If I lived in world without a Human Rights Declaration, I would have xenophobia as a permanent "what if" consideration for all my life's decisions. Good thing I live in moderately tolerant Europe where xenophobia only makes waves during the silly season.
So if I take a motherboard inside a box to my school for a science project, you are saying everyone should insta-suspect I am carrying a bomb, even though I'm a pure-bred caucasian and my name is John Smith? In the school's defense, there's only one thing you can say: 'MURICA. When you live in the US and your name is Ahmed Mohamed, you have better chances of not being mistaken by a terrorist if you changed your name to Nero Bombmaker.
Only it doesn't.
I'm a long time Sharepoint user, and I can tell you, if it's anything close to that, might as well stick to Open/LibreOffice compatibility-wise (and it still sucks balls), or Google docs collaborative-wise (and you will still have the finnishing overhead when the collaborative part ends and you need it printed/PDF'd and you want to add that camera-ready Word look, those fancy Excel formulas and dynamic pie charts, or present in that old amphitheater computer that only supports _true_ ppt formatting). If they can do it for MacOS, they can do it for Linux. They just don't see the (commercial) point, so it won't happen. Office 365 is nothing more than a desperate shout which can faintly be discerned as "we are still here, doing our best for you to go back to that Windows version of Office, even though you moved 50% your dayjob routine to Unix-like using portable platforms such as Android and iOS".
That is a very good point comparing with the triple-play VLANs. But there is a crucial difference: ISPs separate traffic directly on their hardware (through user-unmodifiable software on the router and effective changes in the uplink). I know of multiple counts of infant triple-play services provided by ISPs where they have to give a jolt to the TV-IP bandwidth, because the user complains of bad service, probably caused by his heavy internet usage pattern conflicting with his TV QoS. What I don't hear about is people getting restricted internet or extra rates because of such changes. This is one crucial point. The other is that with Mobile Data we are talking about a user having his own device (i.e. not a router provided free or at lease by the mobile company) controlled to suit ISP's needs. If they want to do that, they might as well provide me a free/leased phone under a very strict use policy that includes such meddling.
Pretty simple questions: why does an ISP need to know the way I use my internet traffic? More importantly, why and how are there means to know the difference between tethered and non-tethered data? Does my tethering device usage comes with a specific end-user agreement clause enabling data carriers to snoop the loops the data goes through on my device's end? Or the quintessential question: what is phone traffic and "not tethered" traffic? Because that is not clear at the very least. Put simply, the data provider only provides an uplink to the internet. My local LAN and/or WI-FI was never meant to be their business.
I see your point clearly, and I'm glad you didn't take my "you have a blindfold yourself" offensively because I was out of line there, it's more than most people would do and for that I am sorry for it.
I just want to stress that there are some things that can be laid out to you very clearly, be at whatever font size or weight they decide on their leaflets and banners, yet they're still not right even after people abide to them. People are differently influenced by marketing, oftentimes in ways that are illegal but they get away with little more than a raised eyebrow by the state, because, well, that's capitalism for you. Some levels of this influence cannot be accepted by society (such as this one) because they are pure marketeer speak and disconnected from reality (read: lies). It's like Light cigarette brands - they provide a false sense of security - light cigarettes are no safer (maybe even worse) than normal ones. Likewise you can't advertise free internet if it's not free: you can't say you provide an Internet service as unrestricted at all, if it comes with strings attached like data discrimination (e.g. P2P or media streaming throttle). At least not without a very solid, constitutionally-based argument, and net neutrality came to make a clear statement of that necessity, especially when you're not supposed to be monitoring the amount and content of that service because it infringes on my right for free speech and privacy. If you have an unlimited product you supply at flat rate, and you should not be snooping on the ways I use it (because it's illegal), you have to supply it to infinity whilst the rate is paid and you don't end that type of contract, or else you're admitting you're committing a crime.
