As attractive as "one price fits all" is, the simple reality is that not all customers are profitable. AFAIK, external traffic still costs ~$1/GB. So heavy users are unprofitable.
Effectively, the light users are subsidizing the heavy users. If usage goes up (YouTube?) then overall profitability suffers. Either prices increase for all, or the hogs get slaughtered. Comcast has apparently chosen the later.
Expect squeals of protest from the hogs "contractual obligation". But it's not that simple. I would expect software to drop/delay packets (TCP ACKs) to throttle the hogs. This would avoid network performance degrading under load for the bulk of the users. Nothing illegal or inviolation of contract -- load has gone up and this is how they share it more equally. Buy an upgraded account.
The "biz buying consumer acct" exploit is prevented by limiting upstream bandwidth. The wonderful asymmetric accounts. By the time a biz has grown enough to justify a mailadmin & running their own MTA, their bandwidth requirements have blown the upstream.
What ISPs block 25 inbound? What exploit are they trying to prevent? 'dozy boxen aren't running anything on 25. Legit SoHos with static IPs certainly need 25 in.
Many ISPs block 25 outbound to be good netizens and avoid their lusers'botnets spewing spam. Legit users can get the block lifted.
Yes, Antigua can get the compensation. Watch the US then blackhole the whole country. No traffic passed through US territory or assets of US taxpayers. Maybe only by Disney applying to Federal Court for an injunction. Not even a GEC (Cuba-level embargo) would be needed.
Of course, this won't much stop satellite to the EU but smuggling is a serious offense and the US could easily put anyone involved in "facilitation" on watchlists (arrest on sight).
I've come to think of terrorism as trojan exploiting a bug/feature in homo-sapiens wiring/OS:
For thousands of generations as gatherer-hunters, homo sapiens has been optimized in an information-impoverished environment. So we react quickly and strongly to news of any threat. Those that didn't, didn't survive.
Terrorism is a modern (~100 yrs) invention. It was not as effective in antiquity simply because far fewer people would hear of the fear-inspiring event. Electronica has changed that, yet humans have not evolved any innate statistical or weighing sense.
The question still remains: what to do? 911 casualties cost about 700 million waking-hours. Far more than that in fretting afterwards. I suggest we rely on herd dynamics and ignore any threat unless directly imminent. Prevention is like the lottery, net negative payoff. But our wiring/OS won't accept this. No patch for the bug!
Do you think the NID just let this slip? Of course not. He's whining and preparing an excuse for the next missed intelligence.
The fundamental problem is that civil liberties are barely permit after-the-fact punishment of criminals. Many get off because their liberties were violated. That's OK, because the criminal justice system doesn't need to convict everyone, it just needs to act as a deterrent.
Using the criminal justice system to prevent wrongdoing [terrorism] is not what it was designed to do. Preventative vs investigative. Airtight vs failure-tolerant. It requires unusual actions and far greater intrusion into liberties (esp privacy). Some [frightened] people are willing to sacrifice others liberties (and perhaps their own). Others are not. A fundamental conflict between different people. Politicians can exploit this and choose whichever side they wish.
Personally, I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
Hmm... let's see: tuition is about 10 k$/y, 4 years paid back over 4. So it's essentially a subsidy from whomever pays (state) to the local school boards. Plus a raise for those graduates/teachers in the pgm. Perhaps some other teacher outside the pgm might get envious? I suspect the NEA will crawl all over this.
Then there's the individuals: anyone ever remember "Northern Exposure"? Just how did NYC goy Fleishman end up in Cicily, AK against his will? Looks a lot like indentured servitude to me. What arrangements could be made that would have a pretense of fairness? I suspect the service would be required in undesireable areas.
From the decision I see this is a creature of Calif law and their definition of "unconscionable" as either substantive and/or procedural. What can I say? That's how it is written. I would have though "unconscionable" be be more clear-cut and not subject to brinksmanship. Stay away from the edge.
So the decision may well conform to CA law. I still have a problem with "procedurally unconscioable" and the notion of contracts of "adhesion".
