I think the grandparent understood that, they just didn't express it very well, but 80kbps is a hell of a lot faster than 6.5kbps (which, by the way, IS faster than the max speed of a 56k modem, but only just).
Bullshit. Some people in Australia are gorgeous, some are friendly, but it has more than its fair share of xenophobic assholes and ugly bastards. I think an internet connection would be a welcome reprive from some people.
My question would be: what was making the connection so slow? Crappy line quality? Crappy modem at your end, or the ISP's end? Crap bandwidth from your seaside town to Telstra? Or Telstra's crap bandwidth to the rest of the world?
Most ISP accounts in the UK offer free calls these days - gone are the days of pey-per-minute calls for the 'net - and as a result, people have no more reason to rush when on dialup than they do on broadband.
But they do, for two reasons.
1) Staying online on dialup services for long periods of time is discouraged, as it ties up a 64k circuit in the local exchange and a modem at the ISP's modem bank. Indeed, BTinternet's 'unmetered' service limits you to 150 hours per month. Then again, BTinternet is crap.
2) Staying online with dialup ties up your phone line. Staying online with broadband doesn't.
I would assume that both of these apply in Canada as much as they do in Britain.
Yeah. Like people who earn £30,000 a year. Maybe the government should increase the firefighter's pay by 40%, as that'd put them into the top tax bracket (I think?) and they'd just tax it back off them!:-)
This 'bounching' sounds interesting, could you enlighten me as to what it does? Surely it doesn't generate a genuine 'bounce message', as it must be generated by the client, but does it try to generate something close to a carbon copy of one?
Interesting. I can't think of a better way to find out about the latest classical music releases, get info about programming problems, get help from people in a specific country if you're travelling etc. Where would you get that info from?
Me? I'd look for websites, go into IRC, ask on discussion boards, or maybe ask around on ICQ. Usenet is shit, because it's hard to even get onto in the first place, EXTREMELY easy for people to post anonymously, especially now that Google's got in on the act, combined with the fact that there's no proper system of moderation (blacklisting doesn't effectively remove spammers and/or trolls), and the fact that the vast majority of people on Usenet that I've ever talked to were complete morons. And I don't hate everyone, that's compared to people I talk to from all over the web. I dunno. Maybe I've just had a bad experience with it, although I've tried it several times and hated it several times.
Precisely. I am talking about a very different thing to what you are.
When you're looking at the benefit to society, sure, look at the absolute sum of money.
But when you're judging someone's charitability, please, look at more than that. Look at their net worth before you decide that $100 million is a generous amount.
1) Bill Gates got most of that money from people who bought his software. Those people's combined extra donations to charity if they HADN'T had to pay for MS software might well come to more than Billy has given away.
2) My point is how much Gates has left AFTER he's given it away. He still personally has billions. Why not give away EVERYTHING HE HAS over $500 million to the Gates foundation? It wouldn't be accidentally given to some dictator, because it would be being held in trust. Yet it would make sure that money was spent charitably, and billions were not simply passed down the Gates family line, which is exactly what I suspect will happen.
The name Microsoft is mentioned so little in the memo that I did a search, and it is in fact mentioned once:
3.5 We also would like to point out that due to inappropriate handling of licensing issues, several schools in the United States of America have, in recent past, found that they are unable to answer Microsoft Corporation's request for an account of licenses for the number of computers used by them.
Although even that isn't a direct reference to the company supplying software to India, leading me to wonder if it really is Microsoft these people are talking about. They sure as hell don't make it clear!
We trust that you have studied and understood the terms under which the corporation, whose software is currently prescribed for study, licenses its software. It should be emphasised that they do not provide access to source code, which is a a closely guarded secret.
Presuming that they're talking about Microsoft here (and I'm not 100% sure so don't flame me if I'm wrong about this), I recently read that MS do provide the source code for Windows to many universities and governments around the world. So it's not so much of a 'closely guarded secret' as it seemed.
PS I'm now quite worried - the only time I've considered my spiritual side recently is while discussing Linux. This can't be healthy...
