The only problem with this is that it would require firewall 'software', and anti-virus software, etc, etc, and would be written by people not to recognize that this sort of crap is only necesarry if one is using MSFT platforms. So if you didnt have Mcaffee or Norton installed on your Linux box, you wouldnt be allowed to connect. And the license verification department at $broadbandISP would not care in the slightest bit when you told them you dont run MSFT you dont need that shit.
Yes but 'Credit' on their terminal, really means 'Visa (MC/Discover/etc), and it doesnt matter wether that Visa (etc) is a "Credit" or a "Debit".
There are two methods a merchant can 'charge' card:
1. "Visa(MC/etc)". This is usually mislabeled as "Credit" on their POS terminal. 2. "ATM w/PIN". This is usually mislabeled as "Debit" on their POS terminal.
There is no technical reason a financial institution couldnt issue a card that worked as an ATM card with PIN, but which, instead of withdrawing from a deposit account, drew against a line of credit. There might be political, legal, and/or economic reasons.
The confusion stems from conflating the mechanisms a merchant can use to authorize and accept a payment from a card issuer (on behalf of a card holder) via the merchants financial institution, with the mechanisms a card issuer uses to collect that payment from the card holder. The former does NOT require knowledge of the latter.
The merchant either uses 'Visa(MC/etc)' or 'ATM w/pin'.
Card issuers can extend credit ("credit"), or they can deduct from funds already on deposit ("debit").
Curently (in the US, at least) there are three flavors of cards (some cards may be multi-flavor).
1. A "Visa(MC/etc)" card which is a 'Credit Card'. You do not deposit funds in advance, but instead charges count against a (possible) credit limit, and you pay interest.
2. A "Visa(MC/etc)" card which is a 'Debit Card'. Funds are deposited in advance. Sometimes the deposits are to a checking account, sometimes not (Paypal, and 'gift' cards offered by many card issuers)
(For both 1. and 2., a clerk will be hitting 'Credit' on a POS terminal to process the charge, and DOES NOT need to know which of the types above is being used - the cardholder will have to provide a signature to authorize the transaction, although this seems to be waived in some instances)
3. ATM cards associated with a checking account.
The 'Debit' button on POS terminals will process a charge to this type of account. The cardholder will need to enter their PIN to authorize the transaction.
The real confusion is that there are two types of 'debit' cards. If you have a card as described by 2. above, and the clerk asks 'credit or debit?', if you say debit, the clerk will try to process it as type 3, becuase 'debit' doesnt differentiate between the two. This is because the clerk is asking the wrong question. The right question is "Visa(MC/etc - or they can look at the logo on the card) or ATM/PIN?".
I have a card which is both 2. and 3. above (with a Visa logo) It is 'debit' regardless of wether it is processed as 'Visa' or as 'ATM'. Since the ATM networks charge me a dollar per transaction, I prefer it processed as a Visa. That it is debit is irrelevant, and when I get the wrong 'debit or credit?' question I just ignore it and answer the correct question with 'Visa', and sometimes I point out the mislabeling of their terminal (and no, they usually neither understand or care, and I don't ever really expect them to)
Yes, I've seen my credit report. There are a very few, quite small negative entries, and a few positive entries (The largest one was a $500 debt that has since been paid and is properly noted as such). And I have had checking/debit cards for several years, and they have no positive affect on, nor do they even show up on, my credit report.
Note that I do not get 'too much bad history' as the reason for not getting issued a card, I get 'insufficient history'. Apparently no one is willing to be the credit issuer that someone establishes a history with. I suppose they make exceptions for younger people (Im mid-30's)
The merchant does NOT need to know wether my Visa card is a 'Debit' or a 'Credit' - they process it the same either way. Only the card *issuer* needs to know. Online merchants dont ask, becuase they only take Visa (and/or MC/Discover/Amex/etc), and dont/cant accept ATM/PIN.
B&M merchants ask 'Debit or Credit', but they are asking the wrong question (mainly becuase their POS terminal is also labeled that way, wrongly)
The 'credit' key should be labeled 'Visa/MC/Discover/etc w/signature' (regardless of wether it is a 'credit card' or a 'debit' card), and the 'debit' key should really be labeled 'ATM w/PIN'.
The point is that Paypals card (virtual or otherwise) really is a debit card, in that it withdraws from your funds-on-deposit with them. 'debit' does NOT mean 'ATM/PIN'.
It is no longer linked anywhere from paypal. Theyve ceased supporting it or offering it to anyone that wasnt already using it. They 'new' virtual card isnt a popup, its a windows-only application.
