Unless there's been a significant change in it during recent years, it basically involves partially sealing the upper sphincter that connects the esophagus to the stomach. This is done because gastroesophageal reflux is caused by that sphincter not closing correctly.
The downside of the operation is that, after it's done, the sphincter often won't open correctly. This means that, for instance, if you swallow something slightly too large, it will be unable to enter your stomach. It will simply block the entrance to the stomach until such time as it can be regurgitated.
Which brings me to another problem with having that sphincter damaged: if you ever vomit, you run the very real risk of tearing straight through the sphincter. Which means that, in addition to simply undoing the surgery, you will also be suffering from moderate to severe internal bleeding.
Maybe I'm biased on the matter.... a close friend of mine had this operation some years ago and has had all of these problems. I suffer from gastroesophageal reflux myself and refuse to have the surgery performed because of what I've seen.
But then again, why should I get screwed over because your market is shitty.
But, more to the point, why shouldn't you? The underlying principle of any business is to make money. If a business is marketing a product or service that is expensive for them to provide, you can and should expect that these costs be passed on to the consumer. This is a matter of basic economics.
If your local gas station has to pay $1.50/gallon for gas to sell to you, they aren't going to sell it at $1.15/gallon. Or, if they do, they won't be in business for long. Why should an ISP be any different?
It seems to me as if there is an underlying mentality of "I have a right to use and abuse this connection however I want and not have to pay for it." I'm not sure if it stems from an outmoded view of the internet as it existed 15 years ago, or if it's simply the naturally selfish nature of most people today.
In what *possible* way does this make any sense? Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that by oversubscribing bandwidth, it actually *raises* overall costs.
How, exactly, does this happen?
Oversubscribing bandwidth would (and does), in fact, do just the opposite. Prices go down and/or profit margins go up.
If anything, having your bandwidth sitting around unused is what would cost money and raise prices.
Well, I certainly can't speak for any other ISPs wandering around. I do know that at the ISP I work for, our transfer limit on ADSL circuits is clearly stated in the service contract that you must sign before the circuit is ordered.
Not, of course, that it stops people from complaining about us infringing upon their god-given rights to use hundreds of dollars worth of bandwidth for fifty bucks a month.
Are you sure that your Usenet traffic isn't backbone? I can't speak for your ISP, but I do know that many ISPs have outsourced their Usenet servers to national companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless there's been a significant change in it during recent years, it basically involves partially sealing the upper sphincter that connects the esophagus to the stomach. This is done because gastroesophageal reflux is caused by that sphincter not closing correctly.
The downside of the operation is that, after it's done, the sphincter often won't open correctly. This means that, for instance, if you swallow something slightly too large, it will be unable to enter your stomach. It will simply block the entrance to the stomach until such time as it can be regurgitated.
Which brings me to another problem with having that sphincter damaged: if you ever vomit, you run the very real risk of tearing straight through the sphincter. Which means that, in addition to simply undoing the surgery, you will also be suffering from moderate to severe internal bleeding.
Maybe I'm biased on the matter.... a close friend of mine had this operation some years ago and has had all of these problems. I suffer from gastroesophageal reflux myself and refuse to have the surgery performed because of what I've seen.
But then again, why should I get screwed over because your market is shitty. But, more to the point, why shouldn't you? The underlying principle of any business is to make money. If a business is marketing a product or service that is expensive for them to provide, you can and should expect that these costs be passed on to the consumer. This is a matter of basic economics. If your local gas station has to pay $1.50/gallon for gas to sell to you, they aren't going to sell it at $1.15/gallon. Or, if they do, they won't be in business for long. Why should an ISP be any different? It seems to me as if there is an underlying mentality of "I have a right to use and abuse this connection however I want and not have to pay for it." I'm not sure if it stems from an outmoded view of the internet as it existed 15 years ago, or if it's simply the naturally selfish nature of most people today.
In what *possible* way does this make any sense? Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that by oversubscribing bandwidth, it actually *raises* overall costs. How, exactly, does this happen? Oversubscribing bandwidth would (and does), in fact, do just the opposite. Prices go down and/or profit margins go up. If anything, having your bandwidth sitting around unused is what would cost money and raise prices.
Well, I certainly can't speak for any other ISPs wandering around. I do know that at the ISP I work for, our transfer limit on ADSL circuits is clearly stated in the service contract that you must sign before the circuit is ordered. Not, of course, that it stops people from complaining about us infringing upon their god-given rights to use hundreds of dollars worth of bandwidth for fifty bucks a month.
Are you sure that your Usenet traffic isn't backbone? I can't speak for your ISP, but I do know that many ISPs have outsourced their Usenet servers to national companies.