Probably for the same reason those with a higher IQ are more likely to be agnostic or atheists and that those with a higher IQ don't believe in santa clause and the easter bunny.
It amazes me on a daily basis how there is a drastic difference in the capability for abstract thought in certain human beings. It's like below a certain level of intelligence, you can't think beyond the end of the week and everything revolves around believing in religion and telling people what to do with their money, their body, their morality... and then after a certain point, people are capable of abstract thought, where things like true freedom and self trumps things like me getting to say what kind of sex you can have in your bedroom or trying to force you to pray to a specific god every morning.
So, I guess to answer the question with another question:
"Why do some people chew crayons, while others write the great american novel?"
So it's acceptable to take priests who rape children and just move them around from one place to another rather than prosecuting them for criminal offenses, but taking my hard-earned income and moving it around to avoid extreme tax for absurd social programs and government pork is a sin.
It's a good thing I don't get my life-instructions from a goofy guy in a chess-hat who believes in some zombie jesus god dude.
I'd hardly say it "makes up" for the lack of great PS3 titles. Warhawk is a great game, but it's not like it's a system-seller or anything. I can't think of the next PS3 exlusive game that I'm looking forward to. Especially now that Lair turned out to be the complete ass that I long-predicted it was going to be (as all dragon-flying games have always been, except for the Panzer Dragoon exception that proves the rule).
And when it comes down to non-exclusive games, why would you buy them on the PS3 instead of the 360? If there's a great PS3-only game, I'll buy that version. Otherwise, I'm going to buy the 360 version, because practically everyone owns a 360 and that makes the potential online player base much larger.
On the other hand, while I might do some personal stuff on work time -- I also do a LOT of work during personal time. If one wants to complain about one, then they'll also lose the other.
Of course, solar power only has advantages in certain environments. Almost no power source is universally producible. For instance, only some parts of America can provide significant natural gas resources. Only certain portions are capable of coal or oil. Likewise, there is a limitation on places that can provide significant resources for wind-power or solar-power.
This isn't to suggest that it isn't worth the effort, but I am unclear whether we have the potential to expand facilities in those appropriate areas enough that they could power the entire country well into the future. (For example, solar power in Portland, Oregon is relatively pointless for mass-consumption since you need actual sunlight to generate the electricity).
The minimum wage is lower than the living wage, because you're not supposed to LIVE on the minimum wage. The number of non-school-aged adults who work full time who make minimum wage is very small. If you're still making minimum wage after a couple months or so, there is either something wrong with your employer or something VERY wrong with YOU.
That's interesting, because I lived in a shitty 400 square foot studio apartment with a floor that was falling apart for $1,200/mo in 2000 in San Jose. And on top of that, you have sales tax and almost ten percent income tax. And I actually had to fight for that apartment because someone else was trying to rent it out first.
I'm sure most people, like myself, would gladly adhere to any restriction limit if only they'd tell us.
It seems they are being intentionally ignorant and stupid. Almost like a kid who wants to take his ball and go home because they don't like the way the game is being played.
I mean, why not try ANY of the following rather than banning people?
* Use a simple throttling mechanism to prevent the service from being hampered for everyone on the network. * Have an automated system that just calls you and warns you so you can reduce your usage the rest of the month. * Tell the problem users how much the specifically need to reduce their usage by.
If the general customer experience is truly important and their goal for these terminations and warnings is to please all of the other users, why let a user ruin the experience for an entire month and then ANOTHER entire month and only *then* do something about it? So for each problem user -- you're going to allow them to keep ruining the experience for everyone on the network for two months. If there are six such people or more, the network could be suffering all year... When you could just choose to throttle (or something else above) to prevent the issues IN THE FIRST PLACE...
Why do they seem to want to be so intentionally obstinate?
I've never heard of comcast actually blocking the SMTP port. I use port 25 on my box at the colo and I've never had to assign a different port or SSH it or anything to connect from home over comcast. If I did, that'd be a definite breaking point, because I don't give a fuck about comcast.net email. In fact, I've never checked it in six years and dont' even know what the password is.
