It's one example, and I did note that it's an inefficient proposition. I've got an rsync cron backup scheduled to an off-site server, as well as the local external-drive dump capability. I'm quite capable of managing my bandwidth usage.
My father, my siblings, and most folks I know are not. They purchased an "unlimited" bandwidth package, mostly due to salesmanship. They think that backing up their hard drive to their GMail account is a great idea. My brother has a HTPC in his living room, and it's constantly pulling down files from his Rhapsody and NetFlix accounts. Their usage patterns differ strongly from mine (and apparently yours.) Why is their behavior wrong? Last time I checked, nobody wanted less bandwidth on their internet connection. I value my time, and higher bandwidth is a good thing.
But I have no idea what they are doing that would qualify as "residential Internet use" that would have them smack a 250 GB/month limit.
I have a 320GB disk in my machine. Once a month, I boot a linux live CD and do a drive-image backup to an off-site machine. Blammo, there goes my 250GB limit, for a *very* residential-use application.
No, it's not the most efficient way to do a backup, but it sure is easy and dirt simple. There's nothing in my contract with my ISP that mandates I shall use my internet connection in the most efficient manner possible... and at 60Mbps, the effective transfer rate is about 6MBytes/sec. 250GB of transfer will take about 41666 seconds, or almost 12 hours. Let it run overnight or while I'm at work.
Mistress? Look, I've got enough problems maintaining the needs of one woman. Why would I voluntarily adopt the stress of a second woman?
Besides, if my mistress was calling me, I'm certain she'd be yammering about how I never bring her flowers or that I'm not serious about our relationship. Leave the tape in place...
I suspect there is something else at work here, because in my suburban neighborhood Verizon ran fiber to every home. Did I mention that all my utilities are underground, even electricity?
That's the very essence of cherrypicking. Verizon is more than willing to roll out the FIOS service to neighborhoods where they expect a high rate of adoption. However, they accept state and federal funding from everyone, including me. Why should I not be able to purchase this broadband service? Verizon is taking money from everyone, but only offering service to the most lucrative customers - hence cherrypicking. I didn't say they weren't offering service to *anyone*.
Why remove the speaker? Just put a piece of tape over it. Of course, if they use the handset speaker for the "click," that'd be more difficult to disable with tape... unless you desire one-sided telephone conversations. Might be desirable for those of us who are married.
If it makes you feel any better, they're cherry-picking FIOS deployments in the DC-metro area. I live almost exactly 1 mile from my local CO, which translates to about 7000 wire-feet. I know, because DSL is the best thing I can get. I live in a fairly urban suburb of DC, and I can't get FIOS to save my life. Why? Because I live in a single-family neighborhood that was built in the mid 1950s. Putting fiber on the poles would be expensive. They'd much rather do build-outs in new communities where the builder passes last-quarter-mile connection costs onto the new homeowner, and Verizon only has to hook up to the community pedestal. If you live in town houses or condos, you have a much better chance of getting FIOS because the connection-density potential is higher.
As noted in another post, the physical plant (fiber, copper, wet string, etc.) shouldn't be a sanctioned monopoly, but should rather be a municipal resource. If you can't stomach that, then require universal access for services. Enforce that. If you're offering FIOS in the state, Verizon should be obligated to deploy it to *any* customer who orders it. If Verizon squeals, tell them to stop using the government-mandated right-of-way access through private property.
A final note - one of the reasons this issue torques me so much is that Verizon has run fiber through my yard. They're more than willing to expect right-of-way through my property, but they steadfastly refuse to provide me with a service I'm more than willing to pay for. The State mandates that I allow this, so I don't have any recourse short of getting elected Governor. And before you comment that I get indirect benefit from the fiber, no I don't. The fiber in question isn't a backbone, it's a last-mile bundle installed to service another community.
I'm wondering if the "time capsule" will be painted hunter-green and have the "WM" logo on the side. "No problem, we'll store the contents of your "time capsule" at our special "aggregation facility."" Some folks at Stanford seem to think it's a good idea.
