But it is not only that, you are also rejecting His existance. Otherwise, you would worship Him at least out of fear if not out of awe.
There is no proof "He" exists. Even if there were I would no more worship "Him" or be in awe of "Him" or be fearful of "Him" than I would my own parents who are also my Creators. While I respect my parents I do not worship them or fear them. Fear is the reaction of the ignorant.
A parent who creates a child and tortures the child deserves no respect no matter what the child has done. The parent should correct the child. A Creator who casts any of His creations into "eternal hellfire" deserves the same lack of respect.
No, I am making no assumptions at all and relying on pure logic. I see that you are a person who has no use for logic. Keep believing in your imaginary friend like a child. When you are ready to join us in the 21st century let us know.
Look, "if" (just for the sake of the argument) you are right about death from your agnostic point of view, and I am wrong, I lose nothing. If I am right, then you are doomed for eternal fire. Rationalize that.
1. An all powerful Creator has no need for worshipers as He is all powerful. 2. If an all powerful Creator wanted worshipers and decided to create them they would be perfect beings who would worship him without question. 3. No person on earth is perfect and not everyone believes in one faith.
This being said there are only three possibilities about the motive of the Creator: 1. We were created for a purpose other than worshiping the Creator. 2. There is no Creator. 3. The Creator is not all powerful.
I do not profess to have all the answers but I do know that given the facts about humanity today worshiping a Creator is a waste of time. If there is a Creator he didn't make us for that purpose or he is not all powerful and therefore has no say about our afterlife.
(*) it is not only my viewpoint, for such country to exist it needs to be a point at least of majority of the population of that country
I don't care what you believe, no two people are ever going to believe in exactly the same things.
(*) historically, minorities in Muslim countries had much more political freedoms than any minority has now in a Western country. In Khalifats of previous times, Jewish and Christian communities exercised their own laws on the members of their communities.
Not true, Canada for example allows native peoples on reserves and the Inuit of the extreme north to have self governance on their lands. This frame of mind that you have however lets you completely miss the point of democracy. Whereas you wish every little community to have their own laws and self governance simply because they purport to be of a certain faith democracy brings everyone together, with no regard to religion, to make laws of the land for everyone.
It seems to me that Muslims are a very divisive people. They think in terms of "us" and "them" instead of "all". It's a very selfish mindset to have and instead of dividing everyone against each other perhaps Muslims can grow up and join us here in the 21st century and get involved with the rest of civilization.
No, it sounds like "That's one small step fer man". It is noisy, but you hear the noise as clicks, and nothing else mysteriously was cut out but this supposed "a".
Well I must confess that I was probably being facetious because I was annoyed at his question. I was annoyed that (a) he was counseling young people when his own view of copyright law is basically fictional, (b) he's counseling them on issues that even experienced copyright lawyers don't know the answer to, because the law is unsettled, and (c) he's going around spreading false ideas that will just get people into more trouble. So I apologize. I should have been more respectful.
It seems to me you were not annoyed at his question but you were annoyed at him.
You malign the public "dis"ing lawyers yet you do nothing to help your cause. This is one of the reasons why lawyers are reviled, they care little about the facts and concentrate more on the people. Discredit the person and their words mean nothing.
Perhaps next time you can stop worrying about being usurped professionally by J. Random User and maybe answer questions that you were asked to answer.
I normally don't reply to ACs but this one has a point I would like to address:
You realize this is some corporate new-speak talk... "Experience Vender".
It may be but it is also the truth. Anyone can sell you a cheap computer that comes with Windows. Most applications and games work on Windows. So why would anyone not want to pay the least amount of money and get the most compatibility? The experience.
This is by no means limited to Apple, certainly Linux has it's own experience but Linux vendors are not marketing it, they are marketing the software and it's features. The same with Microsoft, they market the features of Windows and Office.
Apple however markets the total package. They sell you the whole thing. They don't just sell you the software or the hardware, they design both to work together and package it all up so that you can walk into a huge glass cube on Fifth Avenue, ride down a crystal elevator and pick up your shiney Mac box with a little tote handle on it.
