Capping for max data is ridicouls anyway, you pay for bandwith not data
And the bandwidth you pay for is an average bandwith of 600GB/month (Comcast), or about 230kbps sustained. But you get the option of using more in bursts, you have to make up for that later, though, to keep the average about the same.
but that doesn't mean that when you do, and they messed up their overhead that you as the consumer should be the victim
The consumer would be "the victim" if most people were forced to subsidize an infrastructure that gives a few people like you the ability to download 20Mbps sustained rate.
Whether Obama fanbois like you take complaints against him seriously hardly matters. What matters is whether Obama has the trust and support of the American people, and he does not, as poll after poll shows, e.g.:
At this point, Obama has broken so many of his campaign promises and screwed up so often that he has lost the trust of the majority of Americans. So, even if he happens to say something that's true or proposes a policy that might work, we don't trust him and we don't care. It simply isn't worth anybody's time to separate facts from lies, good policies from political payoffs and crony-capitalism, with Obama. All we can hope for is that Congress will prevent him from doing any more damage before his time in office runs out.
It's not OK to destroy evidence just because you haven't received a judge's order yet.
In this case, since she is a government official, and a high-ranking one at that, her data is automatically subject to retention and scrutiny; it should never have been destroyed under any circumstances.
Even if they were targeting conservatives, it wouldn't be any less fair than the FBI/NSA targeting liberals, which it did for decades.
There, in a nutshell, you have the problem in Washington: "it's OK for Obama to violate the Constitution and abuse his power because, hey, Republicans do it too".
I don't give a f*ck about either Democrats or Republicans. I want a president that operates within the law and stops abusing his power for political gain.
And I'm sad to say that Obama has turned out to be one of the most dishonest and destructive presidents in recent history, and that's quite an achievement given the jerks who preceded him.
Yes, and we elected Obama to fix these problems, as he promised over and over again during his campaign, and as he pointed to his credentials as a constitutional scholar for why he was qualified to do it.
We elected Obama to end spying on American citizens, abuse of power, extraterritorial killings, war mongering, and crony capitalism.
Instead, Obama has embraced and expanded all of those and has turned out to be worse than Bush in many ways.
"Bush did it" is not sufficient excuse for Obama to do it; "Bush did it" should be an immediate signal to any decent, honest president not to do it as well.
Another ignorant fox watcher. We've covered many times how the IRS enforcing Tax Law and ensuring that nonprofits file for nonprofit status under the proper section of law is NOT ILLEGAL and NOT A SCANDAL.
It's illegal if they do it selectively based on the political preferences of the current administration. That is, it's not the "enforcing the law" that is illegal, it's the failure to enforce it consistently.
Furthermore, the law itself is a scandal. The IRS simply shouldn't be in a position to make these kinds of decisions. Non-profits should be allowed to engage in political activities freely.
Another ignorant fox watcher.
Amazingly enough, many conservatives and independents don't watch Fox at all. Personally, I read the Huffington Post, the WP, and Mother Jones, just to keep up with the idiotic ideas "Liberals" and Obama fans get in their heads.
Creationism is, of course, utter nonsense. But what is currently the mandatory teaching of evolution and banning of creationism may well turn into the mandatory teaching of creationism in the future; or the mandatory teaching of racism, Marxism and other harmful ideologies that used to pretend to have a rational, scientific basis.
School curricula should be primarily determined at the local level, by parents. They shouldn't be determined by central governments and majority vote.
Well, you look at all the possible risks of each of your actions and then make the best decision. That kind of attack is unlikely compared to many others, so you're better of shutting down.
The trouble is that facebook et al are subject to the patriot act
And in Europe, E-mail providers are subject to European data protection laws, which are generally weak when it comes to government spying and police action.
Relying on laws to protect your data is futile. What you can rely on is government enmities and obstacles. Put your data on US servers, and the NSA may read it, but the UK government won't unless they have evidence that you're a terrorist. Put your data on a UK server, and chances are the UK government, security services, and police have easy ways of getting at it.
