I don't know that it's actually throttling; I tried Clearwire several years ago and had nothing but trouble with them. During peak hours, service would be absolutely abysmal. (I was running some network monitoring, measuring latency at 1 minute intervals -- it would get above 2000ms to the GATEWAY for better parts of the evening) During the day and later at night it would get somewhat better, but still very spotty. Throughput wasn't horrible, but certainly wasn't what they'd sold me. I wasn't doing anything that should have set off any bandwidth usage meters; they just couldn't reliably provide the service at the advertised speed.
I spent several phone calls to tech support getting helpful suggestions like "make sure your modem has at least 4 lights on," sending them the network data that I had collected, and generally getting the run around. They (unsurprisingly) would never just admit that they had vastly oversold their capacity. Fortunately for them, I wasn't planning on staying in the same location long, so I didn't want to go through the hassle of having a hard line installed, and put up with spotty performance instead.
Deceptive advertising is absolutely the norm today.
Axe shower gel will have gorgeous women throwing themselves at you.
Budweiser/Coors/Miller Lite will cause an instant party to spring up around you.
Ford/Toyota/GM all have the #1 whatever-it-is that they're trying to sell.
Hell, most products you see advertised on TV don't even make claims about their product any more; they just show a happy mother and child doing some completely unrelated activity, and imply that they somehow use the product.
And when you get annoyed by it and point it out to most people, they just tell you that it's not a big deal and to just live with it. They open the door to more egregious outright lies, and when you point those out, you still get the "it's just an advertisement" line. People have been conditioned to not suspend their disbelief in ads, because they aren't "ads" any more -- they're short stories that portray a fantasy.
What is the arrestable offense here? They put some numbers in a website text box, and it gave them "Microsoft Points" which have only the 'value' that Microsoft ascribes to them -- they aren't even redeemable for cash. If, instead, they had used a code to generate 1.2 million gold pieces in WoW, would that be worthy of arrest? If it were 1.2 million in gold in a single-player-only game, would that warrant arrest?
My point is that nothing was "stolen" -- there wasn't even any arguable "unauthorized computer access" that would warrant hacking charges. They just guessed some numbers that in turn incremented a counter somewhere. Microsoft didn't lose anything. None of Microsoft's customers lost anything. As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft can roll back the redeemed codes and be happy that no real damage was done.
Since when is "virus takes out small company's computers" a story that shows up on the news? Does CNN dispatch reporters whenever a network admin has to restore from backups? Or is it only when it happens to Macs?
I'm not saying it couldn't be made up, but your assertion that it would have been something everyone heard about it just asinine.
I'm really sure a company is going to be keen on the idea of getting word out that their workstations have all been owned.
It's not like they could, you know, start a timer or anything after releasing the machine to be attacked and then, perhaps, keep track of how long it takes each machine to get compromised, then compare the relative times.
Oh no, that doesn't make sense. I guess it must be like back in my track days, where the people in the second heat were screwed because they were always at least several minutes behind the winners from the first heat.
We wanted the public option; those on the right who are terrified of EEEEEEVIL socialism made sure that wasn't a possibility. The only other way to fund the thing is an everyone-pays system, which is ALSO what those on the right wanted. It is most CERTAINLY not what those on the left wanted.
It's impossible to have discussions with people like you because you START with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is a "leftwing dingbat". Get off your high horse and stop it with the fucking name calling -- it's childish and non productive. And on top of that, those on the right are just as guilty in the hypocrisy department: they're all for small government until it interferes with their ideals of not letting women have control of their own bodies. They're all for the sanctity of life until that life is some brown person on another continent.
Or if that is still too debatable. I don't think anyone with any math skills at all would disagree that spending more than you bring in is a bad long-term policy, yet Democrats and Republicans alike don't seem to agree with that.
When you put the issue that simply, it sure does make a lot of sense. Too bad that when you simplify things that much, they no longer reflect reality.
But then, most economists agree, you can't compare managing a household budget to running a nation's economy.
Now, don't think that that implies that I think that we should just keep spending, spending, spending, and that I'm ok with reckless debt accumulation; I'm not. However, I *do* see that it is possible to make money by spending money -- that's the entire point of investment. Mainly, I just want to make it clear that these idiotic platitudes of "well don't spend more than you make" are fucking STUPID, oversimplifying sound bytes that contribute NOTHING of value to the discussion.
Yes, they should. Now shut the hell up about them. You aren't improving your case with your flailing.
