Web hosting was expensive back in those days, and even now it'll still cost you at least ten quid a month or so.
Not true. All it cost, then or now, was a DSL-or-better Internet connection (that you wanted whether you had your own website or not)*, free account with a dynamic DNS service and electricity to keep your home computer running 24/7.
(* OK, I admit Tripod may have been useful in the dial-up era, but still...)
SeaQuest was set only 4 years from now. We're already failing to get our Back To The Future flying cars; I think we're going to fail to get our underwater settlements and talking dolphins too.
Taxes should be flat across the spectrum. You shouldn't get a break because you are extremely rich or poor. Besides, a flat tax is naturally progressive. If you make more, you pay more.
A flat tax is not progressive. A flat tax is flat, i.e., a linear equation:
[tax] = [constant tax rate] * [income]
A progressive tax is where the rate increases with income, a quadratic equation:
I think it's clear that the majority of customers vastly prefer just paying a reasonable, fixed monthly rate with a promise that "under typical usage scenarios, you can just use the thing whenever you like without worrying about extra costs for data".
That's a funny word, "typical."
It seems to me there are only two possibilities: either the "typical" user doesn't use "too much" data (whatever that means) and no data caps are necessary (although QOS during peak usage periods may be, and that's OK), or the "typical user" does use "too much" data and the real issue is that the network provider needs to upgrade the capacity.
"Throttle all of a user's data after they've used N megabytes in a month regardless of current network congestion"-style caps are not necessary in either case.
So if you were running an ISP, what would you do to bandwidth hogs?
QOS. When the network is congested, "bulk data" like BitTorrent should get a lower priority than low-latency data like streaming audio/video. When it isn't congested, there's no need or reason to throttle at all.
(And if your network is still congested when only streaming data is left, then it means you need to upgrade your network!)
Let me pre-emptively clarify: T-Mobile has no legitimate business throttling people based on what quote-on-quote "kind" of data they're using just because they've exceeded that arbitrary threshold.
Normal QOS, i.e., throttling people based on what "kind" of data they're using only during times of network congestion, even if it's the first byte of usage during that billing period, on the other hand, is perfectly okay.
All people using more than the "arbitrary usage metric" are "innocent users who are simply leveraging the 'unlimited' plan for which they pay!" T-Mobile has no legitimate business throttling people based on what quote-on-quote "kind" of data they're using.
And I say this, by the way, as a T-mobile user on a non-unlimited plan (i.e., one of the people allegedly "harmed" by the "excessive" users).
Freedom of movement is not freedom if it does not apply to all equally.
Like people on GPS bracelets to ensure they do not leave the state.
I was under the impression that people were only required to wear GPS bracelets when they were on probation (or maybe on bond), as a "nicer" alternative to jail. Are you trying to claim that some people are being forced to wear GPSs in circumstances other than being ordered to do so by a court, or are you trying to claim that probation and/or bail are unconstitutional?
He's speculating that the drug traffickers might have paid an Amtrak IT person to tell them if they were being monitored. That's what he meant when he said "mole in Amtrak's organization."
It's a plausible idea, but hardly justifies the DEA's action (especially since, if the DEA suspected a mole, they surely wouldn't have failed to find and remove him in that ten-year period -- or if they did fail at that, then they're incompetent and don't deserve to exist anyway!).
Surely there's some legal principle (with a latin name that translates to something like "what's good for the goose is good for the gander") that automatically gives you the right to record the call if they claim it themselves.
If anything, you're the one "bashing" hobby programming by implying that it is at a lower "level" or at a "small scale" compared to professional programming. As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between it and "professional" programming is profit motive (which is also what makes it not "real world," because "real world" refers to the need to earn a living).
In a perfect world the programmers get to choose their own tools. In the real world we have to use whatever buzz word compliant tools are thrown in the mix each year.
In hobby programming, which is not the real world, the programmers get to choose their own tools. In the Silicon Valley startup bubble, which is also not the real world, programmers have to use whatever buzz word compliant tools are thrown in the mix each year.
In the real real world, programmers use C, C++,.NET, Java, or some other constantly-claimed-by-idiots-to-be-dead language. (And they usually use it to write boring, vertical-market billing software.)
Every time I've tried to figure out this question for myself, I've run into a maze of "router [foo 600] works but [foo 601] doesn't, unless you have [foo 601 revision 2, 3, or 5] with firmware version X but not firmware Y." If you just tell us a brand name or something, your post is fucking useless!
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so I was thinking more along the lines of 1998-2000, not 1995. A year or so made a big difference back then...
