It merely states, for the record, that children should not talk back to their parents. The demand that they be killed is something you've made up.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
There are several linguistic explanations for the prevalence of RAS syndrome:
* A limited amount of redundancy can improve (or seem to the speaker to improve) the effectiveness of communication (the pure-logic ideal of zero redundancy is seldom maintained in human languages). A phonetic example of that principle is the need for spelling alphabets in radiotelephony. The redundancy in phrases such as "ATM machine" can be likened to that in "pine tree" or "panda bear"; such constructions are particularly prevalent in English.
* Some instances of RAS syndrome can be viewed as syntactic examples of the principle where the speaker wishes to gently reinforce the meaning of an acronym or initialism, especially in pedagogical contexts (whether formal or informal). In such cases, the redundancy may help the listener by providing context and decreasing the 'alphabet-soup' quality of the communication.
* Some occurrences are in the interest of another form of clarity: disambiguation (whereas the clarity discussed above was of a 'decryptifying' type). For example, when discussing a mainframe computer's requirements, the initialism "AC" might refer to air conditioning or alternating current depending on the context; the redundant phrase "AC current" is used by some to distinguish them, although the phrase "alternating current" is clear, correct, and not redundant.
This is not true. The house or even an apartment house always identifies the residents. You are identified by the apartment number.
We're not looking at the apt#, just the actual street address.
The IP address identifies the first 3 dot notations of the IP address (say in the case of the house "the neighborhood") and the 4th dot notation identifies the actual address (the actual PC) because it is usually tied to the MAC address of the computer.
More like the IP address identifies my router (building). Additional information like internal network dhcp data (apt number) is needed to identify the specific computer (residence). Even then, that only specifies the computer (residence), not which user (person).
In case of your examples that is not too hard to prove/disprove: did the person keep the computer reasonably up to date? Can't expect installing patches the minute they are released but at least within a reasonable time span. Did the person have anti-virus, anti-spyware or other security software installed, running and kept up to date? Did they read the manual that came with said wireless device before plugging it in?
Gaddammit, I paid $200 for this 'Winders XP' thing. Now you're tellin me I gotta 'Update' my 'Patches' and thingerwhoose why whatzits?? Anti-spy ware? What am I , a secret Agent? I paid a lotta money for it! It should just work!! I shouldn't have to buy anything else! I shouldn't have to READ anything. It should work right when I plug it in!!
(If you think I'm exaggerating, you don't work in techsupport or any kind of Customer Service).
I have a business class internet account at home. It comes with static ips which resolve back to my domain name which....guess what...IS PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE.
SO, you don't have a wireless router?
SO, none of your computers have been hacked?
SO, none of your PCs is where a customer of yours can access it?
SO, none of your PCs is where another of your employees can access it?
SO, none of your PCs is where a family member can access it?
If ALL those can be proven, then the IP can be traced back to you personally. If ANY of those cannot be proven, it cannot.
Also, it's generally understood in legal circles, and is spelled out in most ISPs' TOS agreements, that the account owner is ultimately responsible for any activity originating from that connection.
So, my PC get 'botted', and starts spewing out spam, 419 scam emails, and child porn. Do I get SWAT busting in my door one night? I've never heard of it happening.
Face it, you can't hold someone responsible for something they did not do, did not ask to have done, and were not aware was being done.
in general it's been held that if you open up your wireless connection, you're responsible for any illegal activity people might use it for.
What if the wireless is on by default when you plug it in?
"Although visa rules do not preclude merchants from asking for cardholder ID, merchants cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance. Therefore, merchants cannot refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to provide ID."
Houses (or, more properly, addresses) do not identify a person. An apartment house, for instance, has one address, but numerous people living in it. Even a regular house can have an entire family.
I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people.
I have 6 people living at my address. Which one do you want?
If I had a car, at least 3 of those 6 people could be driving it. Which one do you want?
as far as the credit card company is concerned that little piece of plastic just identifies an account not a person.
Correct.
However- Each account is specifically linked to one person. (Sometimes more for joint accounts, but you get the idea.) The agreement you make with the card company usually says something along the lines of 'the person named on the card is the only authorized user of the card...' SO, if they trace certain activity to the card, they can be reasonably sure who used the card.
There is no such guarantee when it comes to IP addresses. As someone else posted, their IP is to their router, with 5-6 PCs behind it. Wireless confuses the issue more. Tracing certain packets to a router does NOT tell them what PC it came from, much less who was using that PC.