I've tried pretty hard to GIVE comcast more money. I've said "look, I could easily demand more than you want to let me have -- so rather than being a leach, how about I buy two residential accounts? Or even three?". That way if I'm using more than they want me to, I'm at least also paying triple the price.
A lot of stations (not to mention stations that are internet-only) now run about 256kbps.
Somehow I was actually off by double, so 256kbps during day hours over a month is still 40gb. Just for one person listening to a streaming radio station.
In a world where everyone (including comcast) is trying to convince me to listen to their streaming radio stations, streaming 1500kbps movie services, streaming music subscription services, play console and PC games online, use voip and "send video email" as comcast's commercials like to suggest -- it's ridiculous that they're setting limits that could easily be broken with a small family doing relatively small things.
And really, if the limit is that low -- why exactly do we need 8mbps connections? Who is someone to deem that I don't need XYZ gigabytes of bandwidth per month, but that *they* need that 8mbps or 16mbps to make sure they snap that file down in 120 seconds instead of 130?
And unless they expand their infrastructure quickly, this is only going to get worse. I can only imagine countries where they pay half our price for 30mbps or more are laughing at this debacle.
Business class of service? According to comcast, the EXACT same rules and limits apply to business accounts. In fact, business accounts have been banned for too much bandwidth, too.
I went out of my way to call comcast and say "Look, I don't want to abuse anything. I want to be a good, paying customer. I need XYZ amount of bandwidth per month and I'm willing to pay for it. I'll take a business account or two residential accounts (or three if you want). Just tell me what I need to pay to get the services I need and not be kicked off by you guys?".
The answer? "Yeah, we don't have anything like that -- sorry".
The reason Comcast doesnt tell you is if they did, asshat downloaders would lawyer the total and if lets say it was 100, they'd use 99.9999 then whine if they were denied that much. The approach would backfire. Plus its a competitive disadvantage for Comcast if their competitors know what a soft limit on dl's is.
Bullshit on two points.
First, the people comcast is complaining about are ALREADY using more than that amount. Hence the notices. So define a limit that you want to stick to and that you can handle and tell them that. If your system can handle 200gb a month, don't tell them that. Say 100gb/mo. Since they're already exceeding that, it's not going to hurt to tell those specific users "keep it under 100gb or you'll be booted next time". Further, since they appear to be doing it by a simple percentile of use for your region, then if EVERYONE was using 100gb, that presumably wouldn't be a problem? How so? If 50% of people use 100gb or 200gb or 300gb, isn't that a lot worse than 5% doing it? But if most people were, then they wouldn't complain, apparently?
Second, how is it a competitive disadvantage for Comcast? I live in a big and advanced metro area. I have the choice of 8mbs with Comcast, 144kbps with DSL (actually, less than that because I'm too far away from the local DSL office) or 56kbps dialup. Yeah, I can see how they're worried about all that competition, eh?
See, you can never EVER bad-mouth Dilbert on Slashdot. Every time, you get marked-down by the same drones that read Dilbert and find joy and comfort in self-identifying their shitty lives with the shitty lives of the idiots in the strip.
What country are you from? You do realize that ISPs essentially have a monopoly right? You get one cable company wherever you are. You might get a phone company that provides DSL, but they're not going to be comparable speeds (at all) unless you luckily live VERY CLOSE.
Here's a great way to ensure that nobody's use of the service does not restrict, inhibit or interfere with anyone else's on the network. THROTTLE THE GOD DAMN CONNECTION. Use that magically limit they supposedly threaten us with and when that's reached (or if a certain limit is reached during a peak hour) -- THROTTLE THE FUCKING THING.
Christ, if they can use Sandvine or whatever to inject controls in certain packets, they can surely throttle my damned connection if I'm such a hindrance.
Take your average decent-quality audio station. Listen to it for 8 to 12 hours a day while you work. There's 80gb.
Add streaming videos, downloadable videos (vongo, anyone?), streaming music services (Rhapsody?), VPN connections, surfing, downloading any other stuff like games, linux, porn, etc. Add online gaming from your systems or consoles. And that's just one person. What if you have two people in the household? Or a family of four or five?
