But, see, again... this comes down to you being well off enough that you can afford to share such things with everyone... and good on you for that, it's great, if everyone of wealth did so, it'd be a better world.
BUT... not everyone can afford such luxury, and not everyone knows how to secure a wireless setup.
Most everyone can see a fountain and see that they might need to build a wall if they really don't want anyone using it... but your average Joe doesn't see that their wireless is insecure, so they don't know that others can use it... so the act of using it is more like someone sneaking in every night and stealing some of your cookies. You know you had 20 cookies there last night, now there's only 15... you have no idea where the other 5 went, but dang it, you needed them you were having a party with 19 friends, and now 5 people aren't going to get cookies because someone snuck in and stole 5 of them... and you don't know how anyone could have gotten in, or really that anyone has, you just know that 5 cookies are missing.
Still, if I'm in your neck of the woods, I'll drop over:)
Yeah, you could be a complete dick and look at it that way, or you could price structure it like:
Cable will cost you $XX servicing fee, that includes YOU CHOICE of Y channels, whatever ones you like (I guess they could have different pricing based on 'premium' channels so maybe you get X premium and Y not so premium channels... whatever)... then any extra channels you pay per channel some small amount.
How would that not work to everyone's advantage? I live in Australia and cable penetration is much, much lower than in the states... because we've got pretty a ok free to air really... but mostly because for the base cable package I get a couple of channels I like plus a WHOLE LOT I couldn't care less about, while missing out on others I would like, but I have to purchase a whole other package on top of the basic one to get them... also getting a whole slew of other crud channels that I don't want.
So, if I could instead pay the basic amount price and get the same number of channels, but the ones I actually WANT, I'd actually sign up to cable.
I take it you don't live with water restrictions where you're from? Where you are meant to time your every shower so you don't waste water, where you aren't allowed to water your lawn at all, where the small amount you're allowed to water your plants is only on certain days of the week?
Tell me you wouldn't have any issue with some guy popping over, plugging his hose into your tap and using your water supply for a few days without asking?
No problem?
You espouse this utopian view of the world where you just let people come over and use everything of yours, and that's very noble... but not everyone has unlimited usage allowed on their internet. Not everyone can afford excess water usage... and it was just a damn analogy.
The point is, there is SOMETHING you wouldn't like if someone just popped over and took of yours... the fact that you may have some wonderful unlimited internet usage and so don't notice other people using it is besides the point... there are many of us who have to manage our usage to ensure we don't go over our limits lest we be throttle to worse than dial up speeds. If someone were nicking my internet allowance, I'd be miffed.
"If you're too stupid, you shouldn't be using the technology that's obviously over your head."
What a fine, understanding attitude you have. A: "WiFi is such a convenient tech, it makes doing all these networked things much easier." B: "I know, I just got a wireless router, plugged it in at home and it's so great to be able to use my laptop anywhere around the home" A: "You did set WEP encryption didn't you?" B: "Wha?" A: "And MAC filtering of course?" B: "Who the?" A: "And I suppose you just turned off SSID broadcasting as well?" B: "What language are you speaking sir?" A: "You incompetent f*cking idiot... give me that access point... you have no right to use it!"
I mean really, you expect just everyone to know how to use the technology completely? It's confusing, but shouldn't be. I have no problem with it, you have no problem with it... but my wife would know a MAC address if she fell over it, should she not be using the wireless access at home then?
I'd be getting down off that high horse unless you know the intimate workings of everything you use from day to day. Just because you don't understand how everything works with something, doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to use it. It means that the creators of said product need to make it easier to use safely.
How about the fact that he was standing next to his neighbour's wall... which meant he knew the access point to be in his neighbour's house... which meant he knew it wasn't some general cafe or business open wifi.
So, we're starting with him knowing it was his neighbour's wifi.
Then as he had to be in such an awkward position to use is (standing by a wall), he could assume that it wasn't being made easy for anyone to just use it. So he could be reasonably be assumed to know it wasn't meant for public use.