"Are you a business owner or manager? Are you aware it is illegal to play copyrighted music on the premises (for example, music on hold, in-store music) without a music license?" "Last week in Seattle two dozen venues were cited in a lawsuit by ASCAP for failing to properly license their music. "
"New York, NY, July 30, 2007: The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) today announced that it has filed 26 separate infringement actions against nightclubs, bars and restaurants in 17 states.
In each of the cases filed today, the business establishment has publicly performed the copyrighted musical works of ASCAP's songwriter, composer and music publisher members without obtaining a license from ASCAP to do so."
"8. I'm interested in playing music in my restaurant or other business. I know that I need permission for live performances. Do I need permission if I am using only CD's, records, tapes, radio or TV?
Yes, you will need permission to play records or tapes in your establishment."... "10. I want to use music-on-hold in my business. Do I need permission?
Yes. When you place a caller on hold and transmit music via your telephone lines, that is a public performance of the music. It is your responsibility to obtain permission to perform ASCAP songs from ASCAP or directly from the copyright owner."
GPS is great for maritime , road, and outdoor navigation but is no where near accurate enough for surveys.
I always wondered- I know GPS has a margin of error, but is that error consistent or random?
What I mean is, if I place a GPS device at a known location and take a reading, and it is off by 'X' amount, will that reading always be off by that amount? If so, then I should be able to compensate for it.
On the other hand, if the reading is off by a different random amount each time, can't I just take a bunch of readings and average them? Wouldn't that give me higher precision?
5.9.3 Minimum/Maximum Transaction Amount Prohibited A Merchant must not require, or indicate that it requires, a minimum or maximum Transaction amount to accept a valid and properly presented Card.
American express just says that merchants must not "impose any restrictions, conditions, or disadvantages when the Card is accepted that are not imposed equally on all Other Payment Products, except for ACH funds transfer, cash, and checks"
This is why in some stores that accept credit cards you will see signs saying that you may not use credit for purchases less than X.XX amount. This is because small transactions like that actually cost them more money than they make.
Those signs are (probably) in violation of their Merchant Agreement. For instance:
"Always honor valid Visa cards in your acceptance catagory, regardless of the dollar amount of the purchase. Imposing minimum or maximum purchase amounts in order to accept Visa card transactions is a violation of the Visa rules" [emphasis in original]
Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
Right there is the whole case- she mis-handled the coffee. The spill was her fault.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
What this conveniently leaves out is that those 700 burns (of all types, only "some" were serious) were NATIONWIDE, over TEN YEARS. When you consider the number of cups that they sold in that time, only one in 24,000,000 burned anyone.
One burn for every 24 million cups.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste.
That also matches the National Coffee Association's recommendations. And why would the NCA give bad directions for preparing their product??
He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
http://www.bunn.com/retail/dos_donts.html " We recommend a quick brew time, using a brewer that keeps water at 200 degrees Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature) and mixes the grounds for full flavor extraction. "
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
Also not true. "McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80-90 degrees C (176-194 degrees F), relying on more sternly-worded warnings to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee." As an example. see http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_huntingdon/displayarticle.asp?id=180135 from 2007. "McDonald's says its black coffee should be served at 85C, plus or minus five degrees."
And you were saying we needed to find out the facts??
I was just being a smart-ass by showing that the question CAN technically be answered correctly... it's the presupposition in the mind of the listener that is actually wrong.
Q: "I've just been browsing your site and the page on loaded questions reminded me of something I came across ages ago without ever getting quite clear in my mind. Although it looks misleading, if I don't have a wife or have never beaten my wife, isn't it strictly accurate to answer 'No' to the question 'Have you stopped beating your wife?'? I haven't stopped, after allâ"I never even started."
A: The answer to your question turns upon an important subtlety about presupposition. Putting aside the unpleasant example of wife-beating, let's use as an example the type of question: "Have you stopped Xing?"â"it doesn't matter what X is. This question is equivalent to saying: "You have stopped Xing: yes or no?"
Consider the contained proposition: "You have stopped Xing". Clearly, this means: "You have Xed and you are not now Xing." However, these two conjuncts are not equal: the first conjunct is a presupposition of the question. A presupposition to a question is a proposition which is normally known to be true before the question is asked.
Given that our example question is a yes-no question, there are two direct answers that we can give it:
1. "Yes": "I have stopped Xing" or, equivalently, "I have Xed and I am not now Xing." Obviously, this implies "I have Xed."