Sun is a Solutions Vendor. Apple is an Experience Vendor.
Really? The original XBox has a 733mhz P3 processor, 64MB of RAM and an NV2X (GF3) Nvidia GPU. It can also output in HD resolutions up to 1920x1080 with a sustainable framerate. When was the last time you saw a PC of similar specifications do that?
The problem for the most part is overhead. If game developers coded directly for the PC hardware they could do these amazing things. The problem is PC hardware is quite diverse so what hardware do you code for? Abstraction is a double edged sword: you gain compatibility but lose efficiancy.
why Apple, won't you let me run your OS on other Intel hardware?
My own answer to this would be that it's because they're a gnat's pube away from becoming a software company, and they're holding on to their bespoke hardware business for dear life.
Nope, let me clear it up for you:
Apple is not a software vendor, Apple is also not a hardware vendor. Apple is an experience vendor.
To get you the "Macintosh Experience" for which you're paying the big bucks they need tight control and integration between the hardware and the software. The reason why MacOS X is able to give a better useability experience is because Apple knows exactly what hardware it'll be running on unlike Microsoft does with Windows.
With a PC there are thousands upon thousands of motherboards, CPUs, hard drives, video cards, sound cards, network cards, etc, etc, etc. The combinations are endless and people expect Windows to not only work, but work well, on every single combination.
I would be surprised if the number of macintosh computers that are currently supported in Tiger reached beyond double digits but even if it did it is still a lot smaller than infinity. Because Apple knows exactly what hardware the OS will be running on they can take full advantage of it whereas on the PC side of things you still have for example: 64bit CPUs running 32bit OS's and the latest version of Windows not even supporting SATA, a 3+ year old technology, out of the box.
Think consoles: PS2, XBox, GameCube, etc. They are severly underpowered if you compare them to a PC, yet they can push out graphics rivaling them, why? Because the developers know exactly what hardware they are coding for and can take full advantage of it.
That is why Apple prevents OS X from running on just any beige box. It wasn't designed to, so if they allowed it people would try it, it would crash, not work right and people would say that MacOS X sucked.
That's not really the point though. My point was that no-matter who runs which bits of DNS, somehow it has to get paid for. If your DNS entry is cached all around the world then you're relying on those caching servers for the response time of your system. If your site has a massive volume of traffic, surely it makes sense to charge more for that.
Cached all around the world at end users ISPs, who already get paid by the end users to get access to these high volume sites.
Your point of billing is with the registrar, so that's where you pay.
The problem is that because of the nature of DNS caching these high volume sites put less strain on the root servers than a lot of low volume ones. Does ICANN pay to maintain the root servers anyways? I'm thinking no at this point. So why do they need the extra money at all? This is nothing but government sanctioned extortion: "Pay us more money for your highly profitable sites domain name or we'll take it away!"
Disclaimer: I work for Verisign
It shows. When was the last time you heard about a registrar going bankrupt? When was the last round of layoffs at Verisign? Why do these fat cats need more money for nothing?
Those sabre tooth tigers are always going to be eating us so its time we just face facts.
Straw man.
Striving for a world where humans aren't aggressive is like striving for a world where people have three eyes. Even the most pacifist, calm, level headed individual will still fight for what he believes.
The simple act of striving for world peace is hypocritical. You're essentially fighting to end fighting.
When you stop striving is when you stop evolving.
Agreed. Evolution is the epitome of conflict and therefore you cannot evolve without it. It makes more sense to accept the things you cannot change and put effort in to those you can.
I don't believe he said war, I believe he said conflict. That being said:
Simply because humans are predisposed to violence (which is still under debate by our brainy science dudes) does not imply that we should not strive for a world without war.
If you believe for an instant that millions of years of predatory survival competition with other species, during which evolution has allowed the strongest genetics to survive, hasn't coded violence into our species then I have a bridge in New York for sale.