Unfortunately, the CD is likely to be useless without the hardware to read it (hence the need to archive the entire machine.) As an example, I used to write software on a Terak 8510/a. Let's say that I archived 200 of the 8-inch floppies into high-school year books. Right now, a mere 30 years later, they would be completely useless, regardless of their ability to retain data. So unless the yearbooks all have PCs taped to the back cover, I don't see the distributed model gaining you anything.
Play the statistics. Tip the entire pile of 200 CDs into the time capsule bin. You gain exactly zero advantage by putting them in the landfill, and have a "maybe one will work" if you forward them to the future. I don't know about you, but I'll take a "maybe" over a "guaranteed zero" any day.
Actually, let's take a look at that oh-so-pesky document... the United States Constitution:
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As the the teacher is a government employee, she is an agent of the state. She is officially prohibited to perform unreasonable seizures. "Someone might do something I don't like" isn't grounds for seizure.
As the CEO of Shillington Labs, I would like to reiterate that uncomfortable situations like this could be completely avoided by using our Product Review Service.
The ALL Power Labs guys built the Honda Accord in the TreeHugger video, and they have a DIY Lego-style gasifier you can build yourself. It's open source, no less.
But this *is* a critical system. If you know your opponent's logistics capabilities, you can very effectively plan around his resupply requirements (or worse, pin him down and play the attrition card.) The MoD is playing it down, but it's a big deal.
> But that's not an issue in an office environment.
Tell that to the guy in the next cube. I believe he's running an internet business from there. (Honestly. I keep hearing him on the phone... brokering the sale of horses. We manufacture electronics.)
The response of the security bot-net is even worse. It's an algorithmic evaluation of cost tables.
That cost-benefit analysis would be simple to carry out, but network executives would have to determine the monetary costs and enter them into the software configuration so it can do its calculations.
End users would not program or modify the core detection engine. We don't want to have humans in the loop.
So, it'll go something like this:
The CEO/VP/Regional Manager is working on a contract bid that absolutely has to go out the door by 4pm today. His network connection abruptly drops, then he's forcefully logged-of. Exec: [calls IT desk] My computer just crapped out! ITDesk: Yeah, seems your machine was tagged for anomolous behavior. Exec: It's critical that my account be reactivated. ITDesk: I don't think I can do that. The system is fully automated. Exec: Do you think you can stop by HR to pick up your severance check?
I also think that this could be anything related to Microsoft and you wouldn't like it
Huh? It's not like I'm making unfounded accusations here. I quoted Microsoft's policy, and provided linkage back to the source so you can read it yourself in-context. They come right out and say that they're going to data-mine your personal information. That's a quote, not anti-Microsoft sentiment.
One of the ways to download the phone application is to enter your phone number, and they'll send you a link on the mobile device. Once you provide your phone number, they can reverse lookup your name, address, and anything else associated with you.
And this is hardly paranoia. Your local grocery stores do the same thing. They correlate credit cards with customer discount and gift cards. They cross-link that information with other companies' databases. This has been going on for years. Here, read this 2005 paper from Carnegie Mellon University [warning PDF]. Pay special attention to Section 3 - Tracking and Price Discrimination.
I disagree. In order to use the application on your phone, you have to install Microsoft's closed-source application. It'll collect anything it can find. Also, when you register with Microsoft to use the application, you need to provide personal details. From Microsoft's "privacy" page associated with downloading the phone app:
- When you register for certain Microsoft services, we will ask you to provide personal information.
- The information we collect may be combined with information obtained from other Microsoft services and other companies.
- We use cookies and other technologies to keep track of your interactions with our sites and services to offer a personalized experience.
So, not only are they compiling stats about the destination site, they're doing it for the "clicker." The only reason to do this is so they can cram targeted advertising at you (the clicker.) You can call it a "personalized experience" if it makes you feel better, but it's still unsolicited advertising being thrust upon you. Again, no thanks. The last thing I would want is a third party (Microsoft) pissing-off my customers. They would associate that with me. I don't benefit from this relationship. Why would I put my customers at risk without any reward?
