Everybody hates the cable company... Trust me.. It doesn't really matter who they are for the most part.
My favorite company I love to hate is Frontier who just purchased all the Verizon FIOS infrastructure and subscribers in my area (including me).
Verizon was bad, but these new folks take the cake. Frontier wasn't even able to muster enough folks to answer the phones and say they couldn't help you, much less actually know what they where talking about or get a service guy out to fix their recently acquired assets. IT took over a MONTH of trying before anybody could even understand that my internet connection was down and it was THEIR equipment at fault (I knew in about 10 min that they had something messed up on their end..)
So the world hates Comcast more? My guess is that Comcast isn't all that much worse than any of the other providers, they just have a larger install base and more subscribers which hate the cable company. That means that more folks hate them, but only because they have more customers to tick off.
Let's be fair... Sometimes the paycheck and benefits are more important. I remember times when I put up with some serious garbage because I had a wife and kids at home for whom my paycheck was the only thing that paid the mortgage, utilities and kept food on the table. So I put up with it until I could find another job. It was NOT a happy time at work, but the family and I survived without loosing the house or going on welfare.
Let's also be far and point out that most of the time there ARE other options for unhappy work situations...
My point here is that AT&T *should* have put time limits on all these contracts and never "grandfathered" them. Unlimited data should have been a time limited agreement that went away w/o the user renewing it with AT&T when the contract expired. That way they remain in control and can just stop offering Unlimited data plans any time they wished, wait for the current crop of existing contracts to expire and be done with the whole problem.
That would have eliminated the whole negative PR problem we have now..
Seriously, this is not a problem with AI, it's a problem with people using AI to do bad things. There is ZERO chance you can keep bad people from doing bad things with software and hardware, I don't care how much money you spend. Where I applaud the effort, it's not going to be successful.
Now if you want to educate folks on the issues, develop a moral guideline for "ethical use of AI" then great. But don't be fooled, you won't be able to force anybody who doesn't want to play along with your rules to fall in line. How do I know? We have all sorts of unethical "research" done in the name of science in the past including dissecting living human beings who didn't volunteer for research purposes (some of WWII's Holocaust victims).
Power to you, but 30 million seems to be a bit steep for producing a set of moral and ethical guidelines for AI research and applications.. Maybe you can spend some on PR campaigns?
I don't think that word means what AT&T thinks it means.
Old gets expensive.. That's what it means...
The market is apparently moving away from "unlimited" data plans now that the transfer rates are above ISDN limits....I guess the carriers are starting to realize that bandwidth/data transfer costs money and the only folks who are still on their "grandfather's" data plan are soaking up more than their share of the costs for little or no profit.
All these "grandfathered" plans should never have existed... AT&T was stupid to set any of the terms of a deal in stone for life. Any contract attorney would advise you NOT to do that. Apparently AT&T didn't listen to their lawyers or figured the good press now out weighs the eventual bad press later. I guess they can drive off users on these plans if they keep bumping up the rates.... But If I was them, I'd not do this creeping drip drip $5 ever six months thing and just announce that starting in 2 months it's going to be $1,000/month per device....
They spent the money long before they even suspected it was coming, before anybody at VW even thought about trying to cheat....
Actually, I believe that some of this settlement is an agreement to buy back the affected vehicles from their current owners (less mileage and depreciation of course). So the government won't ever get their hands on a good part of this money.
So.. Are we moving beyond simple throttling and are throwing unprofitable but paying customers over the side because they use too much of their "unlimited" data transfer limits? You idiots, just institute progressive throttles on your "problem" paying customers until they start switching, but DON'T announce it to the world. Either that, or start raising rates for these customers.... Oh wait, you locked them into long term contracts? Live with it, pay them to leave or what have you, but it's YOUR mistake to deal with not your customer's...
The difference here is mostly in the taxes, not the actual cost of the gasoline or diesel fuel. In some places, fuel is more expensive because it's more costly to ship and store, but the majority of the price difference is about taxes.
So, how is the difference in taxes charged the end customer equate to a subsidy?
Not that I disagree, but the point here is that companies like D-Link don't really care until it benefits them financially. Should consumers stop buying their products because of a perception that they lack the necessary security, you can bet that the company will do two things. First, they will develop some kind of security "fix" for all their products... Second they will start a PR "We Care About Security" push to change the perception.