Let me give you a very good example on that: on Steam (and similar services), your account can be suspended if they unilaterally decide you have infringed their EULA. In some cases, this might even lead to total loss of your purchased games, i.e. your digital property. Steam aggregates, with each client that abides to their user agreement, a power that is commonly only available to the legislative and executive branches of the state: the power to seize property. And you know how they do it? They force you to consent to data pretty much unlimited data snooping on your PC, and nobody, not even the government, will give a flying one about such invasion of privacy. It's outrageous how this can happen when the user can't even file a complaint out of total lack of cooperation Steam-side in the event of the aforementioned suspension not having grounds in the first place. That is the kind of world you live in: one where you can place your ownership right in the hands of oppressive organizations that act solely in their financial interest.
And yes, I also believe this policy should be applied to any vehicle gas supply or fast-food menu beverage, especially because those are, like cigarettes, two very important aspects where society has to improve consumption because they are scientifically proven bad for society (fossil fuel polutes and is limited, fast food is not good for your health, any cigarette that is not electronic is also very dangerous: these are facts there is scientific consensus about), and this means that such esoteric marketing has even more compelling to be stopped. Call me conspiracy-theorist all you like, but I still stand by my opinion on this, even if I sometimes I'm hypocrite on those subjects.
In the topic at hand, which is something that can't be directly associated with a bad practice (for whatever it may concern, I might be using traffic for SETI or any other good-willed reason, because my data is supposed to be private), I even more strongly believe there can't be this type of psychological oppression by companies. The internet is something that we all need, some more than others, and if you really want to market it as free and unlimited, you might as well argue your're throttling data or not providing it unlimited because it is affecting other clients. No other argument really matters for that.
Keep them longer. I forecast that TSLA will explode by 2018-2020 with the release of their 50k USD car, when they decide to apply all their know-how in a seriously mass-marketed vehicle. Not to mention their manufacturing process only has a tendency to improve with the gigafactory, with dedicated battery production, and the fact they will expand to the home appliances field with the solar/renewable power storage they announced last year. Somebody with TSLA stock should hang on to it like it's a winning lottery ticket.
So you're telling me that there's this device (for all intents and purposes, I call it a mobile computer, because essentially it's nothing more), which has 2 network cards - 1 for GSM/3G/4G/LTW/ETC and one for WLAN - and even though I have unlimited data to use on each (because WLAN, well, is free and unlimited), I still have to concern myself with the amount of data that passes on the wrings of my computer between both, using the electricity I pay for, because some douche thought "unlimited" only applied to specific use cases of using internet FOR my mobile computer and not for using it THROUGH it (i.e. he decided to limit the unlimited sense of my data plan)...
Sorry mate, but tethering is something I do for free. I extend my home WIFI using a form of "tethering", and my home modem also "tethers" internet to my router and nobody charges me for the "tethering" part or has anything to do with the legal ways I use it for. I don't pay for a "license to tether", I pay for an unlimited _data_ plan. If somebody says my unlimited data plan has tethering restricted, it's pretty much the same that saying my unlimited data plan can only be used if I use it on a 386 machine, or that I can only use it for certain hours of the day, or that I must use my mobile computer with a blindfold for the unlimited part to kick in. Can you see the point I'm making? Because if you can't, I'm sorry but you have a blindfold yourself placed on you by corporate interests.
...obviously, more power. If I suddenly had a surplus on disposable income, I would immediately invest in Tesla stock. There is no such thing in this world I am more certain of its growth than TSLA. I had this hunch about 2 years ago, I just didn't have the money. My investment would have doubled and I wouldn't sell the stock unless I was in life or death necessity of it right now.
Other than taht, I'd do the usual stuff: buy an island, a jet, and people to do my current job so I could brag I kept my previous life intact to journalists but I "gained incentive" to do what I really want to do. Then I'd probably lose it all in some years out of my total inability to manage the moneee.
You're right. And the fact it got so much attention lately should have been warning enough for ISPs not to keep basing their "strategies" around it (and by "around it" I mean circumventing net neutrality rules). And the reason it came so late was actually nobody noticing and/or ISPs not providing insight to just how much sniffing is going on. If it wasn't for mobile data cap issues and Netflix complaint we could very well still have that problem today, but unfortunately for them, that problem is gone and they're just opening themselves to lawsuit with such a type of oppression to unlimited data plan users.
But seriously, why not just end unlimited data plans. Is it so hard to do good marketing without providing honesty to the type of service you CAN provide?