Just because you only use your car to drive to church on Sundays doesn't mean the rest of us don't drive to work, the gym, vacations, joy-rides and the store.
I can confirm that if the flow of traffic is going 85 in a 75, the green mustang which is traveling at exactly the same speed will be pulled over while the speeding semi-truck and sedans will be ignored.
I received a warning phone call from the Comcast "security" department a few months ago.
With an invisible limit, you have no idea what to tone down.
With a cap, at least you know what to hover around.
A lot of people argue that if you tell people what the limit is, they'll just abuse that limit to the max all the can. But if you're already using more than they want you to use and they're notifying you to reduce your usage, then telling you a limit to stay under can only HELP.
I telecommute and I'm online 24x7. I stream high quality radio all day long. I watch a lot of streaming movies. I download a lot of stuff. I play a lot of games online. I download a lot of (legal) downloads from bit torrent. Just a high quality streaming radio station running during business hours over the period of a month will easily reach 80gb. They advertise all these "high media uses" for their fast download speeds, yet then they penalize you if you actually use it for that? If two people in your home listen to a lot of radio, that's 160gb/mo. Don't even think about video.
My internet usage has remained relatively the same for the last three years. Unlike your grandma who uses her 8mbps connection to check her email and the whether, I actually make heavy use of mine. Probably more than most people I know. I don't want to abuse anything. But I don't want to be denied internet access for an entire year, either (and in America, cable has a monopoly on broadband unless you live right down the street from a central office for DSL).
Anyway, my usage has remained the same for about three years. Then out of nowhere I get a call a couple months ago warning me that I will be terminated if I don't reduce my use. I ask them what I should stay under and they said "there's no set limit". I asked them to at least GIVE ME AN IDEA. They said they could not. However, they did warn me that if I ever go over this limit that they can't tell me about again *EVER* they will ban me for a year.
I'm not looking to abuse services. I'm not looking to rip anyone off. I'm not looking to piss anyone off. My usage needs are higher than the average persons, what with my VPN use and streaming services and such. Fine. But don't tell me "if you go over this limit again, we're cutting you off -- but uh.. we can't say what that limit is". I asked if I needed to cut it by just a few percent. Or by half. Or by 80%. Or what... no answer. They refused to say.
So, I asked if I could buy additional services. A bigger account? Pay for extra bandwidth? Buy a second broadband account to the same address for another $60/mo? Nope. They just have the one service. That's it. If you want more -- even if you're willing to pay for it -- fuck you.
So I keep a very close eye on the bandwidth reported by my router every other day and come the end of the month -- I get jittery. I think they ban you based on if you're in the highest usage percentage for that month in your area. By that logic, someone is ALWAYS going to be in the top 10%. Period. So every month SOMEONE is going to get banned, right? So if everyone is at home playing on the internet last month, my usage may be fine. But if everyone in the region is on vacation or busy at work and not using their connection at home, that same usage *this month* might get me banished.
And as you pointed out, they won't cut you off the first time. But they won't tell you what to reduce it by, either. And what is fine one month -- since you're compared with the current average use in your area -- might get you a second notice (and a ban for a year) the next month.
I'm quite pleased my taxes go to assist in monopolies such as this.
I'll take libertarian "propaganda" over left/right wing control and bullshit any day, thanks. God forbid our country adhere to the fundamental libertarian constructs on which the nation was founded! All that.. freedom! EEEEEEEEW!
I seem to recall Opus was some dull "comic" about a fat penguin that originated from the same idiots who did the equally boring Doonsbury. Really, who still reads sunday comics?
Actually, who still reads the news paper? It's just a hassle to get rid of those endless stacks of dead wood when it gathers up every week.
I can't remember the last comic strip that was truly funny. And no, it wasn't Dilbert. Dilbert is just a way of placating cubicle dwellers into accepting their shitty place in life.
Slashdot Mirror
Cue the always present "if you don't have anything to hide" corporate apologists.
The problem is that people in loss-prevention think they're cops and cops think they're god.
I understand the need to prevent loss, but treating every customer like a thief is not the way to go about it.
Probably for the same reason those with a higher IQ are more likely to be agnostic or atheists and that those with a higher IQ don't believe in santa clause and the easter bunny.
