It's going the same way that pay-per-text plans went (with most providers). An SMS message does not cost the provider anything... your cell is constantly sending pings back and forth from the cell tower, and an SMS message simply uses the unused data in a standard packet during one of these pings. They *literally* cost the carrier no extra bandwidth or tower time than simply leaving the phone on, and yet some carriers still charge per text message.
I can see where you got your name from. "Reality impaired" indeed. SMS messages utilise infrastructure that would not exist were it not for SMS, therefore they do incur a real cost. Ever heard of an SMSC? It's the gigantic, very expensive to set up and maintain, system that receives and routes your messages. Plus there's the interconnects that cost money to set up, develop, and maintain. SMS messages are not peer to peer, they have to pass through expensive centralised systems. They *literally* cost the carrier a huge amount to support. One could argue that the cost of messaging is disproportionate to a reasonable margin over the amount it costs the carrier to deliver them, but it's disingenuous to suggest they cost *nothing*.
RF broadcasting on that scale likely requires a license from the territorial authority (or central authority) though, which could raise the cost spectacularly.
It is still a good idea though, just there's some logistics I'm not sure you considered.
The truth is that the traffic is increasing much much faster than the capacity is.
Now *usage* cap are UTTER BULLSHIT and are meant to punish early adopter of bandwidth hungry application (a lot of whicha re fully elgal today, like youtube) and get more subscriber that way. They simply do not want toa dmit that their network is absolutely not ready.
I'm confused, they're utter bullshit for doing exactly what the providers intend? The truth is, the providers cannot control what other content producers come up with - ideas are being invented faster than the capacity to transit them can be placed. You would prefer that the providers let people transfer as much as they want and damn the quality of service effect that has? Screw that, I don't want my usage of the network crushed to a crawl because of some dick torrenting the whole series of "Two and a Half Men" or whatever. Ultimately, it sounds like you're advocating providers billing content producers for their usage of the network - because how else can the providers engage in wholesale infrastructure updates without ultimately making the users pay for it?
(As a side note, most providers quite often admit their network isn't up to the task being put before it. Any ISP that tries on an unlimited connection in my country ends up admitting that pretty fast).
Clearly you've never had to pay for ONE of those 10G switches, let alone a single 10G uplink to someone like GlobalCrossing or Level3. Out of that $40, a significant amount of that would be sunk into the purchase cost of the switch (plus the mandatory annual support and maintenance contract payments on it), and to the uplink provider. Where I come from, there's a saying - "nobody wants your unprofitable broadband without your profitable toll calling coming with it".
They don't phrase it like that, of course. They phrase it that the service is "Best Efforts" and if those "best efforts" happen to be "not at all"- well, that's just not their problem, is it?
One day, someone should send in a letter to one of them stating "I'm sorry, paying our Comcast bill is a best effort service, and due to technical difficulties we were unable to provision that service this month. We apologise for the inconvenience, and remind you that there is no SLA on the 'Bill Paying' service."
Actually if you use Linux and Apple you WILL pay for patches, MSFT? Nope. At least that is what a friend at my local cableco has told me and I wouldn't be surprised if that is the same at other ISPs. Oh and you can't blame it on MSFT this time either, unless you want to blame them for the ease of use that is WSUS Server.
Because according to my friend that is what they are rolling out, your Windows Updates will be local thanks to WSUS and since Linux doesn't have a "one size fits all" repo and with Apple there are more iPads and iPhones than Macs so the cableco doesn't even think about them. According to my friend they'll be doing the same with Netflix, all the popular movies will be on a local CDN.
WSUS is the Enterprise local update server. It's not being rolled out by your cable company, at least not for customers. It actually cannot be, since it requires an NT domain. Unless your cable company is setting up an NT domain and requiring you to join it. Microsoft patches will continue to be delivered the same way Apple patches are - directly from the developer (MS/Apple) delivered over Akamai's CDN. Which your ISP likely has a local caching node co-located in their datacentre for.
I also wish your congresspeople and their staff were busy all day playing video games, then they wouldn't have time to write up multi-thousand page laws to shove on us, a completely different country.
Say, with your government writing our laws, does this mean I get to vote for your congress now?
Any modern OS allows you to modify the volume per application (Windows Vista and Windows 7 do, I'm told Linux does as well with a particular mixer installed. Mac OS doesn't though).
Actually, the copier in the public library is there to facilitate authorised fair use copying of excerpts of copyrighted material for academic, parody, or other protected purposes. They usually even have a sign up telling you not to copy the whole book (leaving aside that every library I've ever visited, the copies cost money so you'd actually spend less buying the book than copying it).
Slashdot Mirror
It's going the same way that pay-per-text plans went (with most providers). An SMS message does not cost the provider anything... your cell is constantly sending pings back and forth from the cell tower, and an SMS message simply uses the unused data in a standard packet during one of these pings. They *literally* cost the carrier no extra bandwidth or tower time than simply leaving the phone on, and yet some carriers still charge per text message.
I can see where you got your name from. "Reality impaired" indeed. SMS messages utilise infrastructure that would not exist were it not for SMS, therefore they do incur a real cost. Ever heard of an SMSC? It's the gigantic, very expensive to set up and maintain, system that receives and routes your messages. Plus there's the interconnects that cost money to set up, develop, and maintain. SMS messages are not peer to peer, they have to pass through expensive centralised systems. They *literally* cost the carrier a huge amount to support. One could argue that the cost of messaging is disproportionate to a reasonable margin over the amount it costs the carrier to deliver them, but it's disingenuous to suggest they cost *nothing*.
RF broadcasting on that scale likely requires a license from the territorial authority (or central authority) though, which could raise the cost spectacularly.
It is still a good idea though, just there's some logistics I'm not sure you considered.
The truth is that the traffic is increasing much much faster than the capacity is.
Now *usage* cap are UTTER BULLSHIT and are meant to punish early adopter of bandwidth hungry application (a lot of whicha re fully elgal today, like youtube) and get more subscriber that way. They simply do not want toa dmit that their network is absolutely not ready.
I'm confused, they're utter bullshit for doing exactly what the providers intend? The truth is, the providers cannot control what other content producers come up with - ideas are being invented faster than the capacity to transit them can be placed. You would prefer that the providers let people transfer as much as they want and damn the quality of service effect that has? Screw that, I don't want my usage of the network crushed to a crawl because of some dick torrenting the whole series of "Two and a Half Men" or whatever. Ultimately, it sounds like you're advocating providers billing content producers for their usage of the network - because how else can the providers engage in wholesale infrastructure updates without ultimately making the users pay for it?
(As a side note, most providers quite often admit their network isn't up to the task being put before it. Any ISP that tries on an unlimited connection in my country ends up admitting that pretty fast).
Clearly you've never had to pay for ONE of those 10G switches, let alone a single 10G uplink to someone like GlobalCrossing or Level3. Out of that $40, a significant amount of that would be sunk into the purchase cost of the switch (plus the mandatory annual support and maintenance contract payments on it), and to the uplink provider. Where I come from, there's a saying - "nobody wants your unprofitable broadband without your profitable toll calling coming with it".
They don't phrase it like that, of course. They phrase it that the service