2. "No": "It is not the case that I have stopped Xing" or, equivalently, "It is not the case that both I have Xed and I am not now Xing." This implies: "Either I have not Xed or I am now Xing." In other words, there are two bases for answering "no" to the question:
* You have never Xed.
* You are now Xing.
So, you are right, Steven, that you could answer the loaded question "Have you stopped Xing?" with "No", because you have never Xed. However, this answer has a kind of ambiguity, since it leaves it open as to whether you are saying that you have never Xed or that you are still doing so. This is why it is misleading to simply answer "no" and leave it at that; one should at least say, instead: "No, I've never Xed so I can't very well stop."
However, since the proposition that you have Xed is a presupposition of the question, we normally presume that it is true or the question would not arise. This leaves as the only possible reason for denying the question that you are still Xing. This is why the second direct answer also commits you to Xing, though it does not logically imply it by itself. Rather, it implies it when taken together with the presupposition.
This is why loaded questions as a fallacy are sometimes classified as a type of question-begging. By loading some controversial or even false presupposition into the question, the unscrupulous questioner tries to sneak it in unchallenged.
Slashdot Mirror
It merely states, for the record, that children should not talk back to their parents. The demand that they be killed is something you've made up.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
What's stopping me from signing up with a new one?
Exactly how many ISPs are available where you live? Many people only have two- the phone company (DSL) and the cable company.
From that link:
Reasons for use
There are several linguistic explanations for the prevalence of RAS syndrome:
* A limited amount of redundancy can improve (or seem to the speaker to improve) the effectiveness of communication (the pure-logic ideal of zero redundancy is seldom maintained in human languages). A phonetic example of that principle is the need for spelling alphabets in radiotelephony. The redundancy in phrases such as "ATM machine" can be likened to that in "pine tree" or "panda bear"; such constructions are particularly prevalent in English.
* Some instances of RAS syndrome can be viewed as syntactic examples of the principle where the speaker wishes to gently reinforce the meaning of an acronym or initialism, especially in pedagogical contexts (whether formal or informal). In such cases, the redundancy may help the listener by providing context and decreasing the 'alphabet-soup' quality of the communication.
* Some occurrences are in the interest of another form of clarity: disambiguation (whereas the clarity discussed above was of a 'decryptifying' type). For example, when discussing a mainframe computer's requirements, the initialism "AC" might refer to air conditioning or alternating current depending on the context; the redundant phrase "AC current" is used by some to distinguish them, although the phrase "alternating current" is clear, correct, and not redundant.
, so there are reasonable reasons people do it.
Cute.
But the fact remains that people expect things to work 'out of the box', so to speak.
This is not true. The house or even an apartment house always identifies the residents. You are identified by the apartment number.
We're not looking at the apt#, just the actual street address.
The IP address identifies the first 3 dot notations of the IP address (say in the case of the house "the neighborhood") and the 4th dot notation identifies the actual address (the actual PC) because it is usually tied to the MAC address of the computer.
More like the IP address identifies my router (building). Additional information like internal network dhcp data (apt number) is needed to identify the specific computer (residence). Even then, that only specifies the computer (residence), not which user (person).
In case of your examples that is not too hard to prove/disprove: did the person keep the computer reasonably up to date? Can't expect installing patches the minute they are released but at least within a reasonable time span. Did the person have anti-virus, anti-spyware or other security software installed, running and kept up to date? Did they read the manual that came with said wireless device before plugging it in?
Gaddammit, I paid $200 for this 'Winders XP' thing. Now you're tellin me I gotta 'Update' my 'Patches' and thingerwhoose why whatzits?? Anti-spy ware? What am I , a secret Agent? I paid a lotta money for it! It should just work!! I shouldn't have to buy anything else! I shouldn't have to READ anything. It should work right when I plug it in!!
(If you think I'm exaggerating, you don't work in techsupport or any kind of Customer Service).
I have a business class internet account at home. It comes with static ips which resolve back to my domain name which....guess what...IS PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE.
SO, you don't have a wireless router?
SO, none of your computers have been hacked?
SO, none of your PCs is where a customer of yours can access it?
SO, none of your PCs is where another of your employees can access it?
SO, none of your PCs is where a family member can access it?
If ALL those can be proven, then the IP can be traced back to you personally. If ANY of those cannot be proven, it cannot.
Quote the whole thing, please.:
"Each account is specifically linked to one person. (Sometimes more for joint accounts, but you get the idea.)"