Of course they won't do this: the real ISP-side problem is not struggling with their own infrastructure capacity - it's disliking the client taking fair advantage of their unlimited plans without some sort of (unfair) financial compensation. They can't charge the end-user like they can a company for professional-type services, but they want to give that power-use sense with the wording of "unlimited". It's really 2-folded choice for ISPs: either drop the "unlimited" plans and force high-demand users to pay on a per-use basis, or lose a lot of customers because they won't subscribe to a product which they feel is data capped. But I feel they'd rather just lose battles in court out of losing that marketing advantage LYING brings about.
So, let me get this straight - an ISP is gonna selectively cut off clients' data plans based on their abuse of: 1. a data cap that from an "unlimited" that is not unlimited, since the user signed a contract that had some sort of fair use policy allowing redefinition of the word "unlimited" by the ISP,for marketing purposes; and 2. Did I read that right about them targeting torrent and p2p users first? Didn't the US just pass a net neutrality law? Isn't protocol-specific "accusing" a type of discrimination punished by law when it concerns American citizens, because it would automatically assume the content these users were trading was illegal without a serious base for such accusation?
I mean, seriously. Who gave these corporate douches the power to decide how their service is to be used. It's about time all service providers understand that a user has a right to privacy that goes well beyond his right to sniff on the user's content.
That's gonna need the help of another South African, you know, the one who makes the batteries that can store the electricity so it can be used in and by moving objects? Model T coming up in 5... 4...
There is a very specific reason that you can't find any decent sugestion on these comments getting 5+. To put it simply, there's no silver bullet.
(for brevity I'll summarize my sugestion here, just combine the following: Control the PC with Remote Desktop for Android; Stream Audio+Video with Microsoft Wireless Display Adapter or a cheap Miracast Dongle; Have a PC that enables flawless screen casting over wifi, preferably using Intel WIDI on Win8+ and an Intel GPU; Have some very good domestic WIFI network; Forget long cables exist: they won't give you control over the PC, they are more expensive than a good enough router and they are cumbersome when you don't need their lenght anymore)
Everyone has very specific needs (marked with * are yours):
- some already have a gigantic library, so they need fast/reliable access to it wherever it is (also varies)
- most (of the afforementioned) formats are picky: lossless/lossy/weird audio formats and won't play everywhere nicely
-...and they may also need subtitle support
- some just want to stream popcorntime (or youtube, or hulu, or [insert your brand of constantly updated content])
- others just want to cast their PC screen *
- then they realize they also want to control it from afar...*
But then, everyone has very specific, sometimes catch-all habits:
- some want to use the thing everyday, so they want swift performance, intuitive UI control and quick pinpoint of programing, even some form of "zapping"
- some watch sporadically and can take the hit on performance, usability, and even availability
- some want to use it once a year, but they want it to be flawless that once
Everyone has a certain flavour of a crucial part of the "system":
- no decent internet uplink from the ISP
- no decent WIFI for streaming HD content (remote or local)
- no chance to wire the place around for solving previous issue
- Linux, Mac, Windows, Android, HDMI (and its versions), DVI (and its versions), DisplayPort (you knwo how it goes), D-SUB..... USB (...Micro; Type-C lel)...
And then there's the real nitpicky shyte: low power usage, low noise, below 50$, must use https/proxy/VPN yada yada. Seriously I think there isn't two people in the world that, whatever solution they attempt, both of them will never be completely happy with that solution. But there's certainly one for your needs and I have a sugestion that just might be it:
Since you want video, audio, and control over two separate floors, you surely need to use that WIFI network. No way around it: and HDMI cable won't totally control your PC from afar. So you want at the very least 802.11n everywhere (router, tv-side, pc-side, smartphone-side). If you are thinking of streaming to pc from the interwebs, you might even need either wired connection router->PC, or alternatively dual band "ab" stuff so local throughput doesn't get chopped by the big mesh dynamics going on. Since we got the "medium" out of the way, now we need your "control device". Three words: Android Remote Mouse (google it). Now the most important part: how to get your display+audio out of that PC and into that HDMI? Unfortunately there's only one decent choice in my humble opinion (it has many names though...) Miracast/Widi/screencasting. And that narrows your choices a lot: PC side you need an intel CPU and Windows 8+ as they are the (to my knowledge) the most viable way to share desktops SEAMLESSLY; TV side, I will say you want a Microsoft Wireless Display Adapter or any decent Miracast dongle that suits your pocket. People say chromecast will also allow it but I wouldn't trust 2yo product on a constantly feature-changing (sometimes without warning) software platform.