As others have said here... unless the SSID is something to TELL you it's free for use.. (oh, I dunno... maybe 'FREEFORUSE', or 'PUBLICACCESS' or the like), then the assumption should be that it's closed, rather than assuming it's open.
Someone jumping on an open wifi connection to check their email because they happened to be unable to any other way is really a pretty petty crime, hardly worth noting... but all you people trying to suggest that it's just a ok to nick someones internet access are deluding yourselves.
True, give it a private, non broadcast SSID with WEP and you're making it pretty darn obvious you don't want free loaders (and hell, without a broadcast SSID, pretty hard to), but just because someone doesn't know about such things, doesn't mean it's morally right to use up their internet quota.
Oh dear god that's a lame attempt at trying to steal internet access and feeling 'righteous' about it... really, it is.
Pathetic.
Have you got a cordless phone at home?
How about a mobile?
Anything AT ALL that emits radio frequency?
Then stfu and stop pretending that you're 'scared' of the effects of his oh so dangerous wifi. These sorts of pretend justifications only strengthen the case that this is just people trying to get stuff without paying for it.
"Other than the bicycle analogy, why should we assume the default state is "I don't want you using my WiFi"?"
What about the tap in the front yard analogy?
I have a water tap in my front yard... should you assume that, without asking, you have a right to plug a hose up to it and use as much water as possible?
No.
Same goes here. The person WITH the wireless internet is PAYING for their usage, so you shouldn't be able to use it without either asking first, or compensating them for your usage.
It's simple... why are so many of you trying to justify using what someone else has paid for?
"There is no deprivation here, and nothing has been lost." I don't know about you, but everyone I know has to pay for X amount of internet usage. If this guy used his neighbour's internet, then he deprived him of y amount of that internet usage, thereby either costing his neighbour, or making him hit his pre-allocated cap earlier than he would have.
You have a tap in your front yard, mind if I use it to water my plants next door? You do? Well, same principle here.
Just because the person with the wireless internet was foolish enough/didn't know better than to not secure the network, doesn't give people a right to just use their access.
I too would say, not a lot to encourage you to upgrade from XP to Vista, but if you are in the boat such as I was, in that I was building my own pc... and primarily it was a games machine, with all the other abilities that goes along with being a PC. I chose Vista so I'd have DirectX 10, and further ongoing support.
I had a horrendous time getting the damn thing to stay sleeping (twas some weird network setting, and no, not just 'enable wake on LAN')... and that really gave me the irates for some time, but with that done... everything else is working fine and dandy... I enjoy using it, it's slick to use, does everything I want... and when my internet is finally reconnected, I'll be playing Bioshock in DirectX 10 glory thanyou very much.
Completely, 100% agreed... we had that situation in Australia too, but it was slightly different... some ISPs called their plans 'unlimited' while also stating that you had, say, a 20Gig usage cap (speeds were throttled after that, hence they could claim you could keep using it as much as you like)... it was ridiculous... you can't call something that has a cap unlimited. So I believe they were forced to stop using the term unlimited for plans that really weren't.
The US just has to move to that way of working I'm afraid.
"I, and I think I'm not alone, only work to earn $$ plain and simple. I don't know many that if they won the lottery, would work 'meaningful' work ever again."
I think there are more of us who would keep working no matter how much money than you think.
Maybe not quite as much... maybe take more holidays, but definitely work, and make a great contribution. I couldn't think of anything worse than not doing meaningful work.
How am I making a simple problem complicated? I'm making your murky crud of an unsustainable business model (unlimited internet was never going to be long term sustainable), simple by making it what it should be... you pay for what you use.
