Then I guess they shouldn't be advertising it as ``unlimited'' service, eh?
Sure they should. They KNOW that most people will make relatively limited use of the service. Those that take full advantage are too few in number to matter. Not having to meter usage makes it easier for everyone. It makes costs predictable for the consumer and revenue predictable for the service provider.
Obviously the 14$ a month covers the cost of the maximum bandwidth that can be consumed by a 128 kbps connection in a month.
Actually, it doesn't. It covers what the ISP believes the average user with that connection speed will use. If every user of that ISP consumed the maximum amount of bandwidth 24/7 the ISP would have to raise prices significantly.
And if done the right way perhaps it could be good. However, consider a company like Vonage that provides VOIP services. They have a need for better service - if the speed of a connection isn't sufficient then Vonage and other VOIP providers go out of business. Why shouldn't they be able to buy Quality of Service (QoS) for their products?
It seems to me there are three basic levels of net use:
Real time services, e.g. VOIP and web casting.
Interactive, non-real time services, e.g. web browsing.
Other services, e.g. email, bit torrent, ftp, etc.
Admittedly, it can be difficult to differentiate between #2 and #3 (e.g. differentiate between a user browsing a site and a spider indexing a site).
If network neutrality were maintained within those levels of service that might work. But why should there be a first come first serve mentality when dealing with VOIP versus email? That just doesn't make sense to me.
I could be wrong but being in posession of classified material when you are not authorized to have it might be a crime (probably is)
If it's just classified it's not a crime to possess it. If it's classified and it relates to national defense then it does violate the Espionage Act of 1917, BUT there is serious question if that part of the law is constitutional.
I don't believe they did. What they're saying is that ODF requires more cycles to parse than their format. The problem is, they're basing that on the performance of the applications as if that's a fair test of the document formats.
For one thing, the closed-source nature of the whole anti-malware market is a fertile breeding ground for exactly this sort of problem.
CODE is a fertile breeding ground for this sort of problem. Closed source, open source, it doesn't matter. Check out the Coverity page on their work with open source projects. Notice all the defects they've found in open source.
Also, I GUARANTEE you that Symantec and every other security software firm has extensive review processes to try to prevent precisely this sort of thing.
Could it be that they want to scare journalists from publishing whatever it was?
Possibly. However, I think it's more likely that the Bush administration came to the realization that there are far fewer journalists than there are potential leakers within the government. Thus, it's easier for the Bush administration to concentrate on intimidating the press so that leaks aren't published rather than actually plugging leaks.
That seemed to be his point in the second paragraph, but not the first or third. For example, in the third paragraph he wrote "To say that the press can violate laws because they're the press is to say that anyone can violate the laws." That damn sure ain't got nuthin' to do with who is and is not a member of the press.
There are some who believe that. Others would say that as long as you are allowed to bear any arms the government has met the obligation of the second amendment.
You don't go ANYWHERE. You fight for what is right here in this country. We need to throw the current administration out of office and never let anyone like them back in again.
Of course, that can only apply to people who are authorized to receive classified information. For one cannot KNOW something is classified without having access to classified information.
And I'd appreciate it if you actually read what I wrote. For example, "it seems." That's not absolute fact sporto.
I didnt say i beleived the govt was looking out for me.
No, you said you appreciated that someone was looking out for you. Now, in the context of this conversation that someone would be either the government or the press. Given what you've written the government is the obvious choice of the two.
The press has no interest IN protecting me
Actually, they do.
They have their own consciences. Guilt is a powerful motivator.
They have the desire to keep on getting good information from the military. Information they know will be cut off if they don't report responsibly.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they should. They KNOW that most people will make relatively limited use of the service. Those that take full advantage are too few in number to matter. Not having to meter usage makes it easier for everyone. It makes costs predictable for the consumer and revenue predictable for the service provider.
So he has a vested interest - that doesn't mean what he has to say isn't relevant or useful.
Actually, it doesn't. It covers what the ISP believes the average user with that connection speed will use. If every user of that ISP consumed the maximum amount of bandwidth 24/7 the ISP would have to raise prices significantly.
It seems to me there are three basic levels of net use:
Admittedly, it can be difficult to differentiate between #2 and #3 (e.g. differentiate between a user browsing a site and a spider indexing a site).
If network neutrality were maintained within those levels of service that might work. But why should there be a first come first serve mentality when dealing with VOIP versus email? That just doesn't make sense to me.
If it's just classified it's not a crime to possess it. If it's classified and it relates to national defense then it does violate the Espionage Act of 1917, BUT there is serious question if that part of the law is constitutional.
I don't believe they did. What they're saying is that ODF requires more cycles to parse than their format. The problem is, they're basing that on the performance of the applications as if that's a fair test of the document formats.
They very well could. Broad claims are harder to sustain than narrow claims.
They bought McAfee and Trend Micro?!
CODE is a fertile breeding ground for this sort of problem. Closed source, open source, it doesn't matter. Check out the Coverity page on their work with open source projects. Notice all the defects they've found in open source.
Also, I GUARANTEE you that Symantec and every other security software firm has extensive review processes to try to prevent precisely this sort of thing.
So, you're 100% wrong.
no, No, NO!
The world' six billion people can be divided into 10 groups. Those who know binary and those that dont'!
A more accurate name for them would be WorldLiesDaily.
IMO if a conversation is recorded without a warrant that constitutes a violation even if no one listens to the conversation.
Possibly. However, I think it's more likely that the Bush administration came to the realization that there are far fewer journalists than there are potential leakers within the government. Thus, it's easier for the Bush administration to concentrate on intimidating the press so that leaks aren't published rather than actually plugging leaks.
It also concerns freedom of the press, among other things.
That seemed to be his point in the second paragraph, but not the first or third. For example, in the third paragraph he wrote "To say that the press can violate laws because they're the press is to say that anyone can violate the laws." That damn sure ain't got nuthin' to do with who is and is not a member of the press.
There are some who believe that. Others would say that as long as you are allowed to bear any arms the government has met the obligation of the second amendment.
Check out BugMeNot. I'm sure there's one there.
Not until a predominately Democratic House of Representatives is elected this November. After they take office real oversight can begin.
As the saying goes "Information is the oxygen of democracy."
You don't go ANYWHERE. You fight for what is right here in this country. We need to throw the current administration out of office and never let anyone like them back in again.
Of course, that can only apply to people who are authorized to receive classified information. For one cannot KNOW something is classified without having access to classified information.
And I'd appreciate it if you actually read what I wrote. For example, "it seems." That's not absolute fact sporto.
I didnt say i beleived the govt was looking out for me.
No, you said you appreciated that someone was looking out for you. Now, in the context of this conversation that someone would be either the government or the press. Given what you've written the government is the obvious choice of the two.
The press has no interest IN protecting me
Actually, they do.
Correct. It's the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution that makes it a reality.
It seems you believe that the government is looking out for you, but the press isn't. That's simply not correct.