"Debit/Credit" is and always has been a misnomer, and the wrong thing for the cashier to ask. The correct thing for the cashier to ask is " 'ATM/PIN', or 'Visa/MC/Discover'? "
ATM/PIN (usually labeled 'debit' on POS terminals) is pretty much always 'debit' (it takes it out of funds already deposited on account).
Visa/MC (usually labeled 'credit' on POS terminals) can be either 'debit or credit (and the cashier does NOT need to know which it is to process it, even though shes pressing a 'credit' button on her terminal - the problem is the buttons are labeled wrong)
"Debit" and "Credit" refer to wether you are paying with borrowed money, or with money you already have on deposit.
A "Visa/Master/Discover" card (which can be used online, or at a register with a signature providing authorization" can be either credit (you are borrwing) OR debit (its coming right out of your checking account (or paypal account)
An ATM card can be used at a brick and morter register, or at an ATM. I'm not aware of the use of ATM card with PIN authorization anywhere online.
And for the record, Paypals 'debit' cards (virtual or physical) really are 'debit' cards - they take the funds directly out of your paypal account. (Paypal does offer 'credit' cards as well, although the usual 'application and credit score check' procesdure applies there, which is not the case with the debit cards.
Whats new is that in order to add the CVV number, theyve removed other functionality.
It used to be a java/javascript 'web bar' that showed a fixed virtual number that you could use. It worked in any standards compliant browser.
Now its a window-only application, and supposedly in addition to the CVV it generates a new number for each transaction. Neat, but useless for anyone that recognzes that private financial information and MS make a bad mix.
Qualifying for a real credit card is *NOT* trivial unless you want to pay $50 to apply for a $300 limit card that they immediately bill $295 in processing, monthly *and* annual fees, leaving you $295 in debt instantly.
I have no bankruptcies, no signifigant unpaid debts, one fully paid used car loan from about 10 years ago, and I cant seem to even get a department store card, let alone a major card. The answer is always 'insufficient credit history'. So they wont give me credit, becuase I didnt already have credit - chicken and egg. And no, I'm not interested in the $295 rip-off card.
You really beleive that he stored 1000's of his own spam messages in *his* email account? If so you are loony.
Senders of spam dont store it anywhere except in the zombie/trojan/botnets they use to send it from, and those arent proper 'mailservers' by any definition. The only real mailservers spam is 'stored' in are the recipient's.
And yet, if you send email, even from your 'darknet' to a standard old plain Internet email address (such as Yahoo), you relinquish any right to prevent the recipient, or anyone else they authorize (say their ISP, per its TOS) from reading it.
This is just another form of 'my server my rules', which is oft repeated when dealing with spam, as a way of suggesting that no one has any right to force the owner of a piece of hardware (wether it be a server or a client machine) to accept any communication it chooses, based on any criteria it choses.
Basically, the ISP owns the hardware, and if you either contract with them to receved and store email that is for you, or you send email to someone else that has, any right to privacy of that stored email is entirely subject to the terms of service under which that ISP provides that service.
If you want to own your own hardware, and have a private email network that is only accesible by authenticated encrypted connections, and only give access to it to persons whom you trust, feel free, and the govt will need a warrant to access it, if they choose.
They didnt read email that was sent TO HIM, they read email that HE sent to SOMEONE ELSE, and I'm pretty sure that the SOMEONE ELSE agreed (either explicitly, or implicitly in the TOS of their email provider) to said reading.
And the email in question was both commercial and bulk, as a spam advertisement. An advertisement, unless it is sent only to very carefully selected recipients (and spam by definition pretty much isnt), is not something that has any reasonable expectation of privacy.
In other words, his spam victims would be happy if he kept his messages private, as opposed to blasting them into their mailboxes all over the world.
This is about spam. advertisements. You REALLY think a spammer is gonna actually encrypt their advertisements so you cant read them??? (well, beyond the misspellings and obfuscation they already use to avoid filters)
As near as I can tell, they didnt read the spammer's email in HIS mailbox, they read it in the *recipients' mailboxes*. I'm sorry, but if you send ten thousand copies of an advertisement to ten thousand random email addresses, you have absolutely no right to keep it private. You do have a right to become someones new girlfriend in a federal pen.
And unless you have a specific binding contract with your ISP that prohibits them from doing this (and I seriously doubt that you do), they have every right to allow LE personnel to do exactly that. If you don't agree to it, you could get a real IP that isnt on a cable or DSL modem, and send from there, but then the same applies to the recipients mailserver.