I believe it is a fallacy to try and strive for a world without war, however we should control it better to prevent unnecessary loss of life and resources.
There are many users who would not purchase a Mac computer but who would purchase OS X to install on their PC. I do not understand at all why Apple is actually taking efforts to prevent Max OS from running on PCs. This is pathetically stupid and makes no sense.
Well then, let me clear it up for you.
Apple is not a software vendor, Apple is also not a hardware vendor. Apple is an experience vendor.
To get you the "Macintosh Experience" for which you're paying the big bucks they need tight control and integration between the hardware and the software. The reason why MacOS X is able to give a better useability experience is because Apple knows exactly what hardware it'll be running on unlike Microsoft does with Windows.
With a PC there are thousands upon thousands of motherboards, CPUs, hard drives, video cards, sound cards, network cards, etc, etc, etc. The combinations are endless and people expect Windows to not only work, but work well, on every single combination.
I would be surprised if the number of macintosh computers that are currently supported in Tiger reached beyond double digits but even if it did it is still a lot smaller than infinity. Because Apple knows exactly what hardware the OS will be running on they can take full advantage of it whereas on the PC side of things you still have for example: 64bit CPUs running 32bit OS's and the latest version of Windows not even supporting SATA, a 3+ year old technology, out of the box.
Think consoles: PS2, XBox, GameCube, etc. They are severly underpowered if you compare them to a PC, yet they can push out graphics rivaling them, why? Because the developers know exactly what hardware they are coding for and can take full advantage of it.
That is why Apple prevents OS X from running on just any beige box. It wasn't designed to, so if they allowed it people would try it, it would crash, not work right and people would say that MacOS X sucked.
I to am waiting for the Mac Pro (Apple is dropping the Power name). I do own a PowerPC Mac Mini which was the only Macintosh computer I have purchased around this time last year but it's going to my mother once the Mac Pro comes out.
You'll love MacOS X and the Mac Pro computers are going to be godlike beasts from the musings I read off of the rumors sites.
Sure but the sun doesn't set at the pleasure of the OSS community. If they want to lock their software out of DRM-based hardware, that's their choice.
When it comes to software created by the OSS community the sun does set at our pleasure, which is the only software the GPLv3 is going to cover. If they want to lock their software using DRM based hardware they can use THEIR OWN software and not ours.
There are several problems with that, firstly is of course one of scale. Black people were the only group enslaved in a quasi industrial manner, pretty much indistinguishible from dealing with animals. That did not happen to the few white people that may have been slaved through history.
Right, like the million european white christians enslaved by muslims in northern africa between the 16th and 18th centuries? Where are my reparations for that?
Please, get over it. Shit happened in the past, it's not happening now. You are not entitled to jack shit because none of this actually happened to you.
This is not a comparative description. For each copy of the movie these companies sell, they buy one from Hollywood. Thus, if they sell 1984 copies of Gladiator with the naughty bits omitted, then they buy 1984 copies from the movie production company first. Thus, it can be said they are only reselling the copy of the book that they themselves purchased and from which they ripped out naughty pages.
But they aren't. They buy one copy originally, make a "master" with the naughty bits removed, and copy that one, selling it, and for every copy of the master they make they buy one from Hollywood. They are not performing the edits on every single copy of the DVD they buy.
Not to burst your bubble, but I have worked as technical support for some of the biggest technology names in business and I have received the dreaded "well my power is out, does that have something to do with it?" call. I have also received the cup holder call, the "click start, you mean with my foot pedal?" call and the "but I hold this page up to my scanner, it looks like a TV screen, and it does nothing!" call. I can assure you I have spoken to the people directly over the telephone. I realize that it is hard to believe. Before getting in to the job I thought it was folklore and urban legend as well. Mind you these have only happened once each in half a decade but it does happen.
That was a direct quote from sympaticos user agreement, which states:
However, you agree that Your Service Provider reserves the right from time to time to monitor the Service electronically, monitor or investigate Content or your use of Your Service Provider's networks, including, without limitation, bandwidth consumption, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy any laws, regulations or other governmental request from any applicable jurisdiction, or as necessary to operate the Service or to protect itself or others.