Are you as conflicted as this about your other beliefs? You like to point out how you're a libertarian -- that's wonderful. Are you also conflicted about, say, telling the government to stay out of the way of business as it exploits a local populace? That also seems to be contradictory to someone who (presumably) follows Jesus, but I'll bet you never even give that one a second thought.
It's tough to stand up for your neighbor's rights when you've only known them for a few months, because you just moved in to your apartment or they just moved in to their apartment, and you barely know anything about them other than how loud they turn up their TV.
Lack of community is really a great way to keep people from organizing any sort of resistance to anything.
Because including a 10 cent part that hooks up to what everyone already has would prevent Apple from charging $40 for something they make, and that most people won't look elsewhere to find cheaper.
Actually, it's almost more dangerous for users to think, "oh, I have nothing to fear, my iOS device can't ever possibly be hacked, and Apple has my back with their vetting process" (as Apple would MOST CERTAINLY have you believe), than for a user to go to the Android Marketplace and know that, "hey, anything I install can do whatever it says in the list of permissions; maybe I should be careful."
Which is why you don't buy a phone until you find reliable evidence that it will be root-able and flash-able. If you bought a phone that nobody has successfully hacked, yet you want to be able to hack it, that's a failing on your part.
What you say about VC++ Express missing MFC and ATL is true; (surprisingly; I was unaware of this, and C++ Express seems pretty damn useless without at least MFC support) I weep for anyone designing interfaces in MFC when.Net and Windows Forms is available for C# Express.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know that it's actually throttling; I tried Clearwire several years ago and had nothing but trouble with them. During peak hours, service would be absolutely abysmal. (I was running some network monitoring, measuring latency at 1 minute intervals -- it would get above 2000ms to the GATEWAY for better parts of the evening) During the day and later at night it would get somewhat better, but still very spotty. Throughput wasn't horrible, but certainly wasn't what they'd sold me. I wasn't doing anything that should have set off any bandwidth usage meters; they just couldn't reliably provide the service at the advertised speed.
I spent several phone calls to tech support getting helpful suggestions like "make sure your modem has at least 4 lights on," sending them the network data that I had collected, and generally getting the run around. They (unsurprisingly) would never just admit that they had vastly oversold their capacity. Fortunately for them, I wasn't planning on staying in the same location long, so I didn't want to go through the hassle of having a hard line installed, and put up with spotty performance instead.
--Jeremy
But it's powered by SOCIALISM. That's the DEVIL.
--Jeremy
Deceptive advertising is absolutely the norm today.
Axe shower gel will have gorgeous women throwing themselves at you.
Budweiser/Coors/Miller Lite will cause an instant party to spring up around you.
Ford/Toyota/GM all have the #1 whatever-it-is that they're trying to sell.
Hell, most products you see advertised on TV don't even make claims about their product any more; they just show a happy mother and child doing some completely unrelated activity, and imply that they somehow use the product.
And when you get annoyed by it and point it out to most people, they just tell you that it's not a big deal and to just live with it. They open the door to more egregious outright lies, and when you point those out, you still get the "it's just an advertisement" line. People have been conditioned to not suspend their disbelief in ads, because they aren't "ads" any more -- they're short stories that portray a fantasy.
--Jeremy
What is the arrestable offense here? They put some numbers in a website text box, and it gave them "Microsoft Points" which have only the 'value' that Microsoft ascribes to them -- they aren't even redeemable for cash. If, instead, they had used a code to generate 1.2 million gold pieces in WoW, would that be worthy of arrest? If it were 1.2 million in gold in a single-player-only game, would that warrant arrest?
My point is that nothing was "stolen" -- there wasn't even any arguable "unauthorized computer access" that would warrant hacking charges. They just guessed some numbers that in turn incremented a counter somewhere. Microsoft didn't lose anything. None of Microsoft's customers lost anything. As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft can roll back the redeemed codes and be happy that no real damage was done.
--Jeremy
Please, enlighten us on what "proper security practices" Windows is behind on. Please.
--Jeremy
That sounds about right...
--Jeremy
Because if Chrome sandboxes the Webkit code, even if Webkit has a vulnerability, the exploit would still have to find a way to get out of the sandbox.
--Jeremy
Since when is "virus takes out small company's computers" a story that shows up on the news? Does CNN dispatch reporters whenever a network admin has to restore from backups? Or is it only when it happens to Macs?
I'm not saying it couldn't be made up, but your assertion that it would have been something everyone heard about it just asinine.