Don't worry. Anyone wasting their time thinking about 'spiritual matters' will regret it when they die and realise that they could and should have spent it doing ANYTHING else.
Get a clue, and realise that the monetary sum is VERY unimportant. The second you start judging someone's generosity by the ABSOLUTE amount of money they donate, you allow rich people to BUY goodwill. This is a bad thing.
Good point. People are quick to point out that OSS doesn't make as much in donations to developing countries. Really? Maybe the SAVINGS developing nations make by not having to purchase MS software result in higher long-term savings for these countries!
The Microsoft way is to give them the food for a day. The OSS way is to give them the seeds to plant.
But you give more of your net worth to charity? Really? More than 46% of your net worth has been donated to charity [news.com.au]?
Actually, I would argue that it's got bugger all to do with how much of his net worth he's given away, and much more to do with the money he's left with after he's given it away. If everyone over, say, $100 million gave 100% of their earnings away, fine, I'd call them generous. But DESPITE giving 46% of his networth away, Bill is still a multibillionaire. He still has more money than he could possibly spend, he still hoardes quite a bit of cash. So yes, I still call him greedy.
The Economist/Guardian/Independant etc for news&editorials, and thats all `free`).
Not by your defenition. They all places ads on their site, and that is how they are 'free'. And you post on Slashdot, which also has ads, unless you pay to remove them or obviously block them.
Well, if the internet was pretty much just a free Usenet, I'd be happy.
You're not the only user of the internet. I HATE Usenet, and never use it, and I sure as hell wouldn't be happy if the internet was one big Usenet.
If stuff like usenet, google, etc manage to exist for free
None of them exist *for free*. They all have costs. They may be free for YOU to use, and just tbecause they manage to find alternative methods of funding is no excuse for you to rubbish any website which tried to use the advertising method.
For your reference, Usenet is funded by a collection of ISPs, so when you pay money to your ISP you're partially funding Usenet (if you ISP offers Usenet).
Google (which also offers Usenet) survives by placing... ads! Text ads, but ads all the same. Also, they're in the incredibly fortunate position of having a search engine they're able to showcase at google.com and sell off to people who wish to buy it. Websites offering information, not a search service, are not in this very fortunate position.
Instead of addressing privacy concerns, they began straightaway to abuse consumer confidence.
Would you mind telling me how they 'abused consumer confidence'? It seems to me that the vast majority of web ad companies (I'm not talking about spyware like Real Player) impeach very little into people's privacy, and store minimalist amounts of data on their web browsing habits, for ad targetting.
Put up a website, lose all memory of life prior to 1998, I guess. If only the other kinds of lobotomy were so cheap and painless!
'Prior to 1998', websites didn't earn money, they were funded out of people's pockets. Some still are. It doesn't count as a different way of doing things, because that phrase implies that the website is still earning enough money to break even. It's a way of funding websites, but it's not a way of making any money out of them.
Good points, but how do you propose to stop people like Murdoch from buying out other independent media providers? That's the problem, and that's the reason he's so powerful - because he bought most of the media.
It is true that the BBC does seem to be one of the most critical channels of our government. However, this just goes to show how utterly shit all out other channels are, as I think our government deserves criticism, it's doing badly! And I'm still against the TV license tax, it's ridiculous, and it's getting less popular in this country. Several countries have also got rid of their TV license taxes recently, such as Australia and New Zealand. I think the BBC would be just as good and survive fine as a commercial organization. Why should the British taxpayer fund the BBC to broadcast *all over the world* for free???
Everyone never clicks on ads, so your point carries no weight. Whatsmore, the point of some ads is just to alert you to the presence of a company (impression ads), not for you to necessarily click on them.
And the site are losing money from you, the money they have to spend in bandwidth sending you the other stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the grandparent understood that, they just didn't express it very well, but 80kbps is a hell of a lot faster than 6.5kbps (which, by the way, IS faster than the max speed of a 56k modem, but only just).
the people are gorgeous and friendly
Bullshit. Some people in Australia are gorgeous, some are friendly, but it has more than its fair share of xenophobic assholes and ugly bastards. I think an internet connection would be a welcome reprive from some people.
