It doesn't matter. The product you're suing over is not Win 7. It's Win 10, which since THEY installed it without your permission - the EULA simply can't be applied. The Win 7 EULA is left up to existing legal wrangling since you did in theory install (or buy it already installed) by choice.
The problem is not the Win 7 Install, it's the Win 10.
While a nice simple example it really is apples and oranges.
You're comparing the water flowing through the pipes to the data flowing across a data network.
The water company has to pay money to clean the water so there's physical cost in producing every drop of water and as such it is priced per gallon used.
Your ISP is not creating the content you're watching from Netflix, streaming from Spotify or reading on web pages. So there is no cost 'per' amount of content created that the ISP is incurring. I pay netflix and streaming separately for the content. Hell even Netflix doesn't charge 'per' amount of data...because even they aren't creating that content...just supplying it.
There's no appreciable cost 'per amount' of data transiting the ISPs network. The only numbers that matter are a maximum rate throughput available on the network against the current demand of users on the network at that specific time.
A data cap is a piss poor way to manage that; but it is a fantastic way to raise your bill.
For people wanting a faster Ford Mustang they are offering a deal where you can bundle a 75 Chevette.
Is basically saying the same thing. It's clear abuse of their monopoly position. You'll notice that Comcast isn't capping customers in areas where even minimal competition exists. That won't last though as the natural oligarchy behavior of a single competitor will just have that competitor introduce Caps as well. Not like you could switch to something without Caps.
The issue is the lack of competition. Imagine if your water company decided to Jack rates....what exactly are you going to do? That's why it's a heavily regulated utility.
Until the last 15 years or so the Internet wasn't really thought of aa an essential utility. Now I think most people would agree it should be treated that way. But since most only have 1 choice or at most 2/3 you get a single company that can Jack rates with impunity.
And currently the GOP is spearheading efforts to prevent even a little competition.
The entrance of Google Fiber into markets shows just how screwed people were previously as speed offered go up and prices down at the incumbents now that true non-oligarchy competition is available.
It's exactly what the people using it intend it to mean. They don't like regulation and want a free market that doesn't have regulation. That's actually what they are asking for.
Now, you clearly understand this is an insane request...the point is they don't. Which is why it needs to be pointed out that a truly 'free market' isn't what they think it is.
We aren't debating the definition of price 'control'. As you said it affects the price and that's all that's required to debunk that it's a true 'free' market.
In the above example, the robber is setting the price of the 'customer' living - it's amazingly the same amount of cash the 'customer' has but sometimes is higher.
regulation by default is a price control. Regulation that my produce isn't contaminated with listeria or salmonella increases my costs and thus my price.
unless of course the consequences of waiting for the market to act would actually be more expensive than harnessing the market to effect the cheaper solution earlier...
To be fair, a billion people moving into already occupied territory is likely to cause a significant number of deaths let alone health effects as resources are stretched thin.
Isn't that backwards though? We have recorded changes in a very short period; I.e. modern observations that have good accuracy.
We have less accurate historical records that don't show anything close to the speed of modern observed change.
Even if your dates are off by a few thousand years the fact that the staryt and end conditions don't show the modern change says it's faster now than it was even if the historical records are less precise.
If the global scientific consensus is bullshit...it should be very easy to disprove. And yet no one has.
How many majot global changes have to be documented before you see there is a serious problem?
Deniers originally claimed there was no change going on...and were wrong and now fall back to hey it's always changing!
Ignoring the fact that the oceans are changing rapidly....when the ocean food web collapes will that be enough for you?
This is about landline ISPs introducing caps. A 1 GB cap on your home internet would be ridiculous. There is at least a fair argument about available bandwidth in the wireless space as it's a fixed medium that can't be extended. Wired infrastructure just needs more wires added if there's congestion at promised speeds.
"But investment costs money!" yes it does. Now ask yourself why these ISPs are blocking any other providers from moving into their areas? Because they don't want the competition and are buying (and actually writing!) the laws to do this. linky
And while the use it or lost it idea sounds good in theory, what if a small inventor doesn't have the means to produce it? Said inventor should be able to sell his idea to someone for money to be compensated for advancing technology, no?
With the use it or lose it....the big bad battery corp would see the inventor couldn't do it and just wait for the 'lose it' to happen and use it for free.
been in 2 houses in the last 15 years. I just about count on one hand the number of LEDs I've had to replace in that time and I converted the entire house(s) over.
citation needed. What I can find says that while yes bulbs would last very very long, they produced less light per watt so over time cost MORE to operate than to buy 'normal' cheap incandescent bulbs. Hence them not making a good long term solution.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter. The product you're suing over is not Win 7. It's Win 10, which since THEY installed it without your permission - the EULA simply can't be applied. The Win 7 EULA is left up to existing legal wrangling since you did in theory install (or buy it already installed) by choice.
The problem is not the Win 7 Install, it's the Win 10.
It's about an unwanted and forced update that can be fairly quickly remedied by reverting to a backup prior to the forced upgrade.
Indeed the EULA of WINDOWS 7 prevents you from going to small claims court.
The EULA if Windows 10 is irrelevant as you didn't agree to it.
While a nice simple example it really is apples and oranges.
You're comparing the water flowing through the pipes to the data flowing across a data network.