Oh, I know, but the usage these days seems to be that way... stupid, but I was trying to use the term more people are using... it hurt me to do it, and now I won't do so any more:P
But that's the point of my post, if the ISPs charge based on bandwidth then where is the problem? They've budgeted for you using your allowance, who cares what you download? A new service that streams tv comes along and you find yourself always reaching your bandwidth cap... so you pay more and increase your bandwidth limit, or, you just don't watch as much.
You get the content you want at the price you're prepared to pay... where's the problem?
Of course someone has to pay, but the problem is that internet companies have been effectively lying about what you're paying for. They say "Unlimited usage for $X", when really they meant 'As much usage as we think the average Joe will use for $X', and when the average Joe starts using a WHOLE lot more bandwidth than the ISP budgeted for, suddenly their $X doesn't cover the usage anymore, so it becomes non profitable.
In Australia we've always paid a lot for our internet in comparison to you lot, but by the same token there's always been a clear statement of how much bandwidth you're buying. Xgig costs $X a month... simple... use it for whatever you like, streaming video, porn, emails, whatever, you've paid for Xgig of bandwidth.
It's when it's the vague 'unlimited' claim that the ISPs get worried. You really should be moving towards plans where you pay for a certain amount of bandwidth, then everyone is happy.
Yeah, that is a good way of doing things indeed... no way could we afford 10% each, I mean, man, only 80% of what's coming in to cover the mortgage, 3 kids etc... but yeah, each having your own, equal 'play money' is always a good idea... Means you can do those crazy impulse buys without panicking, as you have the money already budgeted for and assigned to you to do whatever you like with.
I've been married for... um.. 5 years now and even before that we combined our accounts etc. I seriously don't get how people can be in a serious relationship with someone and not share everything. Are you wanting to be in the position where you say "Hey, I earn more money here, I can damn well spend more if I want"? Cause really, you should just stay single if that's your mindset.
A relationship is a partnership and if you're both working towards creating a future together you shouldn't give a crap how much X or Y is earning, it's ALL both of yours. Or are you going to start assigning value to home duties or who does the shopping etc.?
Yeah, but I was saying, I didn't want wireless as I figured "Who needs the hassle of replacing batteries all the time"... but man, a year on and I still haven't changed them... that's awesome!
"get a high res laser mouse and put it on whatever surface you want."
I got myself a top of the line wireless desktop from Microsoft as a prize, and have had it for a bit over a year, love the thing.. BUT. While it is a Laser desktop and claims to have the super high res laser mouse, I actually find that it's MORE susceptible to the surface you put it on, not less. I have a wooden desk and it's pretty average when used on that. When a mousemat is brought in, suddenly it's superb, but yeah, my older microsoft optical mouse was fine on the desk.
Also, I have yet to change the batteries in it or the keyboard, and it gets used daily... so that's more than a year so far of good use on one set of batteries, it's sold me on wireless, I tells yah!
DTS... in all tests. It's just not as compressed as DD Dolby Digital is a great technology, is very versatile, but when you're after better sound, you go with DTS. Or one of the new HD sound formats on HD DVD/Blu Ray
I just _have_ to pick up on two things you've said: "HD Audio, what? Frankly I'd never even heard of it. Music sounds just fine as it is." The HD audio formats failed, BUT there are still many music DVDs around, if you have a good surround system and a music dvd with a DTS surround audio track you will really HEAR the difference that it can make to music listening. It really does sound a lot better, a) because of the surround and b) because of the better fidelity. The problem is that the masses are of the opinion that 'Music sounds just fine as it is.' and don't want anything else...:( Now I listen to mp3s all day at work and they do sound pretty fine on my headphones, but I don't want that to be the ONLY way I can listen to music. I want to be able to really soak up music on my surround system in beautiful high quality sometimes. If the masses decide that there's no need, and everything is just compressed mp3s then I, and many others like me, will not have the option to listen to music in a really beautiful way, and those that haven't listened to it this way will never know what they're missing:(
"DTS is pretty irrelevant." No it's not, and it's not dead, I take great issue with it being included in the article as a format that lost. DVD and their high def brothers are still carrying DTS audio. Dolby Digital is the default, as it has the ability to downmix to however many speakers you have (you only have one, fine, here's a single channel version of the audio). DTS doesn't have that, DTS is always a second option on the discs, but it DOES sound better... it sounds great, and many, many releases have DTS tracks and I'm very thankful for it.