Also, it's generally understood in legal circles, and is spelled out in most ISPs' TOS agreements, that the account owner is ultimately responsible for any activity originating from that connection.
So, my PC get 'botted', and starts spewing out spam, 419 scam emails, and child porn. Do I get SWAT busting in my door one night? I've never heard of it happening.
Face it, you can't hold someone responsible for something they did not do, did not ask to have done, and were not aware was being done.
in general it's been held that if you open up your wireless connection, you're responsible for any illegal activity people might use it for.
What if the wireless is on by default when you plug it in?
When you use the card in person, many employees will require photo ID before they swipe the card.
They are most lilely violating their Merchant Agreement. For instance, http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/card_acceptance_guide.pdf says:
"Although visa rules do not preclude merchants from asking for cardholder ID, merchants cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance. Therefore, merchants cannot refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to provide ID."
Houses (or, more properly, addresses) do not identify a person. An apartment house, for instance, has one address, but numerous people living in it. Even a regular house can have an entire family.
I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people.
I have 6 people living at my address. Which one do you want?
If I had a car, at least 3 of those 6 people could be driving it. Which one do you want?
as far as the credit card company is concerned that little piece of plastic just identifies an account not a person.
Correct.
However- Each account is specifically linked to one person. (Sometimes more for joint accounts, but you get the idea.) The agreement you make with the card company usually says something along the lines of 'the person named on the card is the only authorized user of the card...' SO, if they trace certain activity to the card, they can be reasonably sure who used the card.
There is no such guarantee when it comes to IP addresses. As someone else posted, their IP is to their router, with 5-6 PCs behind it. Wireless confuses the issue more. Tracing certain packets to a router does NOT tell them what PC it came from, much less who was using that PC.
It is a big world
I've seen an analysis that shows they two main 'continents' of WOW are, in actuality, smaller than Manhattan.
http://www.ytrilynth.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=282
Which businesses? "Hounded" in what way? By whom? Where have they been denied their exemption under the law?
http://www.opuzz.com/2007/08/ascap-initiates-lawsuit-for-playing.html
"Are you a business owner or manager? Are you aware it is illegal to play copyrighted music on the premises (for example, music on hold, in-store music) without a music license?"
"Last week in Seattle two dozen venues were cited in a lawsuit by ASCAP for failing to properly license their music. "
http://www.ascap.com/press/2007/073107_infringement.html
"New York, NY, July 30, 2007: The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) today announced that it has filed 26 separate infringement actions against nightclubs, bars and restaurants in 17 states.
In each of the cases filed today, the business establishment has publicly performed the copyrighted musical works of ASCAP's songwriter, composer and music publisher members without obtaining a license from ASCAP to do so."
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html
"8. I'm interested in playing music in my restaurant or other business. I know that I need permission for live performances. Do I need permission if I am using only CD's, records, tapes, radio or TV?
Yes, you will need permission to play records or tapes in your establishment." ...
"10. I want to use music-on-hold in my business. Do I need permission?
Yes. When you place a caller on hold and transmit music via your telephone lines, that is a public performance of the music. It is your responsibility to obtain permission to perform ASCAP songs from ASCAP or directly from the copyright owner."
etc.
GPS is great for maritime , road, and outdoor navigation but is no where near accurate enough for surveys.
I always wondered- I know GPS has a margin of error, but is that error consistent or random?
What I mean is, if I place a GPS device at a known location and take a reading, and it is off by 'X' amount, will that reading always be off by that amount? If so, then I should be able to compensate for it.
On the other hand, if the reading is off by a different random amount each time, can't I just take a bunch of readings and average them? Wouldn't that give me higher precision?
I dunno, but MasterCard has the same rule:
5.9.3 Minimum/Maximum Transaction Amount Prohibited
A Merchant must not require, or indicate that it requires, a minimum or
maximum Transaction amount to accept a valid and properly presented Card.
http://www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/pdf/MasterCard_Rules_5_08.pdf
American express just says that merchants must not "impose any restrictions, conditions, or disadvantages when the Card is accepted that are not imposed equally on all Other Payment Products, except for ACH funds transfer, cash, and checks"
This is why in some stores that accept credit cards you will see signs saying that you may not use credit for purchases less than X.XX amount. This is because small transactions like that actually cost them more money than they make.