Are you kidding? Many European nations have gigantic loopholes in privacy protection when it comes to government spying on their own citizens. European governments absolutely hate your data being on US servers because, while the NSA may be able to get at it, the US won't share that data except when it serves its own interests, which is rarely. Furthermore, European nations don't have a prayer to tap data in the US by technical means.
European governments are itching to force their citizens to store their data on their domestic servers, both so that it becomes more easily accessible to European spy agencies and police forces, and also because European telecoms are lobbying and hoping to be able to take back a slice of the market that they lost.
The translation of all this is: "build more data centers in Europe; we need the jobs, and our governments want to have easier access to the data directly on European soil".
If someone has penetrated your system so that they have root or admin privileges over all your machine, you shut down immediately. In the physical world, you pull the plug. On Amazon, you immediately tell Amazon to lock things down, disable all passwords and administrative control, and then work back up to fixing things.
You think that advocating helping people is the same as insinuating that they (as a race) are incapable of helping themselves
No, I am saying that you advocate doing the thing that is cheap, easy, and convenient for well-fed, wealthy Westerners, just like Gates is doing. The kind of self-serving pseudo-philanthropy you advocate and Gates engages in has a long history of hurting Africa.
I'm all in favor of open borders and dismantling agricultural subsidies in US. But there is a difference between domestic agricultural subsidies and researching effective agricultural techniques for use in Africa. The difference is that the former is not actually useful for increasing production and is an unnecessary manipulation, and the latter will increase production. What, did you think they were just shipping food there?
You still don't have a f*cking clue because you still think that Africa's problems are an inability to produce enough food and that some magical Western technology developed courtesy of jet-setting Western brainiacs will fix it.
Africa doesn't need new agricultural techniques and they don't need to produce more food. Their problems are social and economic in nature. And many of those problems are exacerbated, and often even caused, by Western aid and Western aid organizations. Often, Western aid is simply used to pay off political elites in those nations to acquiesce and not do what would actually be best for their citizens.
so you attack me with weasel language
Ther is nothing weasly about my language. Your views are morally reprehensible and the policies you advocate are evil. Clear enough for you?
Yes, they do need help, in the sense that many of them will die without help.
They do need our help: they need access to our markets, open borders, dismantling of protectionism, dismantling of agricultural subsidies. You know, things that matter and actually would cost us money. Instead, they get cheap shiny glass beads from people like Gates.
Your views are little different from the racists that brought us colonialism.
AFAICT, they have approached it just like any other currency-like thing.
They have, in that many "other currency-like things" are illegal or frowned upon by the federal government.
The regulations are there for a reason
Yes, mostly so that politicians, like our crony capitalist in chief, can enrich their buddies in industry, finance, and banking.
Bitcoin has been intended to undermine that kind of political corruption, which is precisely why the federal government has been trying to interfere with it.
I don't doubt Bill Gate's idealism. I think he used to think of himself an idealistic tech innovator, and I think he thinks of himself as a well-meaning philanthropist now. I just think he hasn't been very competent in either role.
The problem is that Google could remove the content from Google.ca - the Canadian Google website - but why should they be compelled to remove it from the Google sites that serve other countries as well?
I'm passing judgment on it. I'm just saying that Canada can, if it so chooses, seize Google's Canadian assets, block Google's IP addresses, and stop Canadians from doing business with Google; those are within its power as a Canadian court, without messing in the affairs of any other nation. Therefore, legally, they "have the right" to tell Google what they are telling Google.
Whether it is wise for a Canadian court to take all those steps in an attempt to force Google to do something is another question altogether, because there would likely be serious international economic and political repercussions.
There's nothing "complicated" about it; it only seems complicated to you because you don't understand it. Danish law appears to be a fairly liberal law on photography, similar to the US. Unlike France, you don't have a right to your own image, and you don't have a right to demand that people remove your image from their camera. Danish law (like the US) merely provides simple privacy protections and protections against commercial use of your image.
(And, geez, if you insist on quoting laws in an obscure Germanic peasant dialect, at least have the courtesy of getting your Unicode encoding right.)
I am thinking they will not. Canada does not have the right to destroy information outside of its jurisdiction.
A Canadian court has jurisdiction over businesses in Canada and can enforce its rulings by fining them or stopping them from operating. Google can certainly refuse to comply, but they may have to stop doing business in Canada, and the Canadian court could block them.