Again, it's a case of the masses not hearing the difference as they're listening to the tracks through $200 home-theaters-in-a-box units, but I tell yah, just a bit more money spent on your system and you'll be loving DTS tracks.
Not very large, but the article didn't mention size, in fact he said he had attachments of some excel files etc with a bit of random stuff inside them... they usually aren't very big, so I don't think he was testing large sized things really.
Well, I've just sent an email with a excel attachment from one account to my hotmail... delivered Then I forwarded that to another isp account... delivered Then I created an email in hotmail with 2 jpegs and sent it to my first account... delivered Then I forwarded that back to hotmail... delivered
I mean, I have had a Hotmail account since... um... 1998 or 1997 or something, a very long time anyway, and NOTHING that I've sent to or from it with attachments has EVER gone 'missing' in the wild.
Is it possible that this guy, who has questionable scientific methods, maybe created his emails (which he doesn't show us their contents so we can't check) in such a way that they looked liked SPAM? Attachments are awfully popular in spam, and if he was creating these random emails with random attachments then they probably looked a fair bit like spam to the Bayesian filters.
If he had created REAL emails with, oh, I dunno, a PURPOSE, then they probably wouldn't have been filtered.
It's just a guess... I have no proof, other than I've never, ever come across this 'phenomenon' of his, and he just doesn't even address Spam filters until late in the comments on his article, and even then he doesn't seem to 'get' how they work.
I might just do some tests and see what happens... I'll report back with what I find.
Slashdot Mirror
*clap clap*
:D
That was gold... very funny.
But, see, again... this comes down to you being well off enough that you can afford to share such things with everyone... and good on you for that, it's great, if everyone of wealth did so, it'd be a better world.
:)
BUT... not everyone can afford such luxury, and not everyone knows how to secure a wireless setup.
Most everyone can see a fountain and see that they might need to build a wall if they really don't want anyone using it... but your average Joe doesn't see that their wireless is insecure, so they don't know that others can use it... so the act of using it is more like someone sneaking in every night and stealing some of your cookies. You know you had 20 cookies there last night, now there's only 15... you have no idea where the other 5 went, but dang it, you needed them you were having a party with 19 friends, and now 5 people aren't going to get cookies because someone snuck in and stole 5 of them... and you don't know how anyone could have gotten in, or really that anyone has, you just know that 5 cookies are missing.
Still, if I'm in your neck of the woods, I'll drop over
Yeah, you could be a complete dick and look at it that way, or you could price structure it like:
Cable will cost you $XX servicing fee, that includes YOU CHOICE of Y channels, whatever ones you like (I guess they could have different pricing based on 'premium' channels so maybe you get X premium and Y not so premium channels... whatever)... then any extra channels you pay per channel some small amount.
How would that not work to everyone's advantage? I live in Australia and cable penetration is much, much lower than in the states... because we've got pretty a ok free to air really... but mostly because for the base cable package I get a couple of channels I like plus a WHOLE LOT I couldn't care less about, while missing out on others I would like, but I have to purchase a whole other package on top of the basic one to get them... also getting a whole slew of other crud channels that I don't want.
So, if I could instead pay the basic amount price and get the same number of channels, but the ones I actually WANT, I'd actually sign up to cable.
They'd get another customer
And there are many more like me.
I take it you don't live with water restrictions where you're from? Where you are meant to time your every shower so you don't waste water, where you aren't allowed to water your lawn at all, where the small amount you're allowed to water your plants is only on certain days of the week?
Tell me you wouldn't have any issue with some guy popping over, plugging his hose into your tap and using your water supply for a few days without asking?