The water company has to pay money to clean the water so there's physical cost in producing every drop of water and as such it is priced per gallon used.
Your ISP is not creating the content you're watching from Netflix, streaming from Spotify or reading on web pages. So there is no cost 'per' amount of content created that the ISP is incurring. I pay netflix and streaming separately for the content. Hell even Netflix doesn't charge 'per' amount of data...because even they aren't creating that content...just supplying it.
There's no appreciable cost 'per amount' of data transiting the ISPs network. The only numbers that matter are a maximum rate throughput available on the network against the current demand of users on the network at that specific time.
A data cap is a piss poor way to manage that; but it is a fantastic way to raise your bill.
For people wanting a faster Ford Mustang they are offering a deal where you can bundle a 75 Chevette.
Is basically saying the same thing. It's clear abuse of their monopoly position. You'll notice that Comcast isn't capping customers in areas where even minimal competition exists. That won't last though as the natural oligarchy behavior of a single competitor will just have that competitor introduce Caps as well. Not like you could switch to something without Caps.
The issue is the lack of competition. Imagine if your water company decided to Jack rates....what exactly are you going to do? That's why it's a heavily regulated utility. Until the last 15 years or so the Internet wasn't really thought of aa an essential utility. Now I think most people would agree it should be treated that way. But since most only have 1 choice or at most 2/3 you get a single company that can Jack rates with impunity. And currently the GOP is spearheading efforts to prevent even a little competition. The entrance of Google Fiber into markets shows just how screwed people were previously as speed offered go up and prices down at the incumbents now that true non-oligarchy competition is available.
It's exactly what the people using it intend it to mean. They don't like regulation and want a free market that doesn't have regulation. That's actually what they are asking for.
Now, you clearly understand this is an insane request...the point is they don't. Which is why it needs to be pointed out that a truly 'free market' isn't what they think it is.
We aren't debating the definition of price 'control'. As you said it affects the price and that's all that's required to debunk that it's a true 'free' market.
In the above example, the robber is setting the price of the 'customer' living - it's amazingly the same amount of cash the 'customer' has but sometimes is higher.
regulation by default is a price control. Regulation that my produce isn't contaminated with listeria or salmonella increases my costs and thus my price.
unless of course the consequences of waiting for the market to act would actually be more expensive than harnessing the market to effect the cheaper solution earlier...
To be fair, a billion people moving into already occupied territory is likely to cause a significant number of deaths let alone health effects as resources are stretched thin.
Then by all means show some data to back up your claims. Oh wait you can't.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Isn't that backwards though? We have recorded changes in a very short period; I.e. modern observations that have good accuracy. We have less accurate historical records that don't show anything close to the speed of modern observed change. Even if your dates are off by a few thousand years the fact that the staryt and end conditions don't show the modern change says it's faster now than it was even if the historical records are less precise.
Re 4000 years. We ice and sediment cores going back hundreds of thousands of years. What's the source of your 4000 ?
If the global scientific consensus is bullshit...it should be very easy to disprove. And yet no one has. How many majot global changes have to be documented before you see there is a serious problem? Deniers originally claimed there was no change going on...and were wrong and now fall back to hey it's always changing! Ignoring the fact that the oceans are changing rapidly....when the ocean food web collapes will that be enough for you?
So you can't say they're wrong either. Come up with your own science to explain everything we're seeing and we can talk.
This is about landline ISPs introducing caps. A 1 GB cap on your home internet would be ridiculous. There is at least a fair argument about available bandwidth in the wireless space as it's a fixed medium that can't be extended. Wired infrastructure just needs more wires added if there's congestion at promised speeds.
"But investment costs money!" yes it does. Now ask yourself why these ISPs are blocking any other providers from moving into their areas? Because they don't want the competition and are buying (and actually writing!) the laws to do this. linky
Is Cox the only ISP you can choose from?
Data caps exist to make profit for the ISP nothing else.
Data caps do nothing to stop congestion as everybody is free to download at full speed up until their cap during which time congestion reigns.
This could also be completely mitigated by restricting speeds to a manageable level. That's your overselling of resources.
data caps don't do anything to resolve that; they just make money for the ISP.
Longer lasting bulbs actually cost more to operate than to buy a new bulb. They produce significantly less light per watt.
And while the use it or lost it idea sounds good in theory, what if a small inventor doesn't have the means to produce it? Said inventor should be able to sell his idea to someone for money to be compensated for advancing technology, no?
With the use it or lose it....the big bad battery corp would see the inventor couldn't do it and just wait for the 'lose it' to happen and use it for free.
It's a tricky thing to get right.
If they burned out in 1-2 years they're still under warranty.
I've had bulbs for going on 8 years without failure. LEDs are more than reliable enough. I've even bought off brand, Feit from CostCo without issue.
been in 2 houses in the last 15 years. I just about count on one hand the number of LEDs I've had to replace in that time and I converted the entire house(s) over.
citation needed. What I can find says that while yes bulbs would last very very long, they produced less light per watt so over time cost MORE to operate than to buy 'normal' cheap incandescent bulbs. Hence them not making a good long term solution.
link 1
link 2
the second link talks about a supposed 'cartel' but says there's no evidence supporting that it was formed to introduce planned obsolescence.
So no answers about people not having g electricity during the night?