If you want truly private email, set up accounts on *your* server for anyone you want to exchange email with, and make sure you trust them not to divulge it. Also require POP3s and/or HTTPs for accessing it.
Postal mail has very specific protections, specifically outlined in US law. And if spammer A sends a spam to recipient B, and recipient B uses Yahoo, recipient B has every right to allow the government to read that spam, and very good motive to do so if it helps to build a case against spammer A. And for that matter, so does Yahoo. They provide a free service (albeit a crappy one), and it is entirely their right to include in their TOS that by using their services, you agree that they have the right to allow the government to use your email to prove that someone sent spam. It isnt clear wether the spammer was using Yahoo, or his victims were, but I suspect the latter.
Email *to* this person(spammer) was not read, email he had SENT out to thousands of people advertising his penis pills and whatever else was read, AT the recipient's end.
Spammers using PGP to encrypt and/or sign their junk? Riiiight. We can only hope.
The govt didnt go into this spammmer's computer and read his private email.
The read the thousands of spams that the spammer sent to thousands of other people on their ISP's servers. An advertisement is hardly 'private', especially if its unsolicited, and sent to people without their permission. Just like with the 1st amendment, 'commercial speech' such as an advertisement doesnt get nearly the same protection that noncommercial speech does.
In any case, I would say the *recipient* of an email has as much (or more) right to decide who gets to read it, then the sender does. And I would sure say that if you voluntarily and intentionally send thousands of copies of effectively the same email, you give up any right to privacy. You want to keep it private, dont spam it to the world.
The technologies that are in Vista specifically open up the path to allow MS/RIAA/FBI/CIA/whoever to prevent you from doing anything they want. Some day, somewhere, backdoored in some security update or patch will be changes that will prevent certain things from being done. By the all your documents and media will be in MS proprietary formats. And one of the actions they will prevent is you being able to convert them to a non-proprietary format. You will not *have* the option of choosing to no longer be an MS customer without losing all of *your* data that is stored thusly.
You certainly have the freedom to choose to use a proprietary OS. But while users of Free OS will always have that choice, eventually those who today choose the proprietary path will lose any option to choose something else.
Tasks you want to do, huh. Like make a backup copy of a CD? Or maybe print out an email your boss sent you? These are both things, that in a DRM 'Treacherous Computing' environment, that the RIAA and/or your boss could make it impossible for you to do.
The guy was being wise about the CABLE company being a monopoly, while getting TV service from the phone monopoly. Ironic.
While that may be true, The bells have done no less - they also seek to maintain their monopoly over wired basic telephone.
What is really needed is a choice (for wired broadband Internet, at least) OTHER than EITHER the cable company *or* the phone company, and then people can choose to get their phone either from the monopoly or over IP, and their TV either from the monopoly, a Dish/DirectTV, or (hopefully someday) over a standards-compliant IP protocol.
Here is my summary of the pros/cons of the various options for high speed net (this is US-centric)
DSL - cheap, contract required, slow, mandatory phone service (from the monopoly telco, even if your DSL is from a 3rd party) even if you dont need/want it, you can choose between a single ILEC and a few CLECS - ILEC will usually drag their feet on any CLEC install, limited availability - max 3 miles from CO/DSLAM
CABLEMODEM - less cheap, no contract, slightly faster, usually mandatory cable TV service even if you dont need/want it, you cant choose between cable companies, cable not available in many areas
WIRELESS - expensive, usually slow, reliability issues, either contact or large up-front equipment investment required, availability varies
SATELLITE - expensive, slow, reliability?, high latency, contract or large up-front equipment investment required, almost universally available
Sorry, my specs for 'server grade systems' specifically prohibit any 'Windows splash screen' from ever appearing. Windows is for Home/Toy/Game systems, not for servers, silly rabbit.
Google is a free service provided via the web. If I get to watch TV program for free, I expect there to be breaks for commercial advertisements. Possibly even ads for the network airing the program.
MS Windows is a product you purchase. If I purchase a video, I expect to be able to watch it without being interrupted by commercial ads.
Thats the big difference. Windows is a product that is purchased (wether by choice, or by force with the purchase of a machine), Google costs *nothing*.
Slashdot Mirror
The only problem with this is that it would require firewall 'software', and anti-virus software, etc, etc, and would be written by people not to recognize that this sort of crap is only necesarry if one is using MSFT platforms. So if you didnt have Mcaffee or Norton installed on your Linux box, you wouldnt be allowed to connect. And the license verification department at $broadbandISP would not care in the slightest bit when you told them you dont run MSFT you dont need that shit.
