I'm a Belgian. The average pension is around 1100 euro a month. If you know that renting small apartment of decent quality (you know, no mold and stuff) starts at around 700 euro, nobody here is getting rich on their pension.
Everyone here ALSO pays for extra insurance from out paychecks because public healthcare just isn't enough for anything beyond basic stuff (broken bone, dental care, a cold,...).
I'm in Belgium. This is one list we top... and yes, we also have to get our utilities inspected at our own cost for a new connection, electricity, water, gas, sewage, etc. And guess what, we also pay yearly property taxes. If we buy a property, we pay 10% registration costs plus notary costs on top of that.
We do get government healthcare but a lot of people pay for private health insurance on top because not everything gets paid for. We have unemployment benefits but they last only two years. If you are unemployed for longer: tough luck.
On top of that we pay 21% VAT on pretty much everything that isn't food (6%).
According to JetCat, that turbine uses 725ml/min of fuel... For 6 turbines, that's more than 4 liter per minute... several hundred miles an hour peak speed in very, very short hops...
Well, critical thinking has already been eliminated from the elections. If everything is electronic without a paper trail, soon, the voting itself can be reduced to a mere formality, perhaps even eliminated entirely...
I can't word it differently. The man is right in every respect but it doesn't actually diminish the problem in any way.
The main problem I see is not one of disappearing jobs it is one of pace of change: the type of jobs change so much faster than most of our population can handle, faster than ever in history and the pace keeps increasing. If you replace the garbage man with a robot, he won't be training AI neural nets or become a drone pilot... for more reason than one: he will need training (he is unlikely to be able to afford it), he will need certain abilities he might lack, he might not be mentally flexible enough anymore,...
It's simple. More and more jobs will be done by technology. More and more people will be unemployed.
At some point, it is cheaper to use a robot than to pay a person enough for his own sustenance.
The actual problem is capitalism itself: who is going to be play the consumer if most of your population is unemployed?
The denial says it does not exist on their systems. It does not deny that the software exists or even that it is actually running, just that it is running on the systems they own.
It is an entirely accurate statement if their systems forward all emails to NSA owned systems in or directly connected to their network.
Not when they understand its limited and communal resource that they are being given unmetered access to.
I have an objection against the usage of the word "communal" here. This suggests it is owned by everyone and one person abuses it. This is not the case.
The user entered a contract with a company one-on-one and exercises the contract to the limit. If they are depriving others from said resource because the traffic is aggregated in the company network, the problem lies with the contract the company issued, not the user.
The word "Abuse" means that she exceeded the spirit and intention of the offer., which is absolutely what was done.
And here is where the problem lies. The company puts "unlimited" on paper and then expects "but nobody will actually use it all". The babysitter was offered a snack and the provider badly misjudged the babysitters' appetite. I say it is rude to offer a snack and then to leave your babysitter hungry.
Spirit and intent is subjective.
For example, I have unlimited service and last week, the Nathan Drake Collection was released, this morning, it was Fallout 4. Together, close to 70GB of data I already downloaded this month. There are probably a few patches for those games coming and in a few days the Nathan Drake 4 multiplayer beta. Add to that my pretty much continuous Spotify usage, several weekly TV episodes @ 1080p or 4K if i can get it, etc....
Is this abuse? I certainly don't think so. But I bet you it is quite a bit more than the average user.
The company is actually putting a smart spin on this. Instead of saying "we badly misjudged this" or, as mentioned elsewhere "we just want to extort more money from you", they are putting the blame on others by saying "a few people abuse it". And since we are having this discussion, they are obviously getting away with it.
Yes. Mandating open firmware, awesome idea. Because we want to need X different compilers compiling code for Y different cpus/mcus running Z basic OSses just to compile our kernel and use our hardware. It will make our lives so much better. Why not just mandate that those embedded cpus must run Linux themselves?
Perhaps it makes sense to differentiate between binary drivers for Linux (bad) and binary blobs running on the embedded hardware taking to opensource drivers (ok)?
If you have to add a repeater every kilometer and keep them powered, managed and maintained, the deployment price will still be prohibitive for rural areas.