Apparently it's only "your email replaced by a link to the content". Somebody really knows how to pimp up a news article so it reaches front page huh.
I found this from the reviews on the chrome extension site as I didn't bother installing it, WHICH IS STILL MORE THAN THE ARTICLE AUTHOR MANAGED TO DO.
How come this has been written like there's someone stealing from somebody else? I'll try and be crystal clear about something advertisers and their supporters fail to grasp every single time it matters: ADS STEAL PEOPLE'S VALUABLE TIME IN EXCHANGE FOR THINGS THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED, but ultimately aren't because of your models. Nobody that is an honest-to-goodness COMMON USER reads ad-based use policies, and most of them would rather NOT have ads, but abides to them anyway, because well, it's either pay up for that non-free version or live in the stone age. There are successful business models that do not rely on paid apps OR ad-based revenue. Paid models I can just ignore their existence, as I don't pay for things "lightly". Ad models are outright forced on everyone. Whoever keeps forcing them to users is, to me, the real thief and worse, a progress-encumbering entity, as there is nothing good from a ad-cluttered UI, usage of my data plan for you timely needs or even my phone electricity for displaying such aberrations. Somebody who makes money by trolling who is already trolling my attention, carrot on a stick-like, really deserves some sort of award. As a mobile software developer, I congratulate you, unsung warriors of this capitalist world that has lost it's sense of meritocracy.
I'm not American, but this sounds like a quote from one of your most relevant presidents (which I hear a lot in your movies) that goes like this:
government of the people, by the people, for the people
The real problem is current governments wants everyone to believe everything they do is eccentric and not egocentric. Like: "hey we gon' take this info so u can be protected from yo'self man. Trust"
I mean the Patriot Act obviously. But some notes on the 4th:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
I highly doubt any part of the 4th was written taking into account the characteristics of digital data. Even "effects" is not enough a concept to include the complex digital data concept. Some data has no effect at all. Some data is test data. Some data is not even created by the user. NO DATA CAN BE PROVEN TO BE CREATED BY THE USER, only its PC, account, IP Address, etc. It would be much like adding "...effects... and thoughts" to the original list. Big no-no.
supported by oath or affirmation
Maybe it would be nice to also note that, in this particular case, the defendants are only informed of such warrants when enough evidence has been gathered to solidify all prosecution vectors possible, even if such vectors were deduced from information obtained by the aforementioned, non-disclosed-to-defendant-thus-incontestable warrant. Seems like some pretty heavy abuse of power to me. Or is the state supposed to use loopholes to spy on its own citizens?
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
These warrants are obviously generic. They can't "particularly describe" anything besides what they are supposed to see in publicly available information. Unless the government has access to the private keys of root certificate authorities and KNOWS BEFOREHAND what is going on in the private communication between client computers and Facebook servers. Oh wait, THEY DO...
And even knowing it beforehand, they fail to describe such "things" with the minimum detail in these warrants... They are so admittedly sloppy with these investigations, they prefer to keep them generic - just like a bad detective with an ego the size of the moon likes them.
You reap what you sow, they say. The real problem was the conjuncture alignment that induced public interest letting pass such laws, and the lack of action, after its consequences are visible. I believe most tech companies are simply protecting their users to the best of their ability by attempting to stall such warrants. It's the only thing they can do, they can't be expected to win legal battles against solid, yet nonsensical legislation put in place that gives omnipotence for state supervision of private data. I can't even blame judges for this: a decent state lawyer only needs know the legislation which umbrellas the warrant, and provide proof all was done within its procedures.
Slashdot Mirror
Man you are so right I won't even read the second paragraph before do this approval post. Right on.
As I said, during the silly season...