I'm really sure a company is going to be keen on the idea of getting word out that their workstations have all been owned.
--Jeremy
It's not like they could, you know, start a timer or anything after releasing the machine to be attacked and then, perhaps, keep track of how long it takes each machine to get compromised, then compare the relative times.
Oh no, that doesn't make sense. I guess it must be like back in my track days, where the people in the second heat were screwed because they were always at least several minutes behind the winners from the first heat.
--Jeremy
In other words, it's a *feature.*
--Jeremy
We wanted the public option; those on the right who are terrified of EEEEEEVIL socialism made sure that wasn't a possibility. The only other way to fund the thing is an everyone-pays system, which is ALSO what those on the right wanted. It is most CERTAINLY not what those on the left wanted.
It's impossible to have discussions with people like you because you START with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is a "leftwing dingbat". Get off your high horse and stop it with the fucking name calling -- it's childish and non productive. And on top of that, those on the right are just as guilty in the hypocrisy department: they're all for small government until it interferes with their ideals of not letting women have control of their own bodies. They're all for the sanctity of life until that life is some brown person on another continent.
--Jeremy
The right wingers are typically the ones who run on a platform of "moral superiority." They'd damn well better hold themselves to a higher standard.
Funny thing is, they don't, and their voting base doesn't seem to notice.
--Jeremy
Or they were just making a joke, which doesn't need to be 100% accurate to be funny.
Sheesh. Does someone have a DeVry degree?
--Jeremy
More likely, his opponent would say, "my opponent will destroy the economy if you let him try to do anything about global warming!"
The way you frame the unreasonable argument says quite a bit about your bias.
Just like how if there are no terrorist attacks, it was the draconian measures taken by the TSA and other agencies that prevented them?
--Jeremy
When you put the issue that simply, it sure does make a lot of sense. Too bad that when you simplify things that much, they no longer reflect reality.
But then, most economists agree, you can't compare managing a household budget to running a nation's economy.
Now, don't think that that implies that I think that we should just keep spending, spending, spending, and that I'm ok with reckless debt accumulation; I'm not. However, I *do* see that it is possible to make money by spending money -- that's the entire point of investment. Mainly, I just want to make it clear that these idiotic platitudes of "well don't spend more than you make" are fucking STUPID, oversimplifying sound bytes that contribute NOTHING of value to the discussion.
--Jeremy
No, the null hypothesis is never an extraordinary claim.
--Jeremy
Yes, they should. Now shut the hell up about them. You aren't improving your case with your flailing.
Are you as conflicted as this about your other beliefs? You like to point out how you're a libertarian -- that's wonderful. Are you also conflicted about, say, telling the government to stay out of the way of business as it exploits a local populace? That also seems to be contradictory to someone who (presumably) follows Jesus, but I'll bet you never even give that one a second thought.
--Jeremy
Well, as long as the shop isn't "Bob's Terrorism Emporium," I really don't see how that information would be useful at all.
--Jeremy
So, let me sum up:
"As long as it's not my rights they're infringing upon, by all means, let them keep my cowardly ass safe."
If they're a threat, get a goddamn warrant. It's not that hard.
--Jeremy
It's tough to stand up for your neighbor's rights when you've only known them for a few months, because you just moved in to your apartment or they just moved in to their apartment, and you barely know anything about them other than how loud they turn up their TV.
Lack of community is really a great way to keep people from organizing any sort of resistance to anything.
--Jeremy
Because including a 10 cent part that hooks up to what everyone already has would prevent Apple from charging $40 for something they make, and that most people won't look elsewhere to find cheaper.
--Jeremy
Actually, it's almost more dangerous for users to think, "oh, I have nothing to fear, my iOS device can't ever possibly be hacked, and Apple has my back with their vetting process" (as Apple would MOST CERTAINLY have you believe), than for a user to go to the Android Marketplace and know that, "hey, anything I install can do whatever it says in the list of permissions; maybe I should be careful."
--Jeremy
Umm, Netfix is available for PCs.
--Jeremy
Which is why you don't buy a phone until you find reliable evidence that it will be root-able and flash-able. If you bought a phone that nobody has successfully hacked, yet you want to be able to hack it, that's a failing on your part.
--Jeremy
What you say about VC++ Express missing MFC and ATL is true; (surprisingly; I was unaware of this, and C++ Express seems pretty damn useless without at least MFC support) I weep for anyone designing interfaces in MFC when .Net and Windows Forms is available for C# Express.
--Jeremy