Except that they concentrate on "the last mile" and take this very literally. I have a VDSL2 with vectoring connection that supports 70mbit down and 10mbit up (and the modem claims it can go to 110/27) but I'm only a few hundred meter from the exchange. Don't expect bandwidth like that after a mile of copper cable... that rural house that will NEVER get fiber will NEVER get decent xDSL either.
Not every statement that differentiates between sexes is sexism.
Men and women are still physically different and experience different environmental pressures when growing up: this influences their behaviour. That is not sexism, that is reality.
What about the cost of downgrading all those machines they buy to an operating system that isn't officially supported anymore? Running a browser that isn't supported anymore? And the increased risk of using old software with known vulnerabilities?
I do admit those are more hidden costs... just like the cost of those 15 departments not maintaining their apps.
It's a bit like the current financial crisis: you keep adding leverage and keep telling yourself it won't break just yet....
When it does eventually break, there is so much "legacy" that nobody can really determine who's fault is all was... and that suits everybody just fine.
I am no laywer and I am assuming the cap is part of your contract with them, I cannot see how they can keep their definition of bandwidth usage a secret.
They are now basically claiming that you are restricted in your usage upto the cap but they refuse to tell you what the cap actually *means*. Without clear understanding of how usage is measured, the number of the cap is meaningless.
So you are subject to provions in a contract that you are not allowed to know. It would surprise me very much if they could hold that up in court...
First, they look at it differently: each second hand sale is a sale they earn no money from. They consider that a lost sale. This is debatable.
Second, you make the assumption that you payed for unlimited service for an unlimited time. In practice, however you have a limited amount of time you can play games and a limited amount of time you are willing to spend on this particular game. This is calculated into the price of the game. Each second hand gamer increases this particular amount of time per original sale of the game and thus increases service costs.
In the end, a second hand sale is not only a sale that does not bring in money, it actually costs them money.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a Belgian. The average pension is around 1100 euro a month. If you know that renting small apartment of decent quality (you know, no mold and stuff) starts at around 700 euro, nobody here is getting rich on their pension.
Everyone here ALSO pays for extra insurance from out paychecks because public healthcare just isn't enough for anything beyond basic stuff (broken bone, dental care, a cold, ...).
I'm in Belgium. This is one list we top... and yes, we also have to get our utilities inspected at our own cost for a new connection, electricity, water, gas, sewage, etc. And guess what, we also pay yearly property taxes. If we buy a property, we pay 10% registration costs plus notary costs on top of that.
We do get government healthcare but a lot of people pay for private health insurance on top because not everything gets paid for. We have unemployment benefits but they last only two years. If you are unemployed for longer: tough luck.
On top of that we pay 21% VAT on pretty much everything that isn't food (6%).
According to JetCat, that turbine uses 725ml/min of fuel... For 6 turbines, that's more than 4 liter per minute... several hundred miles an hour peak speed in very, very short hops...
Well, critical thinking has already been eliminated from the elections. If everything is electronic without a paper trail, soon, the voting itself can be reduced to a mere formality, perhaps even eliminated entirely...
I can't word it differently. The man is right in every respect but it doesn't actually diminish the problem in any way.
The main problem I see is not one of disappearing jobs it is one of pace of change: the type of jobs change so much faster than most of our population can handle, faster than ever in history and the pace keeps increasing. If you replace the garbage man with a robot, he won't be training AI neural nets or become a drone pilot... for more reason than one: he will need training (he is unlikely to be able to afford it), he will need certain abilities he might lack, he might not be mentally flexible enough anymore, ...
It's simple. More and more jobs will be done by technology. More and more people will be unemployed. At some point, it is cheaper to use a robot than to pay a person enough for his own sustenance. The actual problem is capitalism itself: who is going to be play the consumer if most of your population is unemployed?
The denial says it does not exist on their systems. It does not deny that the software exists or even that it is actually running, just that it is running on the systems they own.
It is an entirely accurate statement if their systems forward all emails to NSA owned systems in or directly connected to their network.
So important.
Why would this be different from any other copyright infringement? Because it is an individual? Heh.
Seriously, which politician would want to be obsolete? Or more importantly, which politician would want to give up their paycheck?
Not when they understand its limited and communal resource that they are being given unmetered access to.
I have an objection against the usage of the word "communal" here. This suggests it is owned by everyone and one person abuses it. This is not the case.
