Any power that any government proposes to assume because it "feels it needs them", "to combat mostly-unspecified public threats" et al should be cause for shooting the requesting politicians in the knee within half an hour of failing to produce founded and quantified justification.
Any power that any government doesn't really want because it's "too complex to administrate" or "a drain on the budget that brings no tangible benefits" but the population will see actual benefit of in the near and/or remote future should be forcibly put upon them.
Yes, I'm aware that that still makes it fuzzy as hell. It all comes down to those seeking power not being supposed to be allowed near it, really.
That doesn't really matter, does it ? He calls his wife, and she starts the wipe and notifies the lawyer.
I also don't see this as necessarily a bad thing - save likely abuse, of course. When you get arrested - preferably on valid grounds -, it's only normal to get frisked in case you have weapons and all your belongings confiscated so you can't destroy any incriminating evidence you carry. Given the remote wipe possibilities of phones these days, it's not entirely unreasonable to have a cop fluff through it before you get a chance at wiping it.
Come to think of it, though... the coppers arresting you aren't necessarily the ones most suited to figure out what is and isn't relevant; which is also why your belongings get stored for someone more appropriate to look at them. Opposing that against remote wipes this becomes pretty prickly territory to navigate...
Will my free replacement have the PS2 emulation my old model has? No, didn't think so.
You kid, but I actually see them capable of doing something like this. If nothing else, this is likely to get development on the next generation in a higher gear.
Well, at some point this has got to get so lame it goes straight through the lameness and comes out on the other side as over nine thousand - informative.
Good luck implementing that on all the ancient phones out there. Yes, you must remain backwards compatible. That is not optional.
You do make a valid point of the finite capacity of the channel, though. Operators have been expanding that capacity year after year, up to the point where even new year's traffic is mostly smooth these days - at least, here.
That upgrading also has a cost associated with it. Wether or not that cost justifies the price of texting is debatable, though.
Yep, and if they want to operate in Italy, they have to comply with Italian law. Why did you think the dutch coffee shops haven't branched to other countries yet ?
Probably twenty or thirty years ago I saw a documentary about all kinds of animals who came to eat the half-fermented fruit lying under some kind of tree, and consequently getting very much drunk off their collective arses.
Nothing funnier than a drunk rhino falling over, I can tell you. If anyone knows what documentary that was - I was just a geekling at the time - I'd love to find it again.
It's funny that the rest of the debitcard-using world looks at the US signature system as an oddity, a hopelessly backwards legacy system.
For fuck's sake, do you really think Visa and Mastercard would be forcibly rolling out chipcards if it wasn't safer ? The cards are certainly not cheaper for them.
Because they know the right people, of course. What more could you want from top executives in charge of and responsible for billions upon billions of other people's money ?
That may be the case wherever you deal with your crooked ISP, but I have never seen burst rates advertised here in Belgium. Maybe I missed them, though.
I get promised 20Mbps on my home line, and I routinely get 15 to 18 out of it.
Some amount of overselling is very reasonable - you don't expect people to be online and pumping 24/7. If you take that to the point where you have to embed stuff like "we really promise a trickle but you may get more" in the fine print, that's thievery. No amount of brainwashed corporate apologistism can change that.
That is also not what this was about. It was about what you pay for, and wether or not the company you buy your bandwidth off should have any say in what you do with said bandwidth.
I dunno. Do plumbers have a dozen different, mutually-incompatible types of pipe; are all of them convinced that the one they are using is the one holy system and that all the others are idiots for not understanding why ?
In one line you offer a consumer line at 0.5 Mbps, in the next you offer that without overselling stuff would be more expensive. In your third line you apparently haven't even bothered to read the entire paragraph you reply to.
You are indeed specifying the definition of "burst": it's the ability to temporarily go above your limit. That is to say, what (usually/should) happens is that when you rent, say, a 5Mbps pipe, you now rent the pipe for an average speed of 5Mbps instead of the more traditional top speed of 5Mbps.