Those signs are (probably) in violation of their Merchant Agreement. For instance:
http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/card_acceptance_guide.pdf
"Always honor valid Visa cards in your acceptance catagory, regardless of the dollar amount of the purchase. Imposing minimum or maximum purchase amounts in order to accept Visa card transactions is a violation of the Visa rules" [emphasis in original]
I don't care if a cop sees me.
Of course, you can't hook a cop's eyes up to a recording device and have a permanent record of everything he sees, like you can with a camera.
You also can't hook a cop's brain up to a database and datamine everything he sees, like you can with a camera.
So, your analogy sucks.
...which works as an excuse until you realize they've been repeatedly warned that what they were doing had unintended consequences.
Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.
Right there is the whole case- she mis-handled the coffee. The spill was her fault.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.
What this conveniently leaves out is that those 700 burns (of all types, only "some" were serious) were NATIONWIDE, over TEN YEARS. When you consider the number of cups that they sold in that time, only one in 24,000,000 burned anyone.
One burn for every 24 million cups.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste.
That also matches the National Coffee Association's recommendations. And why would the NCA give bad directions for preparing their product??
He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.
That's simply not true. For example:
http://www.bunn.com/retail/bunn_difference.html ."
"The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200 degrees
http://www.bunn.com/retail/dos_donts.html
" We recommend a quick brew time, using a brewer that keeps water at 200 degrees Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature) and mixes the grounds for full flavor extraction. "
http://www.cuisinart.com/share/man/29_man.pdf
After brewing, the heater plate will keep the coffee at about 180 degrees -185 degrees F."
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
Also not true. "McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80-90 degrees C (176-194 degrees F), relying on more sternly-worded warnings to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee."
As an example. see http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_huntingdon/displayarticle.asp?id=180135 from 2007.
"McDonald's says its black coffee should be served at 85C, plus or minus five degrees."
And you were saying we needed to find out the facts??
Oh, I agree with you re: the RIAA's tactics.
I was just being a smart-ass by showing that the question CAN technically be answered correctly... it's the presupposition in the mind of the listener that is actually wrong.
Q: "I've just been browsing your site and the page on loaded questions reminded me of something I came across ages ago without ever getting quite clear in my mind. Although it looks misleading, if I don't have a wife or have never beaten my wife, isn't it strictly accurate to answer 'No' to the question 'Have you stopped beating your wife?'? I haven't stopped, after allâ"I never even started."
A: The answer to your question turns upon an important subtlety about presupposition. Putting aside the unpleasant example of wife-beating, let's use as an example the type of question: "Have you stopped Xing?"â"it doesn't matter what X is. This question is equivalent to saying: "You have stopped Xing: yes or no?"
Consider the contained proposition: "You have stopped Xing". Clearly, this means: "You have Xed and you are not now Xing." However, these two conjuncts are not equal: the first conjunct is a presupposition of the question. A presupposition to a question is a proposition which is normally known to be true before the question is asked.
Given that our example question is a yes-no question, there are two direct answers that we can give it:
1. "Yes": "I have stopped Xing" or, equivalently, "I have Xed and I am not now Xing." Obviously, this implies "I have Xed."
2. "No": "It is not the case that I have stopped Xing" or, equivalently, "It is not the case that both I have Xed and I am not now Xing." This implies: "Either I have not Xed or I am now Xing." In other words, there are two bases for answering "no" to the question:
* You have never Xed.
* You are now Xing.
So, you are right, Steven, that you could answer the loaded question "Have you stopped Xing?" with "No", because you have never Xed. However, this answer has a kind of ambiguity, since it leaves it open as to whether you are saying that you have never Xed or that you are still doing so. This is why it is misleading to simply answer "no" and leave it at that; one should at least say, instead: "No, I've never Xed so I can't very well stop."
However, since the proposition that you have Xed is a presupposition of the question, we normally presume that it is true or the question would not arise. This leaves as the only possible reason for denying the question that you are still Xing. This is why the second direct answer also commits you to Xing, though it does not logically imply it by itself. Rather, it implies it when taken together with the presupposition.
This is why loaded questions as a fallacy are sometimes classified as a type of question-begging. By loading some controversial or even false presupposition into the question, the unscrupulous questioner tries to sneak it in unchallenged.
The bolded part is the fallacious part.
When did you stop beating your wife?
Since I'd have to *Start* beating her in order to *Stop* beating her, and I never started beating her, I have never stopped beating her.
And here's mine. "15.73" is nowhere near 30. In fact, if it weren't for the 5.14up (and the bill each month), I'd think I didn't have Boost.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/462403094.png
(15.73/5.14)