Did you even look? Idiot, it *IS* TOS.
HTML is for web pages.
Plain ASCII text is for email.
Stop putting HTML in email. Then it can be used by everyone for its only really useful purpose, which is indicating than an email is spam.
Yes but 'Credit' on their terminal, really means 'Visa (MC/Discover/etc), and it doesnt matter wether that Visa (etc) is a "Credit" or a "Debit".
There are two methods a merchant can 'charge' card:
1. "Visa(MC/etc)". This is usually mislabeled as "Credit" on their POS terminal.
2. "ATM w/PIN". This is usually mislabeled as "Debit" on their POS terminal.
There is no technical reason a financial institution couldnt issue a card that worked as an ATM card with PIN, but which, instead of withdrawing from a deposit account, drew against a line of credit. There might be political, legal, and/or economic reasons.
The confusion stems from conflating the mechanisms a merchant can use to authorize and accept a payment from a card issuer (on behalf of a card holder) via the merchants financial institution, with the mechanisms a card issuer uses to collect that payment from the card holder. The former does NOT require knowledge of the latter.
The merchant either uses 'Visa(MC/etc)' or 'ATM w/pin'.
Card issuers can extend credit ("credit"), or they can deduct from funds already on deposit ("debit").
Curently (in the US, at least) there are three flavors of cards (some cards may be multi-flavor).
1. A "Visa(MC/etc)" card which is a 'Credit Card'. You do not deposit funds in advance, but instead charges count against a (possible) credit limit, and you pay interest.
2. A "Visa(MC/etc)" card which is a 'Debit Card'. Funds are deposited in advance. Sometimes the deposits are to a checking account, sometimes not (Paypal, and 'gift' cards offered by many card issuers)
(For both 1. and 2., a clerk will be hitting 'Credit' on a POS terminal to process the charge, and DOES NOT need to know which of the types above is being used - the cardholder will have to provide a signature to authorize the transaction, although this seems to be waived in some instances)
3. ATM cards associated with a checking account.
The 'Debit' button on POS terminals will process a charge to this type of account. The cardholder will need to enter their PIN to authorize the transaction.
The real confusion is that there are two types of 'debit' cards. If you have a card as described by 2. above, and the clerk asks 'credit or debit?', if you say debit, the clerk will try to process it as type 3, becuase 'debit' doesnt differentiate between the two. This is because the clerk is asking the wrong question. The right question is "Visa(MC/etc - or they can look at the logo on the card) or ATM/PIN?".
I have a card which is both 2. and 3. above (with a Visa logo) It is 'debit' regardless of wether it is processed as 'Visa' or as 'ATM'. Since the ATM networks charge me a dollar per transaction, I prefer it processed as a Visa. That it is debit is irrelevant, and when I get the wrong 'debit or credit?' question I just ignore it and answer the correct question with 'Visa', and sometimes I point out the mislabeling of their terminal (and no, they usually neither understand or care, and I don't ever really expect them to)
Yes, I've seen my credit report. There are a very few, quite small negative entries, and a few positive entries (The largest one was a $500 debt that has since been paid and is properly noted as such). And I have had checking/debit cards for several years, and they have no positive affect on, nor do they even show up on, my credit report.
Note that I do not get 'too much bad history' as the reason for not getting issued a card, I get 'insufficient history'. Apparently no one is willing to be the credit issuer that someone establishes a history with. I suppose they make exceptions for younger people (Im mid-30's)
The merchant does NOT need to know wether my Visa card is a 'Debit' or a 'Credit' - they process it the same either way. Only the card *issuer* needs to know. Online merchants dont ask, becuase they only take Visa (and/or MC/Discover/Amex/etc), and dont/cant accept ATM/PIN.
B&M merchants ask 'Debit or Credit', but they are asking the wrong question (mainly becuase their POS terminal is also labeled that way, wrongly)
The 'credit' key should be labeled 'Visa/MC/Discover/etc w/signature' (regardless of wether it is a 'credit card' or a 'debit' card), and the 'debit' key should really be labeled 'ATM w/PIN'.
The point is that Paypals card (virtual or otherwise) really is a debit card, in that it withdraws from your funds-on-deposit with them. 'debit' does NOT mean 'ATM/PIN'.
It is no longer linked anywhere from paypal. Theyve ceased supporting it or offering it to anyone that wasnt already using it. They 'new' virtual card isnt a popup, its a windows-only application.