If you constantly use your burst capacity, your average is going to end up above the 5Mbps, and your provider will be in his full rights to kick you in the nuts.
Additionally, your question doesn't make sense, because your example specifies a pipe rented at bandwidth, while your question mentions a pipe rented at volume. And, yes, I'm aware that some ISPs - mostly in the same countries - do both at once. Still I don't want no damn TOS - if I rent by volume and exceed my volume, I fully expect to be capped until I cough up, same as when I buy a pint I don't expect it to magically refill until I order another one.
Your point about services associated with degrading other subscribers' bandwidth is really an issue of your ISP overselling his capacity, isn't it ? How would you react if the bartender tells you you can only have one pint every hour because otherwise the other customers won't get any ? I'd be pretty fast to find a decent pub, I can tell you.
For your second point, yes, that's indeed an issue. Particularly, that's an issue of termites. As long as they stay in my house (virus eating my performance and bandwidth) and I return the house in pristine condition when I give it back, none of the landlord's concern. As soon as they go eat the neighbours' houses (viruses infecting other people) someone will rightfully tell me to get my shit together.
Didn't I read that there was to be a new Commodore some time back ? Only nothing like the Commodore, both in hardware (hopefully...) but neither in spirit.
It is hard, if not impossible these days to get, say, the schematics of your chosen popular electronic device. Fans of the original being dissapointed has nothing to do with nostalgia, and it's not a good chance, it's an absolute certainty.
Yes, and isn't that exactly what net neutrality is about ? I rent a pipe from you, with x bits of capacity. What I do with that pipe should be no more your business than what I do in the house I rent is the landlord's business. And, before you mention keeping the house in good condition, I can't exactly paint my internet bright pink, can I ?
As for "home entertainment", they are not the ones who get to decide what I find entertaining. Hell, I'm a geek, it entertains me to run a server.
And there's an interesting point: first the industry slowly killed off most demos. For the pc market demos got bloatier and fewer in number, I don't know if there's a lot of demo to be had these days. For the console market, well, you probably get some with gamer magazines, but even on the PS store or the Wii shopping channel demos aren't exactly legion.
Then they killed off rentals. Given that that happened even here in Belgium last year, I suspect that's the case in most of the world by now.
So, how are you supposed to try a game before buying it ? Not, I guess - this is another instance of "be a good consumer and fork over the money". Mindless automatons are so much easier to deal with, after all.
Much as I dislike them doing so, they're not stopping you from paying, they just refuse to let you use their infrastructure for payments they don't agree with and are potentially liable for, as they tend to refund fraudulous transactions.
As I said, however, I do dislike them doing this - for me this is akin to net neutrality. I pay them to be a channel for my money, and they should have no say in where I choose to channel that money.
In return I do accept that they no longer be liable for fraudulent transactions - and remove the price of that service from the cost of the card, please. It's a useful service, and they could definitely offer it as a separate option to your card, with the built-in caveat that they will then block you from transacting with a list of "shady" participants and/or not refund transactions to that list.
And that wide range of ISPs goes over who's wires, exactly ?
While it's true to say that this is not about the price of the service, it *is* actually about what competition will do to the price if it's not obstructed by semi- or actual monopolies, whatever form they take.
A consumer shouldn't have to go to business solutions to get decent service. You can also ask what "business" means, vs. "consumer" - here it's usually a bit more volume and a fixed IP. Real competition instead of agreeing with the competition to not nick customers off one another, will ensure that all services eventually, and maybe even swiftly, drop to their real value.
Real competition needs regulation, however. People love to say that a true free market regulates itself, and this is true. What those same people usually fail to understand, however, is that it regulates itself towards the best interests of it's most powerful participants, not those of the consumers. THAT is why companies will make deals with one another about limiting competition, when left unchecked.
Slashdot Mirror
So all her base are belong to him ?
He played in The Doors ?
Any power that any government proposes to assume because it "feels it needs them", "to combat mostly-unspecified public threats" et al should be cause for shooting the requesting politicians in the knee within half an hour of failing to produce founded and quantified justification.