Who says they are a long term solution? I will say though that they are THE solution for the rest of my and my children's lifetimes. There is a reason they are so popular....
WHAT subsidies are you thinking we give to "oil and gas"?
As far as I know, there are none... Unless you count the various tax rules which allow deductions for various costs of doing business which ALL companies are allowed (not just oil and gas companies).
Wake me up when they have a Super Cheap electric car.
Don't bother me until they have also made it recharge enough in a 15-30 min stop to make it another 300 miles of highway driving and there are charging stations at least every 100 miles on all the interstates I drive on.
the internet allows even more radiostations than DAB... keep the old FM going, everybody with highschool education can build a receiver from scrap parts for it, for DAB, not so much. I fail to see how DAB makes any sense at all.
Um... FM reception is a bit tricky actually... And I'm an Extra Ham Radio operator who has a BSEE. I seriously doubt high school grads would posses the necessary technical knowledge to bias the detector properly, much less build a proper FM receiver that requires more than a handful of discrete parts or a pretty complicated IC...
Now AM... THAT'S easy to do with a pretty low parts count... With a set of high impedance earphones, a razor blade, wire and a variable capacitor you can whip up one of those...
Of course they care... Just only as far as there is money in it...
Look, D-Link sells consumer products and most consumers DON'T CARE about (much less ever THINK about) security. They want a device that does what it's designed to do with a minimum of fuss or mess making it work. They don't want to call technical support, they just want to spend as little as they can in both time and money.
Where I applaud the FTC's paying attention to such things, I'm thinking this isn't going to be very effective in getting manufacturers to knuckle under and do the security thing the right way. NOBODY (well, almost nobody) will care and they simply don't want to pay the price in dollars and time to get proper security configured in that consumer device.. The only way the FTC makes a dent is by hitting D-Link (and other manufacturers) in the pocket book really hard and I don't think they have enough leverage to do that.
Why? Because we oppose growing food (corn) and then mandating that we use it as a motor fuel (alcohol)? Or because we figure that there just might be issues competing with the rest of the world economically if we persist in mandating the use of renewables when the rest of the world doesn't? OR Because we believe that market based solutions to these issues are more efficient than government interference though oppressive regulations?
Of course not.. Mainly because "Extremely high" is all they can really say given the display hardware is usually among the biggest price drivers in a laptop to start with..
If you are asking what the price is, forget it, you cannot afford it.
Asking for a charger in the parking lot is pretty unlikely to produce one, at least here where I work. My friend works here too, he's asking and so far, even though the infrastructure was included when the facility was built last year, the chargers and wiring where not installed. I would consider his chances better than average to get a charger or two installed with the infrastructure in place, but so far, that's not been the case.
So my old man's saying "Wish in one hand and $#I+ in the other and see which one is the fullest" remains true.
Face it, the 200 miles they quote is the absolute IDEAL situation with the environmental controls turned off and the battery in factory new condition. ACTUAL mileage in practice is pretty far south of that, much like MPG ratings on window stickers don't reflect YOUR actual mileage.
I know a guy that has an EV in his garage. His round trip commute is less than 120 miles a day. His EV stays home for his wife to use around town running the kids to school, mainly because the distance doesn't leave enough margin for him to make ANY detours or run errands and there are no charging options here at work. His commute is not excessively large for the area, yet his EV doesn't have the range to make it comfortably.
I dare say this is more the rule than the exception until we can get EV's which test to ranges approaching 300 miles which will be practical to about half that. Plus their initial costs need to approach that of a similar sized conventional car with an positive ROI which breaks even within a year or so. With gasoline prices so low and EV's so darned expensive to make, it's no wonder why they are stuck on dealer's lots forever..
Slashdot Mirror
Everybody hates the cable company... Trust me.. It doesn't really matter who they are for the most part.
My favorite company I love to hate is Frontier who just purchased all the Verizon FIOS infrastructure and subscribers in my area (including me).