If I lived in world without a Human Rights Declaration, I would have xenophobia as a permanent "what if" consideration for all my life's decisions. Good thing I live in moderately tolerant Europe where xenophobia only makes waves during the silly season.
So if I take a motherboard inside a box to my school for a science project, you are saying everyone should insta-suspect I am carrying a bomb, even though I'm a pure-bred caucasian and my name is John Smith? In the school's defense, there's only one thing you can say: 'MURICA. When you live in the US and your name is Ahmed Mohamed, you have better chances of not being mistaken by a terrorist if you changed your name to Nero Bombmaker.
Linux might not run iTunes. But it boots and runs just fine with an iSheep between chair and computer. Profit.
Linux is nothing without the self-entitled "last true closs-platform cross-gen AAA" game. Especially when it's that good.
Seriously, this game has a Steam (cardboard) Box inside yet it won't run on a real Steambox with SteamOS. What gives?
Is this real life?
Only it doesn't. I'm a long time Sharepoint user, and I can tell you, if it's anything close to that, might as well stick to Open/LibreOffice compatibility-wise (and it still sucks balls), or Google docs collaborative-wise (and you will still have the finnishing overhead when the collaborative part ends and you need it printed/PDF'd and you want to add that camera-ready Word look, those fancy Excel formulas and dynamic pie charts, or present in that old amphitheater computer that only supports _true_ ppt formatting). If they can do it for MacOS, they can do it for Linux. They just don't see the (commercial) point, so it won't happen. Office 365 is nothing more than a desperate shout which can faintly be discerned as "we are still here, doing our best for you to go back to that Windows version of Office, even though you moved 50% your dayjob routine to Unix-like using portable platforms such as Android and iOS".
That is a very good point comparing with the triple-play VLANs. But there is a crucial difference: ISPs separate traffic directly on their hardware (through user-unmodifiable software on the router and effective changes in the uplink). I know of multiple counts of infant triple-play services provided by ISPs where they have to give a jolt to the TV-IP bandwidth, because the user complains of bad service, probably caused by his heavy internet usage pattern conflicting with his TV QoS. What I don't hear about is people getting restricted internet or extra rates because of such changes. This is one crucial point. The other is that with Mobile Data we are talking about a user having his own device (i.e. not a router provided free or at lease by the mobile company) controlled to suit ISP's needs. If they want to do that, they might as well provide me a free/leased phone under a very strict use policy that includes such meddling.
Pretty simple questions: why does an ISP need to know the way I use my internet traffic? More importantly, why and how are there means to know the difference between tethered and non-tethered data? Does my tethering device usage comes with a specific end-user agreement clause enabling data carriers to snoop the loops the data goes through on my device's end? Or the quintessential question: what is phone traffic and "not tethered" traffic? Because that is not clear at the very least. Put simply, the data provider only provides an uplink to the internet. My local LAN and/or WI-FI was never meant to be their business.
If this works, and Thom Yorke gets cured, all them RH hipsters are gonna miss that semi-closed stare he gives out on concerts. Bummer.
Really nice to hear from your experience mate, you seem like the type of guy I'd want to invest in my company (if I had one) :P
I see your point clearly, and I'm glad you didn't take my "you have a blindfold yourself" offensively because I was out of line there, it's more than most people would do and for that I am sorry for it.
I just want to stress that there are some things that can be laid out to you very clearly, be at whatever font size or weight they decide on their leaflets and banners, yet they're still not right even after people abide to them. People are differently influenced by marketing, oftentimes in ways that are illegal but they get away with little more than a raised eyebrow by the state, because, well, that's capitalism for you. Some levels of this influence cannot be accepted by society (such as this one) because they are pure marketeer speak and disconnected from reality (read: lies). It's like Light cigarette brands - they provide a false sense of security - light cigarettes are no safer (maybe even worse) than normal ones. Likewise you can't advertise free internet if it's not free: you can't say you provide an Internet service as unrestricted at all, if it comes with strings attached like data discrimination (e.g. P2P or media streaming throttle). At least not without a very solid, constitutionally-based argument, and net neutrality came to make a clear statement of that necessity, especially when you're not supposed to be monitoring the amount and content of that service because it infringes on my right for free speech and privacy. If you have an unlimited product you supply at flat rate, and you should not be snooping on the ways I use it (because it's illegal), you have to supply it to infinity whilst the rate is paid and you don't end that type of contract, or else you're admitting you're committing a crime.