Any power that any government doesn't really want because it's "too complex to administrate" or "a drain on the budget that brings no tangible benefits" but the population will see actual benefit of in the near and/or remote future should be forcibly put upon them.
Yes, I'm aware that that still makes it fuzzy as hell. It all comes down to those seeking power not being supposed to be allowed near it, really.
That doesn't really matter, does it ? He calls his wife, and she starts the wipe and notifies the lawyer.
I also don't see this as necessarily a bad thing - save likely abuse, of course. When you get arrested - preferably on valid grounds -, it's only normal to get frisked in case you have weapons and all your belongings confiscated so you can't destroy any incriminating evidence you carry. Given the remote wipe possibilities of phones these days, it's not entirely unreasonable to have a cop fluff through it before you get a chance at wiping it.
Come to think of it, though... the coppers arresting you aren't necessarily the ones most suited to figure out what is and isn't relevant; which is also why your belongings get stored for someone more appropriate to look at them. Opposing that against remote wipes this becomes pretty prickly territory to navigate...
Will my free replacement have the PS2 emulation my old model has? No, didn't think so.
You kid, but I actually see them capable of doing something like this. If nothing else, this is likely to get development on the next generation in a higher gear.
Well, at some point this has got to get so lame it goes straight through the lameness and comes out on the other side as over nine thousand - informative.
Good luck implementing that on all the ancient phones out there. Yes, you must remain backwards compatible. That is not optional.
You do make a valid point of the finite capacity of the channel, though. Operators have been expanding that capacity year after year, up to the point where even new year's traffic is mostly smooth these days - at least, here.
That upgrading also has a cost associated with it. Wether or not that cost justifies the price of texting is debatable, though.
*whoosh*
Yep, and if they want to operate in Italy, they have to comply with Italian law. Why did you think the dutch coffee shops haven't branched to other countries yet ?
Probably twenty or thirty years ago I saw a documentary about all kinds of animals who came to eat the half-fermented fruit lying under some kind of tree, and consequently getting very much drunk off their collective arses.
Nothing funnier than a drunk rhino falling over, I can tell you. If anyone knows what documentary that was - I was just a geekling at the time - I'd love to find it again.
Under US law, you mean.
It's funny that the rest of the debitcard-using world looks at the US signature system as an oddity, a hopelessly backwards legacy system.
For fuck's sake, do you really think Visa and Mastercard would be forcibly rolling out chipcards if it wasn't safer ? The cards are certainly not cheaper for them.
Because they know the right people, of course. What more could you want from top executives in charge of and responsible for billions upon billions of other people's money ?
Almost makes me wish you lot would take over again :-p
That may be the case wherever you deal with your crooked ISP, but I have never seen burst rates advertised here in Belgium. Maybe I missed them, though.
I get promised 20Mbps on my home line, and I routinely get 15 to 18 out of it.
Some amount of overselling is very reasonable - you don't expect people to be online and pumping 24/7. If you take that to the point where you have to embed stuff like "we really promise a trickle but you may get more" in the fine print, that's thievery. No amount of brainwashed corporate apologistism can change that.
That is also not what this was about. It was about what you pay for, and wether or not the company you buy your bandwidth off should have any say in what you do with said bandwidth.
I dunno. Do plumbers have a dozen different, mutually-incompatible types of pipe; are all of them convinced that the one they are using is the one holy system and that all the others are idiots for not understanding why ?
In one line you offer a consumer line at 0.5 Mbps, in the next you offer that without overselling stuff would be more expensive. In your third line you apparently haven't even bothered to read the entire paragraph you reply to.
This is pointless.
You are indeed specifying the definition of "burst": it's the ability to temporarily go above your limit. That is to say, what (usually/should) happens is that when you rent, say, a 5Mbps pipe, you now rent the pipe for an average speed of 5Mbps instead of the more traditional top speed of 5Mbps.