Notice it uses the term "You Service Provider" in capitals. It is common in legal contracts to define terms at the beginning of the document and make reference to them throughout the document if the terms need to be condensed. In this case the user agreement states:
1. General. The Sympatico(TM) High Speed Unplugged service (the "Unplugged Service") is a broadband wireless Internet service further described in Section 6 below, provided by Bell Canada (and/or its affiliates, agents and suppliers) in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Aliant Telecom Inc. (and/or its affiliates, agents and suppliers) in New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and Northwestel Inc. (and/or its affiliates, agents and suppliers) in the Yukon (each of Bell Canada, Aliant Telecom Inc. and Northwestel Inc. are referred to herein, as applicable, as "Your Service Provider").
So as you can see, they define "Your Service Provider" as Bell Canada, Aliant Telecom, Northwestel or any of it's agents, etc.
The article doesn't quote what the user agreement defines "Your Service Provider" to be, so it may look like it means any service provider that uses Bellnexxia, but that is incorrect. For Bell to start monitoring Bellnexxia traffic it would be a monumental headache and ultimately worthless as Bell themselves would have no information on individual users, only their ISP would.
This is only half true. Most DSL providers use Bellnexxia lines to connect their network to local DSLAMs however this is not Sympatico. Sympatico is Bells own DSL internet provider. There is no way that a Sympatico ToS would affect anyone but Sympatico subscribers and the article also does not mention anything about Bellnexxia monitoring ISPs.
Slashdot Mirror
But it is not only that, you are also rejecting His existance. Otherwise, you would worship Him at least out of fear if not out of awe.
There is no proof "He" exists. Even if there were I would no more worship "Him" or be in awe of "Him" or be fearful of "Him" than I would my own parents who are also my Creators. While I respect my parents I do not worship them or fear them. Fear is the reaction of the ignorant.
A parent who creates a child and tortures the child deserves no respect no matter what the child has done. The parent should correct the child. A Creator who casts any of His creations into "eternal hellfire" deserves the same lack of respect.
No, I am making no assumptions at all and relying on pure logic. I see that you are a person who has no use for logic. Keep believing in your imaginary friend like a child. When you are ready to join us in the 21st century let us know.
Trust me, I do not wish even my worst enemies to go to the Hellfire, such a horrible place it is.
I refuse to worship any "God" who would cast its own creations in to an eternity of suffering simply because it didn't worship "Him".
Look, "if" (just for the sake of the argument) you are right about death from your agnostic point of view, and I am wrong, I lose nothing. If I am right, then you are doomed for eternal fire. Rationalize that.
1. An all powerful Creator has no need for worshipers as He is all powerful.
2. If an all powerful Creator wanted worshipers and decided to create them they would be perfect beings who would worship him without question.
3. No person on earth is perfect and not everyone believes in one faith.
This being said there are only three possibilities about the motive of the Creator:
1. We were created for a purpose other than worshiping the Creator.
2. There is no Creator.
3. The Creator is not all powerful.
I do not profess to have all the answers but I do know that given the facts about humanity today worshiping a Creator is a waste of time. If there is a Creator he didn't make us for that purpose or he is not all powerful and therefore has no say about our afterlife.
(*) it is not only my viewpoint, for such country to exist it needs to be a point at least of majority of the population of that country
I don't care what you believe, no two people are ever going to believe in exactly the same things.
(*) historically, minorities in Muslim countries had much more political freedoms than any minority has now in a Western country. In Khalifats of previous times, Jewish and Christian communities exercised their own laws on the members of their communities.
Not true, Canada for example allows native peoples on reserves and the Inuit of the extreme north to have self governance on their lands. This frame of mind that you have however lets you completely miss the point of democracy. Whereas you wish every little community to have their own laws and self governance simply because they purport to be of a certain faith democracy brings everyone together, with no regard to religion, to make laws of the land for everyone.