I'm not sure who has the greater power here, AT&T or the consumer. Sure, AT&T has greater assets and staff. But the consumer has the money that AT&T needs and furthermore each additional customer is essentially pure profit. Furthermore, a customer can negotiation a form contract. This isn't a parking stub. I do all the time by making alterations, initialing & signing. That contract form now is a counter-offer. If the sales-droid notices, I just say "See if that flies through your system." They're usually so commission hungry they accept. Or the corp does by behaviour.
This case is all about certifying a class-action ex post that Cing/AT&T expressly sought to avoid/evade and did to the best of their ability. Had AT&T been required to accept class actions (as they might be by this decision or could be by statute), I'm sure they would have charged more for service. That makes the certification reaching.
Unconscionable is a very strong term. Basically like contractually giving up your first-born child. Something no party to a contract could reasonably agree to without external duress.
Calling something a "contract of adhesion" is a bit of a canard. All contracts are. "Take-it-or-leave-it" is a common, legitimate negotiating tactic.
I have a real problem apply "unconscionable" to a small consumer-level service agreement like phone, cell or DSL. Parties might very reasonably agree to arbitration as a method of controlling contract administration costs. If a legislature thinks class-action suits should proceed, either before the courts or arbitrators, then let it declare so in law which sets public policy. There is a price either way.
The 9th is writing fresh law here. Not unusual for them, but also deeply ultra-vires. This seems reaching, rather like force-manure sometimes. IANAL.
Now the 9th has a hard-earned reputation as avant-garde [nutjobs]. This is an astounding ruling. The binding arbitartion clause is pure boilerplate found in many, many contracts. For the 9th to toss it out changes many contracts.
Perhaps this is in connection with unequal power consumer level contracts. But then I would suggest that some PUC isn't doing it's job. And if it isn't because the Legislature hasn't seen fit to include DSL as a regulated service, then I'm not sure the courts can or should interfere.
Please note I'm not criticisning the 9th's decision. They might well be correct: it is the height of absurdity for a court to respect any contested provisions to bypass it. Courts are to resolve disputes fairly. Provisions otherwise are contemptuous.
Sounds very much like Dell tech [non]support: they don't want even few phone calls that make it through their automated phone maze.
Or maybe Dell wants to throw a bone to some (Tweeter?) resellers who they've scr3wed over more than once in the past.
In any case, why bother? Is Alienware offering something unique and unobtainable elesewhere (parts)? I thought HD decoders were widely available. Some hardware even open-source
More confoundation. Just because you may escape punishment for non-appearance once doesn't mean you can get out of the whole case! Assuming you could prove a good-faith effort to attend. And havea damn good reason for no ID. The feds seizing it would be best.
The guards would probably be firmly instructed to let you in for the reset.
Not quite. They can't [yet] bet jailed for lacking documents. They can only be turned away. And if they make a good-faith effort to appear, but officers of the court (whom the security must report to) turn them away, how can they be reasonably punished for non-appearance? The feds may well have seized their DL during a search.
If a court attemps imprisonment for non-appearance, they'll be wide open for a habeas corpus suit in front of a different judge. Not remotely pretty for the judges involved.
As usual, Chertoff has confounded things: Canadian provinces do not issue citizenship documents, however US counties issue Voter Registration Cards which is the only thing US citizens might possess short of a passport. DLs do not contain citizenship, but might attest to identity.
I have some sympathy for the difficulties faced by Border Agents. But not much for their management who cannot even issue passports to meet demands they instituted.
Requiring ID for Federal Courts becomes extremely problematic: Nevermind open courts, people are required to appear. If they try but are refused admission for lacking documents, how can they be punished for non-appearance?
Airport security has become like border crossings: the officials do not require any probable cause for searches and detentions. They can use any and all means, even arbitrary or hunches. That's the long-standing custom because their effectiveness is considered more important that the passers rights to privacy. If you don't like it, don't go there. Frankly, less arbitrary means will help their effectiveness.
A much bigger question is whether these officials should have those powers. Whether passers rights should not be more respected. This is a deeply political question, to be settled by political means. Denying tools is only very indirect criticism.