I think the Canadian court is wrong, but don't make the mistake of thinking that these kinds of laws and rulings have no teeth. I also think that such rulings hurt the country issuing more than anybody else.
This drone was in Brazil and I'm talking about the laws I know, which is Danish law - if you take a picture in Denmark, they can ask you to remove it and you must comply.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, make that 2.3Mbps or 230kBps.
And the bandwidth you pay for is an average bandwith of 600GB/month (Comcast), or about 230kbps sustained. But you get the option of using more in bursts, you have to make up for that later, though, to keep the average about the same.
The consumer would be "the victim" if most people were forced to subsidize an infrastructure that gives a few people like you the ability to download 20Mbps sustained rate.
Whether Obama fanbois like you take complaints against him seriously hardly matters. What matters is whether Obama has the trust and support of the American people, and he does not, as poll after poll shows, e.g.:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
At this point, Obama has broken so many of his campaign promises and screwed up so often that he has lost the trust of the majority of Americans. So, even if he happens to say something that's true or proposes a policy that might work, we don't trust him and we don't care. It simply isn't worth anybody's time to separate facts from lies, good policies from political payoffs and crony-capitalism, with Obama. All we can hope for is that Congress will prevent him from doing any more damage before his time in office runs out.
(And I say that as a former Obama voter.)
It's not OK to destroy evidence just because you haven't received a judge's order yet.
In this case, since she is a government official, and a high-ranking one at that, her data is automatically subject to retention and scrutiny; it should never have been destroyed under any circumstances.
There, in a nutshell, you have the problem in Washington: "it's OK for Obama to violate the Constitution and abuse his power because, hey, Republicans do it too".
I don't give a f*ck about either Democrats or Republicans. I want a president that operates within the law and stops abusing his power for political gain.
And I'm sad to say that Obama has turned out to be one of the most dishonest and destructive presidents in recent history, and that's quite an achievement given the jerks who preceded him.
Yes, and we elected Obama to fix these problems, as he promised over and over again during his campaign, and as he pointed to his credentials as a constitutional scholar for why he was qualified to do it.
We elected Obama to end spying on American citizens, abuse of power, extraterritorial killings, war mongering, and crony capitalism.
Instead, Obama has embraced and expanded all of those and has turned out to be worse than Bush in many ways.
"Bush did it" is not sufficient excuse for Obama to do it; "Bush did it" should be an immediate signal to any decent, honest president not to do it as well.
It's illegal if they do it selectively based on the political preferences of the current administration. That is, it's not the "enforcing the law" that is illegal, it's the failure to enforce it consistently.
Furthermore, the law itself is a scandal. The IRS simply shouldn't be in a position to make these kinds of decisions. Non-profits should be allowed to engage in political activities freely.
Amazingly enough, many conservatives and independents don't watch Fox at all. Personally, I read the Huffington Post, the WP, and Mother Jones, just to keep up with the idiotic ideas "Liberals" and Obama fans get in their heads.
Where are they "painting" this? I see no judgment, interpretation, or editorializing in the Fox news story.
What "relevant facts" does Fox omit according to you? Please state them so that we can get the full picture that we are missing according to you.
The object is to live in a free society, as opposed to the 1984-like totalitarian state you seem to favor.
Living in a free society includes the ability to make bad choices: take drugs, have abortions, and, yes, teach your kids creationism.
Creationism is, of course, utter nonsense. But what is currently the mandatory teaching of evolution and banning of creationism may well turn into the mandatory teaching of creationism in the future; or the mandatory teaching of racism, Marxism and other harmful ideologies that used to pretend to have a rational, scientific basis.
School curricula should be primarily determined at the local level, by parents. They shouldn't be determined by central governments and majority vote.
Well, you look at all the possible risks of each of your actions and then make the best decision. That kind of attack is unlikely compared to many others, so you're better of shutting down.
And in Europe, E-mail providers are subject to European data protection laws, which are generally weak when it comes to government spying and police action.