It seems to me that Muslims are a very divisive people. They think in terms of "us" and "them" instead of "all". It's a very selfish mindset to have and instead of dividing everyone against each other perhaps Muslims can grow up and join us here in the 21st century and get involved with the rest of civilization.
No, it sounds like "That's one small step fer man". It is noisy, but you hear the noise as clicks, and nothing else mysteriously was cut out but this supposed "a".
Well I must confess that I was probably being facetious because I was annoyed at his question. I was annoyed that (a) he was counseling young people when his own view of copyright law is basically fictional, (b) he's counseling them on issues that even experienced copyright lawyers don't know the answer to, because the law is unsettled, and (c) he's going around spreading false ideas that will just get people into more trouble. So I apologize. I should have been more respectful.
It seems to me you were not annoyed at his question but you were annoyed at him.
You malign the public "dis"ing lawyers yet you do nothing to help your cause. This is one of the reasons why lawyers are reviled, they care little about the facts and concentrate more on the people. Discredit the person and their words mean nothing.
Perhaps next time you can stop worrying about being usurped professionally by J. Random User and maybe answer questions that you were asked to answer.
I normally don't reply to ACs but this one has a point I would like to address:
You realize this is some corporate new-speak talk... "Experience Vender".
It may be but it is also the truth. Anyone can sell you a cheap computer that comes with Windows. Most applications and games work on Windows. So why would anyone not want to pay the least amount of money and get the most compatibility? The experience.
This is by no means limited to Apple, certainly Linux has it's own experience but Linux vendors are not marketing it, they are marketing the software and it's features. The same with Microsoft, they market the features of Windows and Office.
Apple however markets the total package. They sell you the whole thing. They don't just sell you the software or the hardware, they design both to work together and package it all up so that you can walk into a huge glass cube on Fifth Avenue, ride down a crystal elevator and pick up your shiney Mac box with a little tote handle on it.
Sun is a Solutions Vendor. Apple is an Experience Vendor.
No... they can't.
Really? The original XBox has a 733mhz P3 processor, 64MB of RAM and an NV2X (GF3) Nvidia GPU. It can also output in HD resolutions up to 1920x1080 with a sustainable framerate. When was the last time you saw a PC of similar specifications do that?
The problem for the most part is overhead. If game developers coded directly for the PC hardware they could do these amazing things. The problem is PC hardware is quite diverse so what hardware do you code for? Abstraction is a double edged sword: you gain compatibility but lose efficiancy.
why Apple, won't you let me run your OS on other Intel hardware?
My own answer to this would be that it's because they're a gnat's pube away from becoming a software company, and they're holding on to their bespoke hardware business for dear life.
Nope, let me clear it up for you:
Apple is not a software vendor, Apple is also not a hardware vendor. Apple is an experience vendor.
To get you the "Macintosh Experience" for which you're paying the big bucks they need tight control and integration between the hardware and the software. The reason why MacOS X is able to give a better useability experience is because Apple knows exactly what hardware it'll be running on unlike Microsoft does with Windows.
With a PC there are thousands upon thousands of motherboards, CPUs, hard drives, video cards, sound cards, network cards, etc, etc, etc. The combinations are endless and people expect Windows to not only work, but work well, on every single combination.
I would be surprised if the number of macintosh computers that are currently supported in Tiger reached beyond double digits but even if it did it is still a lot smaller than infinity. Because Apple knows exactly what hardware the OS will be running on they can take full advantage of it whereas on the PC side of things you still have for example: 64bit CPUs running 32bit OS's and the latest version of Windows not even supporting SATA, a 3+ year old technology, out of the box.
Think consoles: PS2, XBox, GameCube, etc. They are severly underpowered if you compare them to a PC, yet they can push out graphics rivaling them, why? Because the developers know exactly what hardware they are coding for and can take full advantage of it.
That is why Apple prevents OS X from running on just any beige box. It wasn't designed to, so if they allowed it people would try it, it would crash, not work right and people would say that MacOS X sucked.