Let me give you a very good example on that: on Steam (and similar services), your account can be suspended if they unilaterally decide you have infringed their EULA. In some cases, this might even lead to total loss of your purchased games, i.e. your digital property. Steam aggregates, with each client that abides to their user agreement, a power that is commonly only available to the legislative and executive branches of the state: the power to seize property. And you know how they do it? They force you to consent to data pretty much unlimited data snooping on your PC, and nobody, not even the government, will give a flying one about such invasion of privacy. It's outrageous how this can happen when the user can't even file a complaint out of total lack of cooperation Steam-side in the event of the aforementioned suspension not having grounds in the first place. That is the kind of world you live in: one where you can place your ownership right in the hands of oppressive organizations that act solely in their financial interest.
And yes, I also believe this policy should be applied to any vehicle gas supply or fast-food menu beverage, especially because those are, like cigarettes, two very important aspects where society has to improve consumption because they are scientifically proven bad for society (fossil fuel polutes and is limited, fast food is not good for your health, any cigarette that is not electronic is also very dangerous: these are facts there is scientific consensus about), and this means that such esoteric marketing has even more compelling to be stopped. Call me conspiracy-theorist all you like, but I still stand by my opinion on this, even if I sometimes I'm hypocrite on those subjects.
In the topic at hand, which is something that can't be directly associated with a bad practice (for whatever it may concern, I might be using traffic for SETI or any other good-willed reason, because my data is supposed to be private), I even more strongly believe there can't be this type of psychological oppression by companies. The internet is something that we all need, some more than others, and if you really want to market it as free and unlimited, you might as well argue your're throttling data or not providing it unlimited because it is affecting other clients. No other argument really matters for that.
Keep them longer. I forecast that TSLA will explode by 2018-2020 with the release of their 50k USD car, when they decide to apply all their know-how in a seriously mass-marketed vehicle. Not to mention their manufacturing process only has a tendency to improve with the gigafactory, with dedicated battery production, and the fact they will expand to the home appliances field with the solar/renewable power storage they announced last year. Somebody with TSLA stock should hang on to it like it's a winning lottery ticket.
So you're telling me that there's this device (for all intents and purposes, I call it a mobile computer, because essentially it's nothing more), which has 2 network cards - 1 for GSM/3G/4G/LTW/ETC and one for WLAN - and even though I have unlimited data to use on each (because WLAN, well, is free and unlimited), I still have to concern myself with the amount of data that passes on the wrings of my computer between both, using the electricity I pay for, because some douche thought "unlimited" only applied to specific use cases of using internet FOR my mobile computer and not for using it THROUGH it (i.e. he decided to limit the unlimited sense of my data plan)...
Sorry mate, but tethering is something I do for free. I extend my home WIFI using a form of "tethering", and my home modem also "tethers" internet to my router and nobody charges me for the "tethering" part or has anything to do with the legal ways I use it for. I don't pay for a "license to tether", I pay for an unlimited _data_ plan. If somebody says my unlimited data plan has tethering restricted, it's pretty much the same that saying my unlimited data plan can only be used if I use it on a 386 machine, or that I can only use it for certain hours of the day, or that I must use my mobile computer with a blindfold for the unlimited part to kick in. Can you see the point I'm making? Because if you can't, I'm sorry but you have a blindfold yourself placed on you by corporate interests.
...obviously, more power. If I suddenly had a surplus on disposable income, I would immediately invest in Tesla stock. There is no such thing in this world I am more certain of its growth than TSLA. I had this hunch about 2 years ago, I just didn't have the money. My investment would have doubled and I wouldn't sell the stock unless I was in life or death necessity of it right now. Other than taht, I'd do the usual stuff: buy an island, a jet, and people to do my current job so I could brag I kept my previous life intact to journalists but I "gained incentive" to do what I really want to do. Then I'd probably lose it all in some years out of my total inability to manage the moneee.