"Debit/Credit" is and always has been a misnomer, and the wrong thing for the cashier to ask.
The correct thing for the cashier to ask is " 'ATM/PIN', or 'Visa/MC/Discover'? "
ATM/PIN (usually labeled 'debit' on POS terminals) is pretty much always 'debit' (it takes it out of funds already deposited on account).
Visa/MC (usually labeled 'credit' on POS terminals) can be either 'debit or credit (and the cashier does NOT need to know which it is to process it, even though shes pressing a 'credit' button on her terminal - the problem is the buttons are labeled wrong)
"Debit" and "Credit" refer to wether you are paying with borrowed money, or with money you already have on deposit.
A "Visa/Master/Discover" card (which can be used online, or at a register with a signature providing authorization" can be either credit (you are borrwing) OR debit (its coming right out of your checking account (or paypal account)
An ATM card can be used at a brick and morter register, or at an ATM. I'm not aware of the use of ATM card with PIN authorization anywhere online.
And for the record, Paypals 'debit' cards (virtual or physical) really are 'debit' cards - they take the funds directly out of your paypal account. (Paypal does offer 'credit' cards as well, although the usual 'application and credit score check' procesdure applies there, which is not the case with the debit cards.
Whats new is that in order to add the CVV number, theyve removed other functionality.
It used to be a java/javascript 'web bar' that showed a fixed virtual number that you could use. It worked in any standards compliant browser.
Now its a window-only application, and supposedly in addition to the CVV it generates a new number for each transaction. Neat, but useless for anyone that recognzes that private financial information and MS make a bad mix.
Qualifying for a real credit card is *NOT* trivial unless you want to pay $50 to apply for a $300 limit card that they immediately bill $295 in processing, monthly *and* annual fees, leaving you $295 in debt instantly.
I have no bankruptcies, no signifigant unpaid debts, one fully paid used car loan from about 10 years ago, and I cant seem to even get a department store card, let alone a major card. The answer is always 'insufficient credit history'. So they wont give me credit, becuase I didnt already have credit - chicken and egg. And no, I'm not interested in the $295 rip-off card.
The article didnt say wether the recipients were involved or not.
And even if they werent, not reading the TOS of a free service doesnt mean you are not bound by it.
You really beleive that he stored 1000's of his own spam messages in *his* email account? If so you are loony.
Senders of spam dont store it anywhere except in the zombie/trojan/botnets they use to send it from, and those arent proper 'mailservers' by any definition. The only real mailservers spam is 'stored' in are the recipient's.
And yet, if you send email, even from your 'darknet' to a standard old plain Internet email address (such as Yahoo), you relinquish any right to prevent the recipient, or anyone else they authorize (say their ISP, per its TOS) from reading it.
This is just another form of 'my server my rules', which is oft repeated when dealing with spam, as a way of suggesting that no one has any right to force the owner of a piece of hardware (wether it be a server or a client machine) to accept any communication it chooses, based on any criteria it choses.
Basically, the ISP owns the hardware, and if you either contract with them to receved and store email that is for you, or you send email to someone else that has, any right to privacy of that stored email is entirely subject to the terms of service under which that ISP provides that service.
If you want to own your own hardware, and have a private email network that is only accesible by authenticated encrypted connections, and only give access to it to persons whom you trust, feel free, and the govt will need a warrant to access it, if they choose.
They didnt read email that was sent TO HIM, they read email that HE sent to SOMEONE ELSE, and I'm pretty sure that the SOMEONE ELSE agreed (either explicitly, or implicitly in the TOS of their email provider) to said reading.
And the email in question was both commercial and bulk, as a spam advertisement. An advertisement, unless it is sent only to very carefully selected recipients (and spam by definition pretty much isnt), is not something that has any reasonable expectation of privacy.
In other words, his spam victims would be happy if he kept his messages private, as opposed to blasting them into their mailboxes all over the world.
This IS NOT about someone private LOVE LETTERS.
This is about spam. advertisements. You REALLY think a spammer is gonna actually encrypt their advertisements so you cant read them??? (well, beyond the misspellings and obfuscation they already use to avoid filters)
As near as I can tell, they didnt read the spammer's email in HIS mailbox, they read it in the *recipients' mailboxes*. I'm sorry, but if you send ten thousand copies of an advertisement to ten thousand random email addresses, you have absolutely no right to keep it private. You do have a right to become someones new girlfriend in a federal pen.