That's not really the point though. My point was that no-matter who runs which bits of DNS, somehow it has to get paid for. If your DNS entry is cached all around the world then you're relying on those caching servers for the response time of your system. If your site has a massive volume of traffic, surely it makes sense to charge more for that.
Cached all around the world at end users ISPs, who already get paid by the end users to get access to these high volume sites.
Your point of billing is with the registrar, so that's where you pay.
The problem is that because of the nature of DNS caching these high volume sites put less strain on the root servers than a lot of low volume ones. Does ICANN pay to maintain the root servers anyways? I'm thinking no at this point. So why do they need the extra money at all? This is nothing but government sanctioned extortion: "Pay us more money for your highly profitable sites domain name or we'll take it away!"
Disclaimer: I work for Verisign
It shows. When was the last time you heard about a registrar going bankrupt? When was the last round of layoffs at Verisign? Why do these fat cats need more money for nothing?
Those sabre tooth tigers are always going to be eating us so its time we just face facts.
Straw man.
Striving for a world where humans aren't aggressive is like striving for a world where people have three eyes. Even the most pacifist, calm, level headed individual will still fight for what he believes.
The simple act of striving for world peace is hypocritical. You're essentially fighting to end fighting.
When you stop striving is when you stop evolving.
Agreed. Evolution is the epitome of conflict and therefore you cannot evolve without it. It makes more sense to accept the things you cannot change and put effort in to those you can.
I don't believe he said war, I believe he said conflict. That being said:
Simply because humans are predisposed to violence (which is still under debate by our brainy science dudes) does not imply that we should not strive for a world without war.
If you believe for an instant that millions of years of predatory survival competition with other species, during which evolution has allowed the strongest genetics to survive, hasn't coded violence into our species then I have a bridge in New York for sale.
I believe it is a fallacy to try and strive for a world without war, however we should control it better to prevent unnecessary loss of life and resources.
There are many users who would not purchase a Mac computer but who would purchase OS X to install on their PC. I do not understand at all why Apple is actually taking efforts to prevent Max OS from running on PCs. This is pathetically stupid and makes no sense.
Well then, let me clear it up for you.
Apple is not a software vendor, Apple is also not a hardware vendor. Apple is an experience vendor.
To get you the "Macintosh Experience" for which you're paying the big bucks they need tight control and integration between the hardware and the software. The reason why MacOS X is able to give a better useability experience is because Apple knows exactly what hardware it'll be running on unlike Microsoft does with Windows.
With a PC there are thousands upon thousands of motherboards, CPUs, hard drives, video cards, sound cards, network cards, etc, etc, etc. The combinations are endless and people expect Windows to not only work, but work well, on every single combination.
I would be surprised if the number of macintosh computers that are currently supported in Tiger reached beyond double digits but even if it did it is still a lot smaller than infinity. Because Apple knows exactly what hardware the OS will be running on they can take full advantage of it whereas on the PC side of things you still have for example: 64bit CPUs running 32bit OS's and the latest version of Windows not even supporting SATA, a 3+ year old technology, out of the box.
Think consoles: PS2, XBox, GameCube, etc. They are severly underpowered if you compare them to a PC, yet they can push out graphics rivaling them, why? Because the developers know exactly what hardware they are coding for and can take full advantage of it.
That is why Apple prevents OS X from running on just any beige box. It wasn't designed to, so if they allowed it people would try it, it would crash, not work right and people would say that MacOS X sucked.
Will it be able to Nakidify(tm) and Petrify Natalie? Will it then be able to cover her in hot grits?
Until this software can do all that, I fear it is useless.
Even games. If you need to run that game, boot into Windows or run the Macintosh native version.
I to am waiting for the Mac Pro (Apple is dropping the Power name). I do own a PowerPC Mac Mini which was the only Macintosh computer I have purchased around this time last year but it's going to my mother once the Mac Pro comes out.
You'll love MacOS X and the Mac Pro computers are going to be godlike beasts from the musings I read off of the rumors sites.
