidth costs you would otherwise incur" and that the rest of the Internet is capped at 1GB / month? I call that a violation of net neutrality, because they are not going to pay the same $3/GB overcharge as I do.
A low bandwidth cap for a specific web site is effectively the same thing as dropping packets for the same web site. It might not have anything to do with real cost. ISP A could choose to cap web site B to a ridiculously low level because it is owned by ISP C which is their competitor.
So you would consider an Internet provider with a 1GB monthly cap but unlimited access to netflix, google and facebook to be neutral?
We only need one CA, not many. And CAcert is non-profit / community based. Therefore I don't see what could be disrupted.
The problem is that cellular data is not free. Spectrum, towers, antenna cost money. If a provider allows Wikipedia for free, then it will raise costs for the rest of the Internet. The provider is not going to loose money just to please Wikipedia. Therefore yes, it violates net neutrality.
2TB hard drives that could be bought for $55-70 back then weren't WD Black drives. Even cheap regular and green drives had a 5 years warranty a few years ago.
10 years ago it was different but today there is no point in going above 7200 rpm for hard drives. Either get a slow hard drive with plenty of storage or a fast SSD.
You mean those 15k drives which cost as much as SSDs?
And they had 5 years warranty. Today it's 1-2.
By "still up there with the rest" you mean top 2%?
"High six figure" sounds above $388,000 to me. Otherwise what would be "low six figure"?
Unlike other countries, US property is respected enough to not need legions of gated communities
This is a joke right? The US must be the developed country with the highest proportion of gated community residents.
And that's in the US only. Worldwide it is about 32k$
I'm not a "1%er"
I have a high six-figure income
Which one of these two statements is a lie?
then why aren't they working with current CA to implement their protocol?
There might not be one however I would trust many of them before the US. The top of the chart would be those of Scandinavia.
We already have a free certificate autority: CAcert. The problem is that their root certificate is not included by default in major web browsers. Why would that be any different? I guess since Mozilla is involved Firefox will get it. But why don't just they allow CAcert? And what about Google and Microsoft?
They overtook the French, with their TGV.
Not quite http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... The TGV network still has more fast (300+ km/h) tracks
Funny thing. In Japan they tax cars based on engine sizes. You have the minimally taxed "Kei" class cars (660cc and less), then you got the 500 plated cars (2000cc and less), then the cars with over 2000cc. They all pay a "road tax" every year based on that engine size. The bigger the car, the larger the tax. Makes sense to me.
And what if that large car burns less oil than a small one? Why not tax gas instead?
Small cars might not damage the road. But they cause traffic congestion. If there were less small cars on the road, that 4 lanes highway might need only 1. So yes, small car usage should be taxed. The best way to do it is to tax gas. Much less bureaucratic than having tolls.
Pretty sure HP isn't a majority Mac place... especially since they have their own PC line. Not sure about Cisco, but hey, if a random user on slashdot says it, it must be true isn't it? And yes, it is still anecdotal and isn't enough to conclude anything about "corporate America". Even less about the whole corporate world.