It amazes me on a daily basis how there is a drastic difference in the capability for abstract thought in certain human beings. It's like below a certain level of intelligence, you can't think beyond the end of the week and everything revolves around believing in religion and telling people what to do with their money, their body, their morality... and then after a certain point, people are capable of abstract thought, where things like true freedom and self trumps things like me getting to say what kind of sex you can have in your bedroom or trying to force you to pray to a specific god every morning.
So, I guess to answer the question with another question:
"Why do some people chew crayons, while others write the great american novel?"
So it's acceptable to take priests who rape children and just move them around from one place to another rather than prosecuting them for criminal offenses, but taking my hard-earned income and moving it around to avoid extreme tax for absurd social programs and government pork is a sin.
It's a good thing I don't get my life-instructions from a goofy guy in a chess-hat who believes in some zombie jesus god dude.
I'd hardly say it "makes up" for the lack of great PS3 titles. Warhawk is a great game, but it's not like it's a system-seller or anything. I can't think of the next PS3 exlusive game that I'm looking forward to. Especially now that Lair turned out to be the complete ass that I long-predicted it was going to be (as all dragon-flying games have always been, except for the Panzer Dragoon exception that proves the rule).
And when it comes down to non-exclusive games, why would you buy them on the PS3 instead of the 360? If there's a great PS3-only game, I'll buy that version. Otherwise, I'm going to buy the 360 version, because practically everyone owns a 360 and that makes the potential online player base much larger.
On the other hand, while I might do some personal stuff on work time -- I also do a LOT of work during personal time. If one wants to complain about one, then they'll also lose the other.
Of course, solar power only has advantages in certain environments. Almost no power source is universally producible. For instance, only some parts of America can provide significant natural gas resources. Only certain portions are capable of coal or oil. Likewise, there is a limitation on places that can provide significant resources for wind-power or solar-power.
This isn't to suggest that it isn't worth the effort, but I am unclear whether we have the potential to expand facilities in those appropriate areas enough that they could power the entire country well into the future. (For example, solar power in Portland, Oregon is relatively pointless for mass-consumption since you need actual sunlight to generate the electricity).
The minimum wage is lower than the living wage, because you're not supposed to LIVE on the minimum wage. The number of non-school-aged adults who work full time who make minimum wage is very small. If you're still making minimum wage after a couple months or so, there is either something wrong with your employer or something VERY wrong with YOU.
That's interesting, because I lived in a shitty 400 square foot studio apartment with a floor that was falling apart for $1,200/mo in 2000 in San Jose. And on top of that, you have sales tax and almost ten percent income tax. And I actually had to fight for that apartment because someone else was trying to rent it out first.
I'm sure most people, like myself, would gladly adhere to any restriction limit if only they'd tell us.
It seems they are being intentionally ignorant and stupid. Almost like a kid who wants to take his ball and go home because they don't like the way the game is being played.
I mean, why not try ANY of the following rather than banning people?
* Use a simple throttling mechanism to prevent the service from being hampered for everyone on the network.
* Have an automated system that just calls you and warns you so you can reduce your usage the rest of the month.
* Tell the problem users how much the specifically need to reduce their usage by.
If the general customer experience is truly important and their goal for these terminations and warnings is to please all of the other users, why let a user ruin the experience for an entire month and then ANOTHER entire month and only *then* do something about it? So for each problem user -- you're going to allow them to keep ruining the experience for everyone on the network for two months. If there are six such people or more, the network could be suffering all year... When you could just choose to throttle (or something else above) to prevent the issues IN THE FIRST PLACE...
Why do they seem to want to be so intentionally obstinate?
Yeah, but too bad it's for a cartoon that nobody under 40 remembers. Jesus, why not do a Mr. Magoo or Magilla(sp) Gorilla movie while you're at it?
Wait, I think they did a Mr. Magoo actually... nevermind.
I've never heard of comcast actually blocking the SMTP port. I use port 25 on my box at the colo and I've never had to assign a different port or SSH it or anything to connect from home over comcast. If I did, that'd be a definite breaking point, because I don't give a fuck about comcast.net email. In fact, I've never checked it in six years and dont' even know what the password is.