My question would be: what was making the connection so slow? Crappy line quality? Crappy modem at your end, or the ISP's end? Crap bandwidth from your seaside town to Telstra? Or Telstra's crap bandwidth to the rest of the world?
Wow, that's really expensive. Even in Britain you can get ADSL for around £20/month ($35?)
Looks Scottish to me.
Most ISP accounts in the UK offer free calls these days - gone are the days of pey-per-minute calls for the 'net - and as a result, people have no more reason to rush when on dialup than they do on broadband.
But they do, for two reasons.
1) Staying online on dialup services for long periods of time is discouraged, as it ties up a 64k circuit in the local exchange and a modem at the ISP's modem bank. Indeed, BTinternet's 'unmetered' service limits you to 150 hours per month. Then again, BTinternet is crap.
2) Staying online with dialup ties up your phone line. Staying online with broadband doesn't.
I would assume that both of these apply in Canada as much as they do in Britain.
Yeah. Like people who earn £30,000 a year. Maybe the government should increase the firefighter's pay by 40%, as that'd put them into the top tax bracket (I think?) and they'd just tax it back off them! :-)
This 'bounching' sounds interesting, could you enlighten me as to what it does? Surely it doesn't generate a genuine 'bounce message', as it must be generated by the client, but does it try to generate something close to a carbon copy of one?
"I HATE Usenet"
Interesting. I can't think of a better way to find out about the latest classical music releases, get info about programming problems, get help from people in a specific country if you're travelling etc. Where would you get that info from?
Me? I'd look for websites, go into IRC, ask on discussion boards, or maybe ask around on ICQ. Usenet is shit, because it's hard to even get onto in the first place, EXTREMELY easy for people to post anonymously, especially now that Google's got in on the act, combined with the fact that there's no proper system of moderation (blacklisting doesn't effectively remove spammers and/or trolls), and the fact that the vast majority of people on Usenet that I've ever talked to were complete morons. And I don't hate everyone, that's compared to people I talk to from all over the web. I dunno. Maybe I've just had a bad experience with it, although I've tried it several times and hated it several times.
Precisely. I am talking about a very different thing to what you are.
When you're looking at the benefit to society, sure, look at the absolute sum of money.
But when you're judging someone's charitability, please, look at more than that. Look at their net worth before you decide that $100 million is a generous amount.
I agree on the whole, but two points:
1) Bill Gates got most of that money from people who bought his software. Those people's combined extra donations to charity if they HADN'T had to pay for MS software might well come to more than Billy has given away.
2) My point is how much Gates has left AFTER he's given it away. He still personally has billions. Why not give away EVERYTHING HE HAS over $500 million to the Gates foundation? It wouldn't be accidentally given to some dictator, because it would be being held in trust. Yet it would make sure that money was spent charitably, and billions were not simply passed down the Gates family line, which is exactly what I suspect will happen.
The name Microsoft is mentioned so little in the memo that I did a search, and it is in fact mentioned once:
3.5 We also would like to point out that due to inappropriate handling of licensing issues, several schools in the United States of America have, in recent past, found that they are unable to answer Microsoft Corporation's request for an account of licenses for the number of computers used by them.
Although even that isn't a direct reference to the company supplying software to India, leading me to wonder if it really is Microsoft these people are talking about. They sure as hell don't make it clear!
We trust that you have studied and understood the terms under which the corporation, whose software is currently prescribed for study, licenses its software. It should be emphasised that they do not provide access to source code, which is a a closely guarded secret.
Presuming that they're talking about Microsoft here (and I'm not 100% sure so don't flame me if I'm wrong about this), I recently read that MS do provide the source code for Windows to many universities and governments around the world. So it's not so much of a 'closely guarded secret' as it seemed.
PS I'm now quite worried - the only time I've considered my spiritual side recently is while discussing Linux. This can't be healthy ...