No problem?
You espouse this utopian view of the world where you just let people come over and use everything of yours, and that's very noble... but not everyone has unlimited usage allowed on their internet. Not everyone can afford excess water usage... and it was just a damn analogy.
The point is, there is SOMETHING you wouldn't like if someone just popped over and took of yours... the fact that you may have some wonderful unlimited internet usage and so don't notice other people using it is besides the point... there are many of us who have to manage our usage to ensure we don't go over our limits lest we be throttle to worse than dial up speeds. If someone were nicking my internet allowance, I'd be miffed.
"If you're too stupid, you shouldn't be using the technology that's obviously over your head."
What a fine, understanding attitude you have.
A: "WiFi is such a convenient tech, it makes doing all these networked things much easier."
B: "I know, I just got a wireless router, plugged it in at home and it's so great to be able to use my laptop anywhere around the home"
A: "You did set WEP encryption didn't you?"
B: "Wha?"
A: "And MAC filtering of course?"
B: "Who the?"
A: "And I suppose you just turned off SSID broadcasting as well?"
B: "What language are you speaking sir?"
A: "You incompetent f*cking idiot... give me that access point... you have no right to use it!"
I mean really, you expect just everyone to know how to use the technology completely? It's confusing, but shouldn't be. I have no problem with it, you have no problem with it... but my wife would know a MAC address if she fell over it, should she not be using the wireless access at home then?
I'd be getting down off that high horse unless you know the intimate workings of everything you use from day to day. Just because you don't understand how everything works with something, doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to use it. It means that the creators of said product need to make it easier to use safely.
How about the fact that he was standing next to his neighbour's wall... which meant he knew the access point to be in his neighbour's house... which meant he knew it wasn't some general cafe or business open wifi.
So, we're starting with him knowing it was his neighbour's wifi.
Then as he had to be in such an awkward position to use is (standing by a wall), he could assume that it wasn't being made easy for anyone to just use it. So he could be reasonably be assumed to know it wasn't meant for public use.
As others have said here... unless the SSID is something to TELL you it's free for use.. (oh, I dunno... maybe 'FREEFORUSE', or 'PUBLICACCESS' or the like), then the assumption should be that it's closed, rather than assuming it's open.
Someone jumping on an open wifi connection to check their email because they happened to be unable to any other way is really a pretty petty crime, hardly worth noting... but all you people trying to suggest that it's just a ok to nick someones internet access are deluding yourselves.
True, give it a private, non broadcast SSID with WEP and you're making it pretty darn obvious you don't want free loaders (and hell, without a broadcast SSID, pretty hard to), but just because someone doesn't know about such things, doesn't mean it's morally right to use up their internet quota.
Oh dear god that's a lame attempt at trying to steal internet access and feeling 'righteous' about it... really, it is.
Pathetic.
Have you got a cordless phone at home?
How about a mobile?
Anything AT ALL that emits radio frequency?
Then stfu and stop pretending that you're 'scared' of the effects of his oh so dangerous wifi. These sorts of pretend justifications only strengthen the case that this is just people trying to get stuff without paying for it.
"Other than the bicycle analogy, why should we assume the default state is "I don't want you using my WiFi"?"
What about the tap in the front yard analogy?
I have a water tap in my front yard... should you assume that, without asking, you have a right to plug a hose up to it and use as much water as possible?
No.
Same goes here. The person WITH the wireless internet is PAYING for their usage, so you shouldn't be able to use it without either asking first, or compensating them for your usage.
It's simple... why are so many of you trying to justify using what someone else has paid for?
"There is no deprivation here, and nothing has been lost."
I don't know about you, but everyone I know has to pay for X amount of internet usage. If this guy used his neighbour's internet, then he deprived him of y amount of that internet usage, thereby either costing his neighbour, or making him hit his pre-allocated cap earlier than he would have.