And unless you have a specific binding contract with your ISP that prohibits them from doing this (and I seriously doubt that you do), they have every right to allow LE personnel to do exactly that. If you don't agree to it, you could get a real IP that isnt on a cable or DSL modem, and send from there, but then the same applies to the recipients mailserver.
If you want truly private email, set up accounts on *your* server for anyone you want to exchange email with, and make sure you trust them not to divulge it. Also require POP3s and/or HTTPs for accessing it.
Postal mail has very specific protections, specifically outlined in US law. And if spammer A sends a spam to recipient B, and recipient B uses Yahoo, recipient B has every right to allow the government to read that spam, and very good motive to do so if it helps to build a case against spammer A. And for that matter, so does Yahoo. They provide a free service (albeit a crappy one), and it is entirely their right to include in their TOS that by using their services, you agree that they have the right to allow the government to use your email to prove that someone sent spam. It isnt clear wether the spammer was using Yahoo, or his victims were, but I suspect the latter.
Email *to* this person(spammer) was not read, email he had SENT out to thousands of people advertising his penis pills and whatever else was read, AT the recipient's end.
If its private, dont email it to someone else.
Spammers using PGP to encrypt and/or sign their junk? Riiiight. We can only hope.
The govt didnt go into this spammmer's computer and read his private email.
The read the thousands of spams that the spammer sent to thousands of other people on their ISP's servers. An advertisement is hardly 'private', especially if its unsolicited, and sent to people without their permission. Just like with the 1st amendment, 'commercial speech' such as an advertisement doesnt get nearly the same protection that noncommercial speech does.
In any case, I would say the *recipient* of an email has as much (or more) right to decide who gets to read it, then the sender does. And I would sure say that if you voluntarily and intentionally send thousands of copies of effectively the same email, you give up any right to privacy. You want to keep it private, dont spam it to the world.
If you arent a Windows user, then this isnt about you. This is about MS, and Windows 'Vista', and the reasons anyone with a clue should avoid it.
The technologies that are in Vista specifically open up the path to allow MS/RIAA/FBI/CIA/whoever to prevent you from doing anything they want. Some day, somewhere, backdoored in some security update or patch will be changes that will prevent certain things from being done. By the all your documents and media will be in MS proprietary formats. And one of the actions they will prevent is you being able to convert them to a non-proprietary format. You will not *have* the option of choosing to no longer be an MS customer without losing all of *your* data that is stored thusly.
You certainly have the freedom to choose to use a proprietary OS. But while users of Free OS will always have that choice, eventually those who today choose the proprietary path will lose any option to choose something else.
Tasks you want to do, huh. Like make a backup copy of a CD? Or maybe print out an email your boss sent you? These are both things, that in a DRM 'Treacherous Computing' environment, that the RIAA and/or your boss could make it impossible for you to do.
The guy was being wise about the CABLE company being a monopoly, while getting TV service from the phone monopoly. Ironic.
While that may be true, The bells have done no less - they also seek to maintain their monopoly over wired basic telephone.
What is really needed is a choice (for wired broadband Internet, at least) OTHER than EITHER the cable company *or* the phone company, and then people can choose to get their phone either from the monopoly or over IP, and their TV either from the monopoly, a Dish/DirectTV, or (hopefully someday) over a standards-compliant IP protocol.
Here is my summary of the pros/cons of the various options for high speed net (this is US-centric)
DSL - cheap, contract required, slow, mandatory phone service (from the monopoly telco, even if your DSL is from a 3rd party) even if you dont need/want it, you can choose between a single ILEC and a few CLECS - ILEC will usually drag their feet on any CLEC install, limited availability - max 3 miles from CO/DSLAM
CABLEMODEM - less cheap, no contract, slightly faster, usually mandatory cable TV service even if you dont need/want it, you cant choose between cable companies, cable not available in many areas
WIRELESS - expensive, usually slow, reliability issues, either contact or large up-front equipment investment required, availability varies
SATELLITE - expensive, slow, reliability?, high latency, contract or large up-front equipment investment required, almost universally available
Sorry, my specs for 'server grade systems' specifically prohibit any 'Windows splash screen' from ever appearing. Windows is for Home/Toy/Game systems, not for servers, silly rabbit.
Google is a free service provided via the web.
If I get to watch TV program for free, I expect there to be breaks for commercial advertisements. Possibly even ads for the network airing the program.
MS Windows is a product you purchase.
If I purchase a video, I expect to be able to watch it without being interrupted by commercial ads.
Thats the big difference. Windows is a product that is purchased (wether by choice, or by force with the purchase of a machine), Google costs *nothing*.