Microsoft will provide you with online reporting information about use of the Tags affiliated with Your Materials. You may create reports based on the scanning and use of your Tags by end users (âoeReportsâ), provided that any copies or dissemination of the information in such reports will contain an attribution to âoeInformation Provided by Microsoft® Tagâ. Microsoft may provide aggregated data in the Reports available in summary analytics to third parties, without identifying you.
No thanks. I can print an URL on my event poster, and my customers can type that URL into their web-enabled phones. Microsoft's "help" is not necessary, nor desired.
Slashdot Mirror
It's one example, and I did note that it's an inefficient proposition. I've got an rsync cron backup scheduled to an off-site server, as well as the local external-drive dump capability. I'm quite capable of managing my bandwidth usage.
My father, my siblings, and most folks I know are not. They purchased an "unlimited" bandwidth package, mostly due to salesmanship. They think that backing up their hard drive to their GMail account is a great idea. My brother has a HTPC in his living room, and it's constantly pulling down files from his Rhapsody and NetFlix accounts. Their usage patterns differ strongly from mine (and apparently yours.) Why is their behavior wrong? Last time I checked, nobody wanted less bandwidth on their internet connection. I value my time, and higher bandwidth is a good thing.
I have a 320GB disk in my machine. Once a month, I boot a linux live CD and do a drive-image backup to an off-site machine. Blammo, there goes my 250GB limit, for a *very* residential-use application.
... and at 60Mbps, the effective transfer rate is about 6MBytes/sec. 250GB of transfer will take about 41666 seconds, or almost 12 hours. Let it run overnight or while I'm at work.
No, it's not the most efficient way to do a backup, but it sure is easy and dirt simple. There's nothing in my contract with my ISP that mandates I shall use my internet connection in the most efficient manner possible
Mistress? Look, I've got enough problems maintaining the needs of one woman. Why would I voluntarily adopt the stress of a second woman?
...
Besides, if my mistress was calling me, I'm certain she'd be yammering about how I never bring her flowers or that I'm not serious about our relationship. Leave the tape in place
Gawd, I wish I could laugh at that :(
Clearly you haven't met my wife.
That's the very essence of cherrypicking. Verizon is more than willing to roll out the FIOS service to neighborhoods where they expect a high rate of adoption. However, they accept state and federal funding from everyone, including me. Why should I not be able to purchase this broadband service? Verizon is taking money from everyone, but only offering service to the most lucrative customers - hence cherrypicking. I didn't say they weren't offering service to *anyone*.
Why remove the speaker? Just put a piece of tape over it. Of course, if they use the handset speaker for the "click," that'd be more difficult to disable with tape ... unless you desire one-sided telephone conversations. Might be desirable for those of us who are married.
If it makes you feel any better, they're cherry-picking FIOS deployments in the DC-metro area. I live almost exactly 1 mile from my local CO, which translates to about 7000 wire-feet. I know, because DSL is the best thing I can get. I live in a fairly urban suburb of DC, and I can't get FIOS to save my life. Why? Because I live in a single-family neighborhood that was built in the mid 1950s. Putting fiber on the poles would be expensive. They'd much rather do build-outs in new communities where the builder passes last-quarter-mile connection costs onto the new homeowner, and Verizon only has to hook up to the community pedestal. If you live in town houses or condos, you have a much better chance of getting FIOS because the connection-density potential is higher.
As noted in another post, the physical plant (fiber, copper, wet string, etc.) shouldn't be a sanctioned monopoly, but should rather be a municipal resource. If you can't stomach that, then require universal access for services. Enforce that. If you're offering FIOS in the state, Verizon should be obligated to deploy it to *any* customer who orders it. If Verizon squeals, tell them to stop using the government-mandated right-of-way access through private property.
A final note - one of the reasons this issue torques me so much is that Verizon has run fiber through my yard. They're more than willing to expect right-of-way through my property, but they steadfastly refuse to provide me with a service I'm more than willing to pay for. The State mandates that I allow this, so I don't have any recourse short of getting elected Governor. And before you comment that I get indirect benefit from the fiber, no I don't. The fiber in question isn't a backbone, it's a last-mile bundle installed to service another community.