:/
Maybe they do that in only certain regions.
So you are conserving bandwidth by leaving out punctuation.
I've tried pretty hard to GIVE comcast more money. I've said "look, I could easily demand more than you want to let me have -- so rather than being a leach, how about I buy two residential accounts? Or even three?". That way if I'm using more than they want me to, I'm at least also paying triple the price.
But nope. No dice. Inflexible.
A lot of stations (not to mention stations that are internet-only) now run about 256kbps.
Somehow I was actually off by double, so 256kbps during day hours over a month is still 40gb. Just for one person listening to a streaming radio station.
In a world where everyone (including comcast) is trying to convince me to listen to their streaming radio stations, streaming 1500kbps movie services, streaming music subscription services, play console and PC games online, use voip and "send video email" as comcast's commercials like to suggest -- it's ridiculous that they're setting limits that could easily be broken with a small family doing relatively small things.
And really, if the limit is that low -- why exactly do we need 8mbps connections? Who is someone to deem that I don't need XYZ gigabytes of bandwidth per month, but that *they* need that 8mbps or 16mbps to make sure they snap that file down in 120 seconds instead of 130?
And unless they expand their infrastructure quickly, this is only going to get worse. I can only imagine countries where they pay half our price for 30mbps or more are laughing at this debacle.
Business class of service? According to comcast, the EXACT same rules and limits apply to business accounts. In fact, business accounts have been banned for too much bandwidth, too.
I went out of my way to call comcast and say "Look, I don't want to abuse anything. I want to be a good, paying customer. I need XYZ amount of bandwidth per month and I'm willing to pay for it. I'll take a business account or two residential accounts (or three if you want). Just tell me what I need to pay to get the services I need and not be kicked off by you guys?".
The answer? "Yeah, we don't have anything like that -- sorry".
The reason Comcast doesnt tell you is if they did, asshat downloaders would lawyer the total and if lets say it was 100, they'd use 99.9999 then whine if they were denied that much. The approach would backfire. Plus its a competitive disadvantage for Comcast if their competitors know what a soft limit on dl's is.
Bullshit on two points.
First, the people comcast is complaining about are ALREADY using more than that amount. Hence the notices. So define a limit that you want to stick to and that you can handle and tell them that. If your system can handle 200gb a month, don't tell them that. Say 100gb/mo. Since they're already exceeding that, it's not going to hurt to tell those specific users "keep it under 100gb or you'll be booted next time". Further, since they appear to be doing it by a simple percentile of use for your region, then if EVERYONE was using 100gb, that presumably wouldn't be a problem? How so? If 50% of people use 100gb or 200gb or 300gb, isn't that a lot worse than 5% doing it? But if most people were, then they wouldn't complain, apparently?
Second, how is it a competitive disadvantage for Comcast? I live in a big and advanced metro area. I have the choice of 8mbs with Comcast, 144kbps with DSL (actually, less than that because I'm too far away from the local DSL office) or 56kbps dialup. Yeah, I can see how they're worried about all that competition, eh?
See, you can never EVER bad-mouth Dilbert on Slashdot. Every time, you get marked-down by the same drones that read Dilbert and find joy and comfort in self-identifying their shitty lives with the shitty lives of the idiots in the strip.
What country are you from? You do realize that ISPs essentially have a monopoly right? You get one cable company wherever you are. You might get a phone company that provides DSL, but they're not going to be comparable speeds (at all) unless you luckily live VERY CLOSE.
Here's a great way to ensure that nobody's use of the service does not restrict, inhibit or interfere with anyone else's on the network. THROTTLE THE GOD DAMN CONNECTION. Use that magically limit they supposedly threaten us with and when that's reached (or if a certain limit is reached during a peak hour) -- THROTTLE THE FUCKING THING.
Christ, if they can use Sandvine or whatever to inject controls in certain packets, they can surely throttle my damned connection if I'm such a hindrance.
Take your average decent-quality audio station. Listen to it for 8 to 12 hours a day while you work. There's 80gb.