I would vastly have preferred airport security stay within the control of the airlines. Perhaps with federal "guidence". Then no question of 4th Amendment could come up. Or maybe "fruit of the poisoned vine" doctrine should be imposed: "20kg cocaine? Hmm... that's not explosive. Have a nice flight, sir.":)
The request for security might well be reasonable. The RIAA has a valid judgement against it, and no visible assets. They don't own the back-catalogs, they're just enforcement agents.
The RIAA could easly go bankrupt over the judgement and the labels start another shell RIAA2.
... yep, there is an angle: US immigration law. Ask Elena Lapin. Or see this little gem. Note especially the role of "discretion" that could easily be [ab]used to keep disagreeing foreign bloggers out by putting them on the watch-lists. Tell me again, who owns the watch lists?:)
Other countries might have similar laws. However, probably only running a 'blog counts (arguably even MySpace) because that's like having a regular newpaper column. You could probably argue successfully that posting to a 'blog is nothing more than a letter-to-the-editor which doesn't make anyone a journalist. But if the posts get too regular and come to be expected (localroger on K5) then you might be considered a journalist.
The 9th has gone wacko again. In making votes (or mor properly, promises to vote) a legitimate item of commerce, they're inviting back the old days of whiskey and money for votes. Tamney Hall.
For whatever ends, this is still called corruption.
Interesting. Gravity will induce some convention, but CO2 has a MW of 44 while O2 is 32. Not a huge difference. It depends on heat transfer, but CO2 at 137'C has the same density as Oxygen at 25'C.
A problem in microgravity is that hot combustion products have relatively long mean-free molecular paths so enhance diffusion.
Perhaps using a radical-capture fire retardant like HALON as a ~100 ppm additive to oxygen is the best fire solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Effectively, the light users are subsidizing the heavy users. If usage goes up (YouTube?) then overall profitability suffers. Either prices increase for all, or the hogs get slaughtered. Comcast has apparently chosen the later.
Expect squeals of protest from the hogs "contractual obligation". But it's not that simple. I would expect software to drop/delay packets (TCP ACKs) to throttle the hogs. This would avoid network performance degrading under load for the bulk of the users. Nothing illegal or inviolation of contract -- load has gone up and this is how they share it more equally. Buy an upgraded account.
Many ISPs block 25 outbound to be good netizens and avoid their lusers'botnets spewing spam. Legit users can get the block lifted.
Of course, this won't much stop satellite to the EU but smuggling is a serious offense and the US could easily put anyone involved in "facilitation" on watchlists (arrest on sight).
I've come to think of terrorism as trojan exploiting a bug/feature in homo-sapiens wiring/OS:
For thousands of generations as gatherer-hunters, homo sapiens has been optimized in an information-impoverished environment. So we react quickly and strongly to news of any threat. Those that didn't, didn't survive.
Terrorism is a modern (~100 yrs) invention. It was not as effective in antiquity simply because far fewer people would hear of the fear-inspiring event. Electronica has changed that, yet humans have not evolved any innate statistical or weighing sense.
The question still remains: what to do? 911 casualties cost about 700 million waking-hours. Far more than that in fretting afterwards. I suggest we rely on herd dynamics and ignore any threat unless directly imminent. Prevention is like the lottery, net negative payoff. But our wiring/OS won't accept this. No patch for the bug!
The fundamental problem is that civil liberties are barely permit after-the-fact punishment of criminals. Many get off because their liberties were violated. That's OK, because the criminal justice system doesn't need to convict everyone, it just needs to act as a deterrent.
Using the criminal justice system to prevent wrongdoing [terrorism] is not what it was designed to do. Preventative vs investigative. Airtight vs failure-tolerant. It requires unusual actions and far greater intrusion into liberties (esp privacy). Some [frightened] people are willing to sacrifice others liberties (and perhaps their own). Others are not. A fundamental conflict between different people. Politicians can exploit this and choose whichever side they wish.
Personally, I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
Then there's the individuals: anyone ever remember "Northern Exposure"? Just how did NYC goy Fleishman end up in Cicily, AK against his will? Looks a lot like indentured servitude to me. What arrangements could be made that would have a pretense of fairness? I suspect the service would be required in undesireable areas.