Verizon was bad, but these new folks take the cake. Frontier wasn't even able to muster enough folks to answer the phones and say they couldn't help you, much less actually know what they where talking about or get a service guy out to fix their recently acquired assets. IT took over a MONTH of trying before anybody could even understand that my internet connection was down and it was THEIR equipment at fault (I knew in about 10 min that they had something messed up on their end..)
So the world hates Comcast more? My guess is that Comcast isn't all that much worse than any of the other providers, they just have a larger install base and more subscribers which hate the cable company. That means that more folks hate them, but only because they have more customers to tick off.
Let's be fair... Sometimes the paycheck and benefits are more important. I remember times when I put up with some serious garbage because I had a wife and kids at home for whom my paycheck was the only thing that paid the mortgage, utilities and kept food on the table. So I put up with it until I could find another job. It was NOT a happy time at work, but the family and I survived without loosing the house or going on welfare.
Let's also be far and point out that most of the time there ARE other options for unhappy work situations...
My point here is that AT&T *should* have put time limits on all these contracts and never "grandfathered" them. Unlimited data should have been a time limited agreement that went away w/o the user renewing it with AT&T when the contract expired. That way they remain in control and can just stop offering Unlimited data plans any time they wished, wait for the current crop of existing contracts to expire and be done with the whole problem.
That would have eliminated the whole negative PR problem we have now..
Seriously, this is not a problem with AI, it's a problem with people using AI to do bad things. There is ZERO chance you can keep bad people from doing bad things with software and hardware, I don't care how much money you spend. Where I applaud the effort, it's not going to be successful.
Now if you want to educate folks on the issues, develop a moral guideline for "ethical use of AI" then great. But don't be fooled, you won't be able to force anybody who doesn't want to play along with your rules to fall in line. How do I know? We have all sorts of unethical "research" done in the name of science in the past including dissecting living human beings who didn't volunteer for research purposes (some of WWII's Holocaust victims).
Power to you, but 30 million seems to be a bit steep for producing a set of moral and ethical guidelines for AI research and applications.. Maybe you can spend some on PR campaigns?
I don't think that word means what AT&T thinks it means.
Old gets expensive.. That's what it means...
The market is apparently moving away from "unlimited" data plans now that the transfer rates are above ISDN limits....I guess the carriers are starting to realize that bandwidth/data transfer costs money and the only folks who are still on their "grandfather's" data plan are soaking up more than their share of the costs for little or no profit.
All these "grandfathered" plans should never have existed... AT&T was stupid to set any of the terms of a deal in stone for life. Any contract attorney would advise you NOT to do that. Apparently AT&T didn't listen to their lawyers or figured the good press now out weighs the eventual bad press later. I guess they can drive off users on these plans if they keep bumping up the rates.... But If I was them, I'd not do this creeping drip drip $5 ever six months thing and just announce that starting in 2 months it's going to be $1,000/month per device....
They spent the money long before they even suspected it was coming, before anybody at VW even thought about trying to cheat....
Actually, I believe that some of this settlement is an agreement to buy back the affected vehicles from their current owners (less mileage and depreciation of course). So the government won't ever get their hands on a good part of this money.
That was a close shave!
What? Not that space rock, my face with that new blade..
So.. Are we moving beyond simple throttling and are throwing unprofitable but paying customers over the side because they use too much of their "unlimited" data transfer limits? You idiots, just institute progressive throttles on your "problem" paying customers until they start switching, but DON'T announce it to the world. Either that, or start raising rates for these customers.... Oh wait, you locked them into long term contracts? Live with it, pay them to leave or what have you, but it's YOUR mistake to deal with not your customer's...
Why am I not surprised this is Verizon? Hmm?
Have you seen the price of Natural Gas lately? Apparently not...
Seriously, does this mean they know what caused the thing to explode now?
Anybody know what the reason was?
The difference here is mostly in the taxes, not the actual cost of the gasoline or diesel fuel. In some places, fuel is more expensive because it's more costly to ship and store, but the majority of the price difference is about taxes.
So, how is the difference in taxes charged the end customer equate to a subsidy?
Not that I disagree, but the point here is that companies like D-Link don't really care until it benefits them financially. Should consumers stop buying their products because of a perception that they lack the necessary security, you can bet that the company will do two things. First, they will develop some kind of security "fix" for all their products... Second they will start a PR "We Care About Security" push to change the perception.