You're right. And the fact it got so much attention lately should have been warning enough for ISPs not to keep basing their "strategies" around it (and by "around it" I mean circumventing net neutrality rules). And the reason it came so late was actually nobody noticing and/or ISPs not providing insight to just how much sniffing is going on. If it wasn't for mobile data cap issues and Netflix complaint we could very well still have that problem today, but unfortunately for them, that problem is gone and they're just opening themselves to lawsuit with such a type of oppression to unlimited data plan users.
But seriously, why not just end unlimited data plans. Is it so hard to do good marketing without providing honesty to the type of service you CAN provide?
Of course they won't do this: the real ISP-side problem is not struggling with their own infrastructure capacity - it's disliking the client taking fair advantage of their unlimited plans without some sort of (unfair) financial compensation. They can't charge the end-user like they can a company for professional-type services, but they want to give that power-use sense with the wording of "unlimited". It's really 2-folded choice for ISPs: either drop the "unlimited" plans and force high-demand users to pay on a per-use basis, or lose a lot of customers because they won't subscribe to a product which they feel is data capped. But I feel they'd rather just lose battles in court out of losing that marketing advantage LYING brings about.
So, let me get this straight - an ISP is gonna selectively cut off clients' data plans based on their abuse of: 1. a data cap that from an "unlimited" that is not unlimited, since the user signed a contract that had some sort of fair use policy allowing redefinition of the word "unlimited" by the ISP,for marketing purposes; and 2. Did I read that right about them targeting torrent and p2p users first? Didn't the US just pass a net neutrality law? Isn't protocol-specific "accusing" a type of discrimination punished by law when it concerns American citizens, because it would automatically assume the content these users were trading was illegal without a serious base for such accusation? I mean, seriously. Who gave these corporate douches the power to decide how their service is to be used. It's about time all service providers understand that a user has a right to privacy that goes well beyond his right to sniff on the user's content.
...the definition of "something's fishy".
That's gonna need the help of another South African, you know, the one who makes the batteries that can store the electricity so it can be used in and by moving objects? Model T coming up in 5... 4...
There is a very specific reason that you can't find any decent sugestion on these comments getting 5+. To put it simply, there's no silver bullet.
(for brevity I'll summarize my sugestion here, just combine the following: Control the PC with Remote Desktop for Android; Stream Audio+Video with Microsoft Wireless Display Adapter or a cheap Miracast Dongle; Have a PC that enables flawless screen casting over wifi, preferably using Intel WIDI on Win8+ and an Intel GPU; Have some very good domestic WIFI network; Forget long cables exist: they won't give you control over the PC, they are more expensive than a good enough router and they are cumbersome when you don't need their lenght anymore)
Everyone has very specific needs (marked with * are yours): ...and they may also need subtitle support
- some already have a gigantic library, so they need fast/reliable access to it wherever it is (also varies)
- most (of the afforementioned) formats are picky: lossless/lossy/weird audio formats and won't play everywhere nicely
-
- some just want to stream popcorntime (or youtube, or hulu, or [insert your brand of constantly updated content])
- others just want to cast their PC screen *
- then they realize they also want to control it from afar...*
But then, everyone has very specific, sometimes catch-all habits:
- some want to use the thing everyday, so they want swift performance, intuitive UI control and quick pinpoint of programing, even some form of "zapping"
- some watch sporadically and can take the hit on performance, usability, and even availability
- some want to use it once a year, but they want it to be flawless that once
Everyone has a certain flavour of a crucial part of the "system":
- no decent internet uplink from the ISP
- no decent WIFI for streaming HD content (remote or local)
- no chance to wire the place around for solving previous issue
- Linux, Mac, Windows, Android, HDMI (and its versions), DVI (and its versions), DisplayPort (you knwo how it goes), D-SUB..... USB (...Micro; Type-C lel)...