You have a tap in your front yard, mind if I use it to water my plants next door? You do? Well, same principle here.
Just because the person with the wireless internet was foolish enough/didn't know better than to not secure the network, doesn't give people a right to just use their access.
Hear Hear.
I too would say, not a lot to encourage you to upgrade from XP to Vista, but if you are in the boat such as I was, in that I was building my own pc... and primarily it was a games machine, with all the other abilities that goes along with being a PC. I chose Vista so I'd have DirectX 10, and further ongoing support.
I had a horrendous time getting the damn thing to stay sleeping (twas some weird network setting, and no, not just 'enable wake on LAN')... and that really gave me the irates for some time, but with that done... everything else is working fine and dandy... I enjoy using it, it's slick to use, does everything I want... and when my internet is finally reconnected, I'll be playing Bioshock in DirectX 10 glory thanyou very much.
Completely, 100% agreed... we had that situation in Australia too, but it was slightly different... some ISPs called their plans 'unlimited' while also stating that you had, say, a 20Gig usage cap (speeds were throttled after that, hence they could claim you could keep using it as much as you like)... it was ridiculous... you can't call something that has a cap unlimited. So I believe they were forced to stop using the term unlimited for plans that really weren't.
The US just has to move to that way of working I'm afraid.
"I, and I think I'm not alone, only work to earn $$ plain and simple. I don't know many that if they won the lottery, would work 'meaningful' work ever again."
I think there are more of us who would keep working no matter how much money than you think.
Maybe not quite as much... maybe take more holidays, but definitely work, and make a great contribution. I couldn't think of anything worse than not doing meaningful work.
You're a charmer aren't you?
How am I making a simple problem complicated? I'm making your murky crud of an unsustainable business model (unlimited internet was never going to be long term sustainable), simple by making it what it should be... you pay for what you use.
Simple
Not complicated
Simple.
And it works fine.
Oh, I know, but the usage these days seems to be that way... stupid, but I was trying to use the term more people are using... it hurt me to do it, and now I won't do so any more :P
But that's the point of my post, if the ISPs charge based on bandwidth then where is the problem? They've budgeted for you using your allowance, who cares what you download? A new service that streams tv comes along and you find yourself always reaching your bandwidth cap... so you pay more and increase your bandwidth limit, or, you just don't watch as much.
You get the content you want at the price you're prepared to pay... where's the problem?
Of course someone has to pay, but the problem is that internet companies have been effectively lying about what you're paying for. They say "Unlimited usage for $X", when really they meant 'As much usage as we think the average Joe will use for $X', and when the average Joe starts using a WHOLE lot more bandwidth than the ISP budgeted for, suddenly their $X doesn't cover the usage anymore, so it becomes non profitable.
In Australia we've always paid a lot for our internet in comparison to you lot, but by the same token there's always been a clear statement of how much bandwidth you're buying. Xgig costs $X a month... simple... use it for whatever you like, streaming video, porn, emails, whatever, you've paid for Xgig of bandwidth.
It's when it's the vague 'unlimited' claim that the ISPs get worried. You really should be moving towards plans where you pay for a certain amount of bandwidth, then everyone is happy.
Yeah, that is a good way of doing things indeed... no way could we afford 10% each, I mean, man, only 80% of what's coming in to cover the mortgage, 3 kids etc... but yeah, each having your own, equal 'play money' is always a good idea... Means you can do those crazy impulse buys without panicking, as you have the money already budgeted for and assigned to you to do whatever you like with.
You sir, should not get married.
I've been married for... um.. 5 years now and even before that we combined our accounts etc. I seriously don't get how people can be in a serious relationship with someone and not share everything. Are you wanting to be in the position where you say "Hey, I earn more money here, I can damn well spend more if I want"? Cause really, you should just stay single if that's your mindset.
A relationship is a partnership and if you're both working towards creating a future together you shouldn't give a crap how much X or Y is earning, it's ALL both of yours. Or are you going to start assigning value to home duties or who does the shopping etc.?