From the decision I see this is a creature of Calif law and their definition of "unconscionable" as either substantive and/or procedural. What can I say? That's how it is written. I would have though "unconscionable" be be more clear-cut and not subject to brinksmanship. Stay away from the edge.
So the decision may well conform to CA law. I still have a problem with "procedurally unconscioable" and the notion of contracts of "adhesion".
I'm not sure who has the greater power here, AT&T or the consumer. Sure, AT&T has greater assets and staff. But the consumer has the money that AT&T needs and furthermore each additional customer is essentially pure profit. Furthermore, a customer can negotiation a form contract. This isn't a parking stub. I do all the time by making alterations, initialing & signing. That contract form now is a counter-offer. If the sales-droid notices, I just say "See if that flies through your system." They're usually so commission hungry they accept. Or the corp does by behaviour.
This case is all about certifying a class-action ex post that Cing/AT&T expressly sought to avoid/evade and did to the best of their ability. Had AT&T been required to accept class actions (as they might be by this decision or could be by statute), I'm sure they would have charged more for service. That makes the certification reaching.
Calling something a "contract of adhesion" is a bit of a canard. All contracts are. "Take-it-or-leave-it" is a common, legitimate negotiating tactic.
I have a real problem apply "unconscionable" to a small consumer-level service agreement like phone, cell or DSL. Parties might very reasonably agree to arbitration as a method of controlling contract administration costs. If a legislature thinks class-action suits should proceed, either before the courts or arbitrators, then let it declare so in law which sets public policy. There is a price either way.
The 9th is writing fresh law here. Not unusual for them, but also deeply ultra-vires. This seems reaching, rather like force-manure sometimes. IANAL.
Perhaps this is in connection with unequal power consumer level contracts. But then I would suggest that some PUC isn't doing it's job. And if it isn't because the Legislature hasn't seen fit to include DSL as a regulated service, then I'm not sure the courts can or should interfere.
Please note I'm not criticisning the 9th's decision. They might well be correct: it is the height of absurdity for a court to respect any contested provisions to bypass it. Courts are to resolve disputes fairly. Provisions otherwise are contemptuous.
Or maybe Dell wants to throw a bone to some (Tweeter?) resellers who they've scr3wed over more than once in the past.
In any case, why bother? Is Alienware offering something unique and unobtainable elesewhere (parts)? I thought HD decoders were widely available. Some hardware even open-source
The guards would probably be firmly instructed to let you in for the reset.
If a court attemps imprisonment for non-appearance, they'll be wide open for a habeas corpus suit in front of a different judge. Not remotely pretty for the judges involved.
I have some sympathy for the difficulties faced by Border Agents. But not much for their management who cannot even issue passports to meet demands they instituted.
Requiring ID for Federal Courts becomes extremely problematic: Nevermind open courts, people are required to appear. If they try but are refused admission for lacking documents, how can they be punished for non-appearance?
A much bigger question is whether these officials should have those powers. Whether passers rights should not be more respected. This is a deeply political question, to be settled by political means. Denying tools is only very indirect criticism.
I would vastly have preferred airport security stay within the control of the airlines. Perhaps with federal "guidence". Then no question of 4th Amendment could come up. Or maybe "fruit of the poisoned vine" doctrine should be imposed: "20kg cocaine? Hmm ... that's not explosive. Have a nice flight, sir." :)
The RIAA could easly go bankrupt over the judgement and the labels start another shell RIAA2.
Other countries might have similar laws. However, probably only running a 'blog counts (arguably even MySpace) because that's like having a regular newpaper column. You could probably argue successfully that posting to a 'blog is nothing more than a letter-to-the-editor which doesn't make anyone a journalist. But if the posts get too regular and come to be expected (localroger on K5) then you might be considered a journalist.
Lame attempt. Now do you see why smileys are important?
You missed the space between / and . ending the sentence. -5 geek points :)
Problem solved. Many older/slower machines [laptops] can be sped up considerably by this step.
For whatever ends, this is still called corruption.
A problem in microgravity is that hot combustion products have relatively long mean-free molecular paths so enhance diffusion.
Perhaps using a radical-capture fire retardant like HALON as a ~100 ppm additive to oxygen is the best fire solution.