Don't worry. Anyone wasting their time thinking about 'spiritual matters' will regret it when they die and realise that they could and should have spent it doing ANYTHING else.
Get a clue, and realise that the monetary sum is VERY unimportant. The second you start judging someone's generosity by the ABSOLUTE amount of money they donate, you allow rich people to BUY goodwill. This is a bad thing.
Good point. People are quick to point out that OSS doesn't make as much in donations to developing countries. Really? Maybe the SAVINGS developing nations make by not having to purchase MS software result in higher long-term savings for these countries!
The Microsoft way is to give them the food for a day. The OSS way is to give them the seeds to plant.
But you give more of your net worth to charity? Really? More than 46% of your net worth has been donated to charity [news.com.au]?
Actually, I would argue that it's got bugger all to do with how much of his net worth he's given away, and much more to do with the money he's left with after he's given it away. If everyone over, say, $100 million gave 100% of their earnings away, fine, I'd call them generous. But DESPITE giving 46% of his networth away, Bill is still a multibillionaire. He still has more money than he could possibly spend, he still hoardes quite a bit of cash. So yes, I still call him greedy.
The Economist/Guardian/Independant etc for news&editorials, and thats all `free`).
Not by your defenition. They all places ads on their site, and that is how they are 'free'. And you post on Slashdot, which also has ads, unless you pay to remove them or obviously block them.
Well, if the internet was pretty much just a free Usenet, I'd be happy.
You're not the only user of the internet. I HATE Usenet, and never use it, and I sure as hell wouldn't be happy if the internet was one big Usenet.
If stuff like usenet, google, etc manage to exist for free
None of them exist *for free*. They all have costs. They may be free for YOU to use, and just tbecause they manage to find alternative methods of funding is no excuse for you to rubbish any website which tried to use the advertising method.
For your reference, Usenet is funded by a collection of ISPs, so when you pay money to your ISP you're partially funding Usenet (if you ISP offers Usenet).
Google (which also offers Usenet) survives by placing... ads! Text ads, but ads all the same. Also, they're in the incredibly fortunate position of having a search engine they're able to showcase at google.com and sell off to people who wish to buy it. Websites offering information, not a search service, are not in this very fortunate position.
Sorry sorry, I didn't realise that some people's jokes were so bad.
Bowling, as you probably know, is the American national sport
No, I certainly didn't know. I thought american national sports included baseball, basketball and football, but bowling???
Instead of addressing privacy concerns, they began straightaway to abuse consumer confidence.
Would you mind telling me how they 'abused consumer confidence'? It seems to me that the vast majority of web ad companies (I'm not talking about spyware like Real Player) impeach very little into people's privacy, and store minimalist amounts of data on their web browsing habits, for ad targetting.
Put up a website, lose all memory of life prior to 1998, I guess. If only the other kinds of lobotomy were so cheap and painless!
'Prior to 1998', websites didn't earn money, they were funded out of people's pockets. Some still are. It doesn't count as a different way of doing things, because that phrase implies that the website is still earning enough money to break even. It's a way of funding websites, but it's not a way of making any money out of them.
Good points, but how do you propose to stop people like Murdoch from buying out other independent media providers? That's the problem, and that's the reason he's so powerful - because he bought most of the media.
It is true that the BBC does seem to be one of the most critical channels of our government. However, this just goes to show how utterly shit all out other channels are, as I think our government deserves criticism, it's doing badly! And I'm still against the TV license tax, it's ridiculous, and it's getting less popular in this country. Several countries have also got rid of their TV license taxes recently, such as Australia and New Zealand. I think the BBC would be just as good and survive fine as a commercial organization. Why should the British taxpayer fund the BBC to broadcast *all over the world* for free???
Everyone never clicks on ads, so your point carries no weight. Whatsmore, the point of some ads is just to alert you to the presence of a company (impression ads), not for you to necessarily click on them.
And the site are losing money from you, the money they have to spend in bandwidth sending you the other stuff.
Which would take away one of the 2 major points of ad blocking that many people use, the conservation of their precious bandwidth.