That's nothing compared to this ...
on
Ant Farm PC
·
· Score: 2
If you really want an out-there case, then you just have to check out this.
Re:$1 million in bandwidth
on
Spam, Milord
·
· Score: 1
It definitely seems possible to use $1 million of bandwidth to me.
Here in Australia, the cost of bandwidth to a commercial company is 7c per Mb, or $70 per gig, both inbound and outbound (prices in Australian dollars, and AUS$1 ~= US$0.65). [Those prices are not a typo!]
Alternatively, you can pay 15c per Mb for incoming only, and get some 'free' outgoing (but it's structured to ensure that you can't do much better than 7c per Mb both in and out).
And these are the standard market prices from competitive small hosting companies, not the price-gouging ouch prices from some large international teleco.
Frankly, I dream of only paying $1 per gig, and I can easily see the cost of bandwidth being used by a spammer as being huge. On the plus side though, it gives a real incentive to secure those servers!
Slashdot Mirror
If you really want an out-there case, then you just have to check out this.
It definitely seems possible to use $1 million of bandwidth to me.
Here in Australia, the cost of bandwidth to a commercial company is 7c per Mb, or $70 per gig, both inbound and outbound (prices in Australian dollars, and AUS$1 ~= US$0.65). [Those prices are not a typo!]
Alternatively, you can pay 15c per Mb for incoming only, and get some 'free' outgoing (but it's structured to ensure that you can't do much better than 7c per Mb both in and out).
And these are the standard market prices from competitive small hosting companies, not the price-gouging ouch prices from some large international teleco.
Frankly, I dream of only paying $1 per gig, and I can easily see the cost of bandwidth being used by a spammer as being huge. On the plus side though, it gives a real incentive to secure those servers!
If you want tab name shortening in Mozilla, then please take the time to vote for and indicate support for it here in bug 126611.
Currently this enhancement is marked as WONTFIX, which is the wrong decision IMO.