Who says they are a long term solution? I will say though that they are THE solution for the rest of my and my children's lifetimes. There is a reason they are so popular....
NOT in the last 8 years...Well, no NEW leases in the last 8 years.
So.. How is this a subsidy? The terms of the leases are similar to those on private lands as best I can tell.
I thought they manufactured just cages.
Oh they have the capacity to do much more....
Depends.... But using maximum acceleration will get you 1/4 mile....
Of course, after that, it will take you 12 hours to recharge the battery w/o overheating it....
Sarc off
WHAT subsidies are you thinking we give to "oil and gas"?
As far as I know, there are none... Unless you count the various tax rules which allow deductions for various costs of doing business which ALL companies are allowed (not just oil and gas companies).
Wake me up when they have a Super Cheap electric car.
Don't bother me until they have also made it recharge enough in a 15-30 min stop to make it another 300 miles of highway driving and there are charging stations at least every 100 miles on all the interstates I drive on.
the internet allows even more radiostations than DAB... keep the old FM going, everybody with highschool education can build a receiver from scrap parts for it, for DAB, not so much. I fail to see how DAB makes any sense at all.
Um... FM reception is a bit tricky actually... And I'm an Extra Ham Radio operator who has a BSEE. I seriously doubt high school grads would posses the necessary technical knowledge to bias the detector properly, much less build a proper FM receiver that requires more than a handful of discrete parts or a pretty complicated IC...
Now AM... THAT'S easy to do with a pretty low parts count... With a set of high impedance earphones, a razor blade, wire and a variable capacitor you can whip up one of those...
Of course they care... Just only as far as there is money in it...
Look, D-Link sells consumer products and most consumers DON'T CARE about (much less ever THINK about) security. They want a device that does what it's designed to do with a minimum of fuss or mess making it work. They don't want to call technical support, they just want to spend as little as they can in both time and money.
Where I applaud the FTC's paying attention to such things, I'm thinking this isn't going to be very effective in getting manufacturers to knuckle under and do the security thing the right way. NOBODY (well, almost nobody) will care and they simply don't want to pay the price in dollars and time to get proper security configured in that consumer device.. The only way the FTC makes a dent is by hitting D-Link (and other manufacturers) in the pocket book really hard and I don't think they have enough leverage to do that.
Why? Because we oppose growing food (corn) and then mandating that we use it as a motor fuel (alcohol)? Or because we figure that there just might be issues competing with the rest of the world economically if we persist in mandating the use of renewables when the rest of the world doesn't? OR Because we believe that market based solutions to these issues are more efficient than government interference though oppressive regulations?
Of course not.. Mainly because "Extremely high" is all they can really say given the display hardware is usually among the biggest price drivers in a laptop to start with..
If you are asking what the price is, forget it, you cannot afford it.
Sort of like Reagan wasn't... He won the republican primary by the way....
Asking for a charger in the parking lot is pretty unlikely to produce one, at least here where I work. My friend works here too, he's asking and so far, even though the infrastructure was included when the facility was built last year, the chargers and wiring where not installed. I would consider his chances better than average to get a charger or two installed with the infrastructure in place, but so far, that's not been the case.
So my old man's saying "Wish in one hand and $#I+ in the other and see which one is the fullest" remains true.
No..
Face it, the 200 miles they quote is the absolute IDEAL situation with the environmental controls turned off and the battery in factory new condition. ACTUAL mileage in practice is pretty far south of that, much like MPG ratings on window stickers don't reflect YOUR actual mileage.
I know a guy that has an EV in his garage. His round trip commute is less than 120 miles a day. His EV stays home for his wife to use around town running the kids to school, mainly because the distance doesn't leave enough margin for him to make ANY detours or run errands and there are no charging options here at work. His commute is not excessively large for the area, yet his EV doesn't have the range to make it comfortably.
I dare say this is more the rule than the exception until we can get EV's which test to ranges approaching 300 miles which will be practical to about half that. Plus their initial costs need to approach that of a similar sized conventional car with an positive ROI which breaks even within a year or so. With gasoline prices so low and EV's so darned expensive to make, it's no wonder why they are stuck on dealer's lots forever..