Relying on laws to protect your data is futile. What you can rely on is government enmities and obstacles. Put your data on US servers, and the NSA may read it, but the UK government won't unless they have evidence that you're a terrorist. Put your data on a UK server, and chances are the UK government, security services, and police have easy ways of getting at it.
Are you kidding? Many European nations have gigantic loopholes in privacy protection when it comes to government spying on their own citizens. European governments absolutely hate your data being on US servers because, while the NSA may be able to get at it, the US won't share that data except when it serves its own interests, which is rarely. Furthermore, European nations don't have a prayer to tap data in the US by technical means.
European governments are itching to force their citizens to store their data on their domestic servers, both so that it becomes more easily accessible to European spy agencies and police forces, and also because European telecoms are lobbying and hoping to be able to take back a slice of the market that they lost.
Your posting is proof that any sufficiently advanced sarcasm is indistinguishable from stupidity.
The translation of all this is: "build more data centers in Europe; we need the jobs, and our governments want to have easier access to the data directly on European soil".
If someone has penetrated your system so that they have root or admin privileges over all your machine, you shut down immediately. In the physical world, you pull the plug. On Amazon, you immediately tell Amazon to lock things down, disable all passwords and administrative control, and then work back up to fixing things.
No, I am saying that you advocate doing the thing that is cheap, easy, and convenient for well-fed, wealthy Westerners, just like Gates is doing. The kind of self-serving pseudo-philanthropy you advocate and Gates engages in has a long history of hurting Africa.
You still don't have a f*cking clue because you still think that Africa's problems are an inability to produce enough food and that some magical Western technology developed courtesy of jet-setting Western brainiacs will fix it.
Africa doesn't need new agricultural techniques and they don't need to produce more food. Their problems are social and economic in nature. And many of those problems are exacerbated, and often even caused, by Western aid and Western aid organizations. Often, Western aid is simply used to pay off political elites in those nations to acquiesce and not do what would actually be best for their citizens.
Ther is nothing weasly about my language. Your views are morally reprehensible and the policies you advocate are evil. Clear enough for you?
We call that kind of hardware failure a "Rose Mary Stretch".
They do need our help: they need access to our markets, open borders, dismantling of protectionism, dismantling of agricultural subsidies. You know, things that matter and actually would cost us money. Instead, they get cheap shiny glass beads from people like Gates.
Your views are little different from the racists that brought us colonialism.
They have, in that many "other currency-like things" are illegal or frowned upon by the federal government.
Yes, mostly so that politicians, like our crony capitalist in chief, can enrich their buddies in industry, finance, and banking.
Bitcoin has been intended to undermine that kind of political corruption, which is precisely why the federal government has been trying to interfere with it.
I don't doubt Bill Gate's idealism. I think he used to think of himself an idealistic tech innovator, and I think he thinks of himself as a well-meaning philanthropist now. I just think he hasn't been very competent in either role.
I'm passing judgment on it. I'm just saying that Canada can, if it so chooses, seize Google's Canadian assets, block Google's IP addresses, and stop Canadians from doing business with Google; those are within its power as a Canadian court, without messing in the affairs of any other nation. Therefore, legally, they "have the right" to tell Google what they are telling Google.
Whether it is wise for a Canadian court to take all those steps in an attempt to force Google to do something is another question altogether, because there would likely be serious international economic and political repercussions.
There's nothing "complicated" about it; it only seems complicated to you because you don't understand it. Danish law appears to be a fairly liberal law on photography, similar to the US. Unlike France, you don't have a right to your own image, and you don't have a right to demand that people remove your image from their camera. Danish law (like the US) merely provides simple privacy protections and protections against commercial use of your image.
(And, geez, if you insist on quoting laws in an obscure Germanic peasant dialect, at least have the courtesy of getting your Unicode encoding right.)
A Canadian court has jurisdiction over businesses in Canada and can enforce its rulings by fining them or stopping them from operating. Google can certainly refuse to comply, but they may have to stop doing business in Canada, and the Canadian court could block them.
I think the Canadian court is wrong, but don't make the mistake of thinking that these kinds of laws and rulings have no teeth. I also think that such rulings hurt the country issuing more than anybody else.
Apparently, you don't know your own laws:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w...