Yeah, but I was saying, I didn't want wireless as I figured "Who needs the hassle of replacing batteries all the time"... but man, a year on and I still haven't changed them... that's awesome!
"get a high res laser mouse and put it on whatever surface you want."
I got myself a top of the line wireless desktop from Microsoft as a prize, and have had it for a bit over a year, love the thing.. BUT. While it is a Laser desktop and claims to have the super high res laser mouse, I actually find that it's MORE susceptible to the surface you put it on, not less. I have a wooden desk and it's pretty average when used on that. When a mousemat is brought in, suddenly it's superb, but yeah, my older microsoft optical mouse was fine on the desk.
Also, I have yet to change the batteries in it or the keyboard, and it gets used daily... so that's more than a year so far of good use on one set of batteries, it's sold me on wireless, I tells yah!
DTS... in all tests. It's just not as compressed as DD Dolby Digital is a great technology, is very versatile, but when you're after better sound, you go with DTS. Or one of the new HD sound formats on HD DVD/Blu Ray
I just _have_ to pick up on two things you've said: :( Now I listen to mp3s all day at work and they do sound pretty fine on my headphones, but I don't want that to be the ONLY way I can listen to music. I want to be able to really soak up music on my surround system in beautiful high quality sometimes. If the masses decide that there's no need, and everything is just compressed mp3s then I, and many others like me, will not have the option to listen to music in a really beautiful way, and those that haven't listened to it this way will never know what they're missing :(
"HD Audio, what? Frankly I'd never even heard of it. Music sounds just fine as it is."
The HD audio formats failed, BUT there are still many music DVDs around, if you have a good surround system and a music dvd with a DTS surround audio track you will really HEAR the difference that it can make to music listening. It really does sound a lot better, a) because of the surround and b) because of the better fidelity. The problem is that the masses are of the opinion that 'Music sounds just fine as it is.' and don't want anything else...
"DTS is pretty irrelevant."
No it's not, and it's not dead, I take great issue with it being included in the article as a format that lost. DVD and their high def brothers are still carrying DTS audio. Dolby Digital is the default, as it has the ability to downmix to however many speakers you have (you only have one, fine, here's a single channel version of the audio). DTS doesn't have that, DTS is always a second option on the discs, but it DOES sound better... it sounds great, and many, many releases have DTS tracks and I'm very thankful for it.
Again, it's a case of the masses not hearing the difference as they're listening to the tracks through $200 home-theaters-in-a-box units, but I tell yah, just a bit more money spent on your system and you'll be loving DTS tracks.
Not very large, but the article didn't mention size, in fact he said he had attachments of some excel files etc with a bit of random stuff inside them... they usually aren't very big, so I don't think he was testing large sized things really.
Well, I've just sent an email with a excel attachment from one account to my hotmail... delivered
Then I forwarded that to another isp account... delivered
Then I created an email in hotmail with 2 jpegs and sent it to my first account... delivered
Then I forwarded that back to hotmail... delivered
I mean, I have had a Hotmail account since... um... 1998 or 1997 or something, a very long time anyway, and NOTHING that I've sent to or from it with attachments has EVER gone 'missing' in the wild.
Is it possible that this guy, who has questionable scientific methods, maybe created his emails (which he doesn't show us their contents so we can't check) in such a way that they looked liked SPAM? Attachments are awfully popular in spam, and if he was creating these random emails with random attachments then they probably looked a fair bit like spam to the Bayesian filters.
If he had created REAL emails with, oh, I dunno, a PURPOSE, then they probably wouldn't have been filtered.
It's just a guess... I have no proof, other than I've never, ever come across this 'phenomenon' of his, and he just doesn't even address Spam filters until late in the comments on his article, and even then he doesn't seem to 'get' how they work.
I might just do some tests and see what happens... I'll report back with what I find.