I'm wondering if the "time capsule" will be painted hunter-green and have the "WM" logo on the side. "No problem, we'll store the contents of your "time capsule" at our special "aggregation facility."" Some folks at Stanford seem to think it's a good idea.
Unfortunately, the CD is likely to be useless without the hardware to read it (hence the need to archive the entire machine.) As an example, I used to write software on a Terak 8510/a. Let's say that I archived 200 of the 8-inch floppies into high-school year books. Right now, a mere 30 years later, they would be completely useless, regardless of their ability to retain data. So unless the yearbooks all have PCs taped to the back cover, I don't see the distributed model gaining you anything.
Play the statistics. Tip the entire pile of 200 CDs into the time capsule bin. You gain exactly zero advantage by putting them in the landfill, and have a "maybe one will work" if you forward them to the future. I don't know about you, but I'll take a "maybe" over a "guaranteed zero" any day.
As the the teacher is a government employee, she is an agent of the state. She is officially prohibited to perform unreasonable seizures. "Someone might do something I don't like" isn't grounds for seizure.
Offtopic? gawd ... you do know what a shill is, right?
As the CEO of Shillington Labs, I would like to reiterate that uncomfortable situations like this could be completely avoided by using our Product Review Service.
Shillington Labs: Product Reviews, Your Way!
The ALL Power Labs guys built the Honda Accord in the TreeHugger video, and they have a DIY Lego-style gasifier you can build yourself. It's open source, no less.
Shillington Labs provides independent product reviews. Our corporate motto is: "Product Reviews, Your Way!"
Is this one of those "Cancel or Allow?" questions?
I figure that since 100% of zero is zero, that meets the RIAA's truthiness requirement for inclusion in a press release.
It's all my fault. I haven't downloaded anything, so my "downloading activities" are 100% illegal. I'm sorry for skewing the results.
But this *is* a critical system. If you know your opponent's logistics capabilities, you can very effectively plan around his resupply requirements (or worse, pin him down and play the attrition card.) The MoD is playing it down, but it's a big deal.
> But that's not an issue in an office environment.
... brokering the sale of horses. We manufacture electronics.)
Tell that to the guy in the next cube. I believe he's running an internet business from there. (Honestly. I keep hearing him on the phone
So, it'll go something like this: The CEO/VP/Regional Manager is working on a contract bid that absolutely has to go out the door by 4pm today. His network connection abruptly drops, then he's forcefully logged-of.
Exec: [calls IT desk] My computer just crapped out!
ITDesk: Yeah, seems your machine was tagged for anomolous behavior.
Exec: It's critical that my account be reactivated.
ITDesk: I don't think I can do that. The system is fully automated.
Exec: Do you think you can stop by HR to pick up your severance check?
Steve over at The Sneeze posted his experience eating silkworms. I can't say they look overly appetizing.
Huh? It's not like I'm making unfounded accusations here. I quoted Microsoft's policy, and provided linkage back to the source so you can read it yourself in-context. They come right out and say that they're going to data-mine your personal information. That's a quote, not anti-Microsoft sentiment.
One of the ways to download the phone application is to enter your phone number, and they'll send you a link on the mobile device. Once you provide your phone number, they can reverse lookup your name, address, and anything else associated with you.
And this is hardly paranoia. Your local grocery stores do the same thing. They correlate credit cards with customer discount and gift cards. They cross-link that information with other companies' databases. This has been going on for years. Here, read this 2005 paper from Carnegie Mellon University [warning PDF]. Pay special attention to Section 3 - Tracking and Price Discrimination.
So, not only are they compiling stats about the destination site, they're doing it for the "clicker." The only reason to do this is so they can cram targeted advertising at you (the clicker.) You can call it a "personalized experience" if it makes you feel better, but it's still unsolicited advertising being thrust upon you. Again, no thanks. The last thing I would want is a third party (Microsoft) pissing-off my customers. They would associate that with me. I don't benefit from this relationship. Why would I put my customers at risk without any reward?
No thanks. I can print an URL on my event poster, and my customers can type that URL into their web-enabled phones. Microsoft's "help" is not necessary, nor desired.