If you constantly use your burst capacity, your average is going to end up above the 5Mbps, and your provider will be in his full rights to kick you in the nuts.
Additionally, your question doesn't make sense, because your example specifies a pipe rented at bandwidth, while your question mentions a pipe rented at volume. And, yes, I'm aware that some ISPs - mostly in the same countries - do both at once. Still I don't want no damn TOS - if I rent by volume and exceed my volume, I fully expect to be capped until I cough up, same as when I buy a pint I don't expect it to magically refill until I order another one.
Your point about services associated with degrading other subscribers' bandwidth is really an issue of your ISP overselling his capacity, isn't it ? How would you react if the bartender tells you you can only have one pint every hour because otherwise the other customers won't get any ? I'd be pretty fast to find a decent pub, I can tell you.
For your second point, yes, that's indeed an issue. Particularly, that's an issue of termites. As long as they stay in my house (virus eating my performance and bandwidth) and I return the house in pristine condition when I give it back, none of the landlord's concern. As soon as they go eat the neighbours' houses (viruses infecting other people) someone will rightfully tell me to get my shit together.
Didn't I read that there was to be a new Commodore some time back ? Only nothing like the Commodore, both in hardware (hopefully...) but neither in spirit.
It is hard, if not impossible these days to get, say, the schematics of your chosen popular electronic device. Fans of the original being dissapointed has nothing to do with nostalgia, and it's not a good chance, it's an absolute certainty.
You're thinking entirely along the wrong lines.
It's more like a doberman being reincarnated as Steve Ballmer.
Yes, and isn't that exactly what net neutrality is about ? I rent a pipe from you, with x bits of capacity. What I do with that pipe should be no more your business than what I do in the house I rent is the landlord's business. And, before you mention keeping the house in good condition, I can't exactly paint my internet bright pink, can I ?
As for "home entertainment", they are not the ones who get to decide what I find entertaining. Hell, I'm a geek, it entertains me to run a server.
And there's an interesting point: first the industry slowly killed off most demos. For the pc market demos got bloatier and fewer in number, I don't know if there's a lot of demo to be had these days. For the console market, well, you probably get some with gamer magazines, but even on the PS store or the Wii shopping channel demos aren't exactly legion.
Then they killed off rentals. Given that that happened even here in Belgium last year, I suspect that's the case in most of the world by now.
So, how are you supposed to try a game before buying it ? Not, I guess - this is another instance of "be a good consumer and fork over the money". Mindless automatons are so much easier to deal with, after all.
Much as I dislike them doing so, they're not stopping you from paying, they just refuse to let you use their infrastructure for payments they don't agree with and are potentially liable for, as they tend to refund fraudulous transactions.
As I said, however, I do dislike them doing this - for me this is akin to net neutrality. I pay them to be a channel for my money, and they should have no say in where I choose to channel that money.
In return I do accept that they no longer be liable for fraudulent transactions - and remove the price of that service from the cost of the card, please. It's a useful service, and they could definitely offer it as a separate option to your card, with the built-in caveat that they will then block you from transacting with a list of "shady" participants and/or not refund transactions to that list.
And that wide range of ISPs goes over who's wires, exactly ?
While it's true to say that this is not about the price of the service, it *is* actually about what competition will do to the price if it's not obstructed by semi- or actual monopolies, whatever form they take.
A consumer shouldn't have to go to business solutions to get decent service. You can also ask what "business" means, vs. "consumer" - here it's usually a bit more volume and a fixed IP. Real competition instead of agreeing with the competition to not nick customers off one another, will ensure that all services eventually, and maybe even swiftly, drop to their real value.
Real competition needs regulation, however. People love to say that a true free market regulates itself, and this is true. What those same people usually fail to understand, however, is that it regulates itself towards the best interests of it's most powerful participants, not those of the consumers. THAT is why companies will make deals with one another about limiting competition, when left unchecked.
Given Jadzia Dax' eternal grin, I don't think much coercion was needed.