The user entered a contract with a company one-on-one and exercises the contract to the limit. If they are depriving others from said resource because the traffic is aggregated in the company network, the problem lies with the contract the company issued, not the user.
The word "Abuse" means that she exceeded the spirit and intention of the offer., which is absolutely what was done.
And here is where the problem lies. The company puts "unlimited" on paper and then expects "but nobody will actually use it all". The babysitter was offered a snack and the provider badly misjudged the babysitters' appetite. I say it is rude to offer a snack and then to leave your babysitter hungry.
Spirit and intent is subjective.
For example, I have unlimited service and last week, the Nathan Drake Collection was released, this morning, it was Fallout 4. Together, close to 70GB of data I already downloaded this month. There are probably a few patches for those games coming and in a few days the Nathan Drake 4 multiplayer beta. Add to that my pretty much continuous Spotify usage, several weekly TV episodes @ 1080p or 4K if i can get it, etc....
Is this abuse? I certainly don't think so. But I bet you it is quite a bit more than the average user.
The company is actually putting a smart spin on this. Instead of saying "we badly misjudged this" or, as mentioned elsewhere "we just want to extort more money from you", they are putting the blame on others by saying "a few people abuse it". And since we are having this discussion, they are obviously getting away with it.
Yes. Mandating open firmware, awesome idea. Because we want to need X different compilers compiling code for Y different cpus/mcus running Z basic OSses just to compile our kernel and use our hardware. It will make our lives so much better. Why not just mandate that those embedded cpus must run Linux themselves?
Perhaps it makes sense to differentiate between binary drivers for Linux (bad) and binary blobs running on the embedded hardware taking to opensource drivers (ok)?
You wouldn't want the IRS using these laws to get to your overseas accounting records, would you?
If you have to add a repeater every kilometer and keep them powered, managed and maintained, the deployment price will still be prohibitive for rural areas.
Except that they concentrate on "the last mile" and take this very literally. I have a VDSL2 with vectoring connection that supports 70mbit down and 10mbit up (and the modem claims it can go to 110/27) but I'm only a few hundred meter from the exchange. Don't expect bandwidth like that after a mile of copper cable... that rural house that will NEVER get fiber will NEVER get decent xDSL either.
Because they aren't hiring your for your negotiation skills...
Not every statement that differentiates between sexes is sexism.
Men and women are still physically different and experience different environmental pressures when growing up: this influences their behaviour. That is not sexism, that is reality.
Why pay your employee more for negotiation skills they do not need in their daily job?
What's the point of critical thinking if what your boss really wants to hear is whatever answer he thinks is going to benefit him (personally) best?
Of course, many people pirated "the final season" of Breaking Bad after they purchased the full Season 5 then the retailers (Amazon, iTunes,.. ) turned the second half of the 5th season in "the final season" and charged users a second time... Source: http://consumerist.com/2013/08/12/apple-demands-another-23-because-5th-season-of-breaking-bad-was-split-in-half/
And not doing it costs money too. It just doesn't cost money today.
What about the cost of downgrading all those machines they buy to an operating system that isn't officially supported anymore? Running a browser that isn't supported anymore? And the increased risk of using old software with known vulnerabilities?
I do admit those are more hidden costs... just like the cost of those 15 departments not maintaining their apps.
It's a bit like the current financial crisis: you keep adding leverage and keep telling yourself it won't break just yet....
When it does eventually break, there is so much "legacy" that nobody can really determine who's fault is all was... and that suits everybody just fine.
I am no laywer and I am assuming the cap is part of your contract with them, I cannot see how they can keep their definition of bandwidth usage a secret. They are now basically claiming that you are restricted in your usage upto the cap but they refuse to tell you what the cap actually *means*. Without clear understanding of how usage is measured, the number of the cap is meaningless.
So you are subject to provions in a contract that you are not allowed to know. It would surprise me very much if they could hold that up in court...
First, they look at it differently: each second hand sale is a sale they earn no money from. They consider that a lost sale. This is debatable.
Second, you make the assumption that you payed for unlimited service for an unlimited time. In practice, however you have a limited amount of time you can play games and a limited amount of time you are willing to spend on this particular game. This is calculated into the price of the game. Each second hand gamer increases this particular amount of time per original sale of the game and thus increases service costs.
In the end, a second hand sale is not only a sale that does not bring in money, it actually costs them money.