And then there's the real nitpicky shyte: low power usage, low noise, below 50$, must use https/proxy/VPN yada yada. Seriously I think there isn't two people in the world that, whatever solution they attempt, both of them will never be completely happy with that solution. But there's certainly one for your needs and I have a sugestion that just might be it:
Since you want video, audio, and control over two separate floors, you surely need to use that WIFI network. No way around it: and HDMI cable won't totally control your PC from afar. So you want at the very least 802.11n everywhere (router, tv-side, pc-side, smartphone-side). If you are thinking of streaming to pc from the interwebs, you might even need either wired connection router->PC, or alternatively dual band "ab" stuff so local throughput doesn't get chopped by the big mesh dynamics going on. Since we got the "medium" out of the way, now we need your "control device". Three words: Android Remote Mouse (google it). Now the most important part: how to get your display+audio out of that PC and into that HDMI? Unfortunately there's only one decent choice in my humble opinion (it has many names though...) Miracast/Widi/screencasting. And that narrows your choices a lot: PC side you need an intel CPU and Windows 8+ as they are the (to my knowledge) the most viable way to share desktops SEAMLESSLY; TV side, I will say you want a Microsoft Wireless Display Adapter or any decent Miracast dongle that suits your pocket. People say chromecast will also allow it but I wouldn't trust 2yo product on a constantly feature-changing (sometimes without warning) software platform.
I found this from the reviews on the chrome extension site as I didn't bother installing it, WHICH IS STILL MORE THAN THE ARTICLE AUTHOR MANAGED TO DO.
How come this has been written like there's someone stealing from somebody else? I'll try and be crystal clear about something advertisers and their supporters fail to grasp every single time it matters: ADS STEAL PEOPLE'S VALUABLE TIME IN EXCHANGE FOR THINGS THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED, but ultimately aren't because of your models. Nobody that is an honest-to-goodness COMMON USER reads ad-based use policies, and most of them would rather NOT have ads, but abides to them anyway, because well, it's either pay up for that non-free version or live in the stone age. There are successful business models that do not rely on paid apps OR ad-based revenue. Paid models I can just ignore their existence, as I don't pay for things "lightly". Ad models are outright forced on everyone. Whoever keeps forcing them to users is, to me, the real thief and worse, a progress-encumbering entity, as there is nothing good from a ad-cluttered UI, usage of my data plan for you timely needs or even my phone electricity for displaying such aberrations. Somebody who makes money by trolling who is already trolling my attention, carrot on a stick-like, really deserves some sort of award. As a mobile software developer, I congratulate you, unsung warriors of this capitalist world that has lost it's sense of meritocracy.
government of the people, by the people, for the people
The real problem is current governments wants everyone to believe everything they do is eccentric and not egocentric. Like: "hey we gon' take this info so u can be protected from yo'self man. Trust"
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
I highly doubt any part of the 4th was written taking into account the characteristics of digital data. Even "effects" is not enough a concept to include the complex digital data concept. Some data has no effect at all. Some data is test data. Some data is not even created by the user. NO DATA CAN BE PROVEN TO BE CREATED BY THE USER, only its PC, account, IP Address, etc. It would be much like adding "...effects... and thoughts" to the original list. Big no-no.
supported by oath or affirmation
Maybe it would be nice to also note that, in this particular case, the defendants are only informed of such warrants when enough evidence has been gathered to solidify all prosecution vectors possible, even if such vectors were deduced from information obtained by the aforementioned, non-disclosed-to-defendant-thus-incontestable warrant. Seems like some pretty heavy abuse of power to me. Or is the state supposed to use loopholes to spy on its own citizens?
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
These warrants are obviously generic. They can't "particularly describe" anything besides what they are supposed to see in publicly available information. Unless the government has access to the private keys of root certificate authorities and KNOWS BEFOREHAND what is going on in the private communication between client computers and Facebook servers. Oh wait, THEY DO... And even knowing it beforehand, they fail to describe such "things" with the minimum detail in these warrants... They are so admittedly sloppy with these investigations, they prefer to keep them generic - just like a bad detective with an ego the size of the moon likes them.
You reap what you sow, they say. The real problem was the conjuncture alignment that induced public interest letting pass such laws, and the lack of action, after its consequences are visible. I believe most tech companies are simply protecting their users to the best of their ability by attempting to stall such warrants. It's the only thing they can do, they can't be expected to win legal battles against solid, yet nonsensical legislation put in place that gives omnipotence for state supervision of private data. I can't even blame judges for this: a decent state lawyer only needs know the legislation which umbrellas the warrant, and provide proof all was done within its procedures.