Add streaming videos, downloadable videos (vongo, anyone?), streaming music services (Rhapsody?), VPN connections, surfing, downloading any other stuff like games, linux, porn, etc. Add online gaming from your systems or consoles. And that's just one person. What if you have two people in the household? Or a family of four or five?
Just because you only use your car to drive to church on Sundays doesn't mean the rest of us don't drive to work, the gym, vacations, joy-rides and the store.
I can confirm that if the flow of traffic is going 85 in a 75, the green mustang which is traveling at exactly the same speed will be pulled over while the speeding semi-truck and sedans will be ignored.
I received a warning phone call from the Comcast "security" department a few months ago.
With an invisible limit, you have no idea what to tone down.
With a cap, at least you know what to hover around.
A lot of people argue that if you tell people what the limit is, they'll just abuse that limit to the max all the can. But if you're already using more than they want you to use and they're notifying you to reduce your usage, then telling you a limit to stay under can only HELP.
I telecommute and I'm online 24x7. I stream high quality radio all day long. I watch a lot of streaming movies. I download a lot of stuff. I play a lot of games online. I download a lot of (legal) downloads from bit torrent. Just a high quality streaming radio station running during business hours over the period of a month will easily reach 80gb. They advertise all these "high media uses" for their fast download speeds, yet then they penalize you if you actually use it for that? If two people in your home listen to a lot of radio, that's 160gb/mo. Don't even think about video.
My internet usage has remained relatively the same for the last three years. Unlike your grandma who uses her 8mbps connection to check her email and the whether, I actually make heavy use of mine. Probably more than most people I know. I don't want to abuse anything. But I don't want to be denied internet access for an entire year, either (and in America, cable has a monopoly on broadband unless you live right down the street from a central office for DSL).
Anyway, my usage has remained the same for about three years. Then out of nowhere I get a call a couple months ago warning me that I will be terminated if I don't reduce my use. I ask them what I should stay under and they said "there's no set limit". I asked them to at least GIVE ME AN IDEA. They said they could not. However, they did warn me that if I ever go over this limit that they can't tell me about again *EVER* they will ban me for a year.
I'm not looking to abuse services. I'm not looking to rip anyone off. I'm not looking to piss anyone off. My usage needs are higher than the average persons, what with my VPN use and streaming services and such. Fine. But don't tell me "if you go over this limit again, we're cutting you off -- but uh.. we can't say what that limit is". I asked if I needed to cut it by just a few percent. Or by half. Or by 80%. Or what... no answer. They refused to say.
So, I asked if I could buy additional services. A bigger account? Pay for extra bandwidth? Buy a second broadband account to the same address for another $60/mo? Nope. They just have the one service. That's it. If you want more -- even if you're willing to pay for it -- fuck you.
So I keep a very close eye on the bandwidth reported by my router every other day and come the end of the month -- I get jittery. I think they ban you based on if you're in the highest usage percentage for that month in your area. By that logic, someone is ALWAYS going to be in the top 10%. Period. So every month SOMEONE is going to get banned, right? So if everyone is at home playing on the internet last month, my usage may be fine. But if everyone in the region is on vacation or busy at work and not using their connection at home, that same usage *this month* might get me banished.
And as you pointed out, they won't cut you off the first time. But they won't tell you what to reduce it by, either. And what is fine one month -- since you're compared with the current average use in your area -- might get you a second notice (and a ban for a year) the next month.
I'm quite pleased my taxes go to assist in monopolies such as this.
I'll take libertarian "propaganda" over left/right wing control and bullshit any day, thanks. God forbid our country adhere to the fundamental libertarian constructs on which the nation was founded! All that.. freedom! EEEEEEEEW!
I seem to recall Opus was some dull "comic" about a fat penguin that originated from the same idiots who did the equally boring Doonsbury. Really, who still reads sunday comics?
Actually, who still reads the news paper? It's just a hassle to get rid of those endless stacks of dead wood when it gathers up every week.
I can't remember the last comic strip that was truly funny. And no, it wasn't Dilbert. Dilbert is just a way of placating cubicle dwellers into accepting their shitty place in life.
How could apes and humans have been merged millions of years ago when everybody knows the universe is only six thousand years old!