Not true. All it cost, then or now, was a DSL-or-better Internet connection (that you wanted whether you had your own website or not)*, free account with a dynamic DNS service and electricity to keep your home computer running 24/7.
(* OK, I admit Tripod may have been useful in the dial-up era, but still...)
SeaQuest was set only 4 years from now. We're already failing to get our Back To The Future flying cars; I think we're going to fail to get our underwater settlements and talking dolphins too.
There's a reason why marijuana is called "weed," you know: it's because it grows like one (without fertilizer)!
Once you've accounted for externalities, "more profitable," "more efficient," and "more environmentally-friendly" become equivalent.
...you say in a thread about how hemp is better than the lab-created "alternative!"
And benzene is literally just a ring of Carbon atoms, but you wouldn't want to drink a cup of it!
Eh, some GMO-ing will fix that up in a jiffy...
Every definition I've seen disagrees with you.
Your flat tax is actually defined as "proportional," not "progressive."
I think "boot" meant "enlisted personnel"
A flat tax is not progressive. A flat tax is flat, i.e., a linear equation:
A progressive tax is where the rate increases with income, a quadratic equation:
and
so
(give or take some lower-order terms).
I bet using a socket would cost more than soldering on higher-capacity chips.
There is absolutely no reason why every user shouldn't be a "P2P user," so yes! The Internet isn't -- and shouldn't be -- fucking cable TV, you know!
That's a funny word, "typical."
It seems to me there are only two possibilities: either the "typical" user doesn't use "too much" data (whatever that means) and no data caps are necessary (although QOS during peak usage periods may be, and that's OK), or the "typical user" does use "too much" data and the real issue is that the network provider needs to upgrade the capacity.
"Throttle all of a user's data after they've used N megabytes in a month regardless of current network congestion"-style caps are not necessary in either case.
QOS. When the network is congested, "bulk data" like BitTorrent should get a lower priority than low-latency data like streaming audio/video. When it isn't congested, there's no need or reason to throttle at all.
(And if your network is still congested when only streaming data is left, then it means you need to upgrade your network!)
Let me pre-emptively clarify: T-Mobile has no legitimate business throttling people based on what quote-on-quote "kind" of data they're using just because they've exceeded that arbitrary threshold.
Normal QOS, i.e., throttling people based on what "kind" of data they're using only during times of network congestion, even if it's the first byte of usage during that billing period, on the other hand, is perfectly okay.
All people using more than the "arbitrary usage metric" are "innocent users who are simply leveraging the 'unlimited' plan for which they pay!" T-Mobile has no legitimate business throttling people based on what quote-on-quote "kind" of data they're using.
And I say this, by the way, as a T-mobile user on a non-unlimited plan (i.e., one of the people allegedly "harmed" by the "excessive" users).
We replace a perfectly-good open standard with proprietary, centralized shit and you call it progress?!
I was under the impression that people were only required to wear GPS bracelets when they were on probation (or maybe on bond), as a "nicer" alternative to jail. Are you trying to claim that some people are being forced to wear GPSs in circumstances other than being ordered to do so by a court, or are you trying to claim that probation and/or bail are unconstitutional?
He's speculating that the drug traffickers might have paid an Amtrak IT person to tell them if they were being monitored. That's what he meant when he said "mole in Amtrak's organization."
It's a plausible idea, but hardly justifies the DEA's action (especially since, if the DEA suspected a mole, they surely wouldn't have failed to find and remove him in that ten-year period -- or if they did fail at that, then they're incompetent and don't deserve to exist anyway!).
Surely there's some legal principle (with a latin name that translates to something like "what's good for the goose is good for the gander") that automatically gives you the right to record the call if they claim it themselves.
Where was I "bashing" hobby programming?
If anything, you're the one "bashing" hobby programming by implying that it is at a lower "level" or at a "small scale" compared to professional programming. As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between it and "professional" programming is profit motive (which is also what makes it not "real world," because "real world" refers to the need to earn a living).
In hobby programming, which is not the real world, the programmers get to choose their own tools. In the Silicon Valley startup bubble, which is also not the real world, programmers have to use whatever buzz word compliant tools are thrown in the mix each year.
In the real real world, programmers use C, C++, .NET, Java, or some other constantly-claimed-by-idiots-to-be-dead language. (And they usually use it to write boring, vertical-market billing software.)
Going from one third-party chip to another is fine and dandy, but why the hell would Apple -- especially Apple! -- dump their own design?
Every time I've tried to figure out this question for myself, I've run into a maze of "router [foo 600] works but [foo 601] doesn't, unless you have [foo 601 revision 2, 3, or 5] with firmware version X but not firmware Y." If you just tell us a brand name or something, your post is fucking useless!