Sure but the sun doesn't set at the pleasure of the OSS community. If they want to lock their software out of DRM-based hardware, that's their choice.
When it comes to software created by the OSS community the sun does set at our pleasure, which is the only software the GPLv3 is going to cover. If they want to lock their software using DRM based hardware they can use THEIR OWN software and not ours.
There are several problems with that, firstly is of course one of scale. Black people were the only group enslaved in a quasi industrial manner, pretty much indistinguishible from dealing with animals. That did not happen to the few white people that may have been slaved through history.
Right, like the million european white christians enslaved by muslims in northern africa between the 16th and 18th centuries? Where are my reparations for that?
Please, get over it. Shit happened in the past, it's not happening now. You are not entitled to jack shit because none of this actually happened to you.
This is not a comparative description. For each copy of the movie these companies sell, they buy one from Hollywood. Thus, if they sell 1984 copies of Gladiator with the naughty bits omitted, then they buy 1984 copies from the movie production company first. Thus, it can be said they are only reselling the copy of the book that they themselves purchased and from which they ripped out naughty pages.
But they aren't. They buy one copy originally, make a "master" with the naughty bits removed, and copy that one, selling it, and for every copy of the master they make they buy one from Hollywood. They are not performing the edits on every single copy of the DVD they buy.
That's because black people haven't used white people as SLAVES.
That's a pretty bold statement. You're sure that nowhere on earth has there ever been a case of a black person using a white person as a slave?
Anyways, this is a straw man, nobody alive in north america today has ever kept anyone as a slave without breaking the law, black, white or purple.
Not to burst your bubble, but I have worked as technical support for some of the biggest technology names in business and I have received the dreaded "well my power is out, does that have something to do with it?" call. I have also received the cup holder call, the "click start, you mean with my foot pedal?" call and the "but I hold this page up to my scanner, it looks like a TV screen, and it does nothing!" call. I can assure you I have spoken to the people directly over the telephone. I realize that it is hard to believe. Before getting in to the job I thought it was folklore and urban legend as well. Mind you these have only happened once each in half a decade but it does happen.
That was a direct quote from sympaticos user agreement, which states:
However, you agree that Your Service Provider reserves the right from time to time to monitor the Service electronically, monitor or investigate Content or your use of Your Service Provider's networks, including, without limitation, bandwidth consumption, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy any laws, regulations or other governmental request from any applicable jurisdiction, or as necessary to operate the Service or to protect itself or others.
Notice it uses the term "You Service Provider" in capitals. It is common in legal contracts to define terms at the beginning of the document and make reference to them throughout the document if the terms need to be condensed. In this case the user agreement states:
1. General. The Sympatico(TM) High Speed Unplugged service (the "Unplugged Service") is a broadband wireless Internet service further described in Section 6 below, provided by Bell Canada (and/or its affiliates, agents and suppliers) in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Aliant Telecom Inc. (and/or its affiliates, agents and suppliers) in New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and Northwestel Inc. (and/or its affiliates, agents and suppliers) in the Yukon (each of Bell Canada, Aliant Telecom Inc. and Northwestel Inc. are referred to herein, as applicable, as "Your Service Provider").
So as you can see, they define "Your Service Provider" as Bell Canada, Aliant Telecom, Northwestel or any of it's agents, etc.
The article doesn't quote what the user agreement defines "Your Service Provider" to be, so it may look like it means any service provider that uses Bellnexxia, but that is incorrect. For Bell to start monitoring Bellnexxia traffic it would be a monumental headache and ultimately worthless as Bell themselves would have no information on individual users, only their ISP would.
This is only half true. Most DSL providers use Bellnexxia lines to connect their network to local DSLAMs however this is not Sympatico. Sympatico is Bells own DSL internet provider. There is no way that a Sympatico ToS would affect anyone but Sympatico subscribers and the article also does not mention anything about Bellnexxia monitoring ISPs.
You can use any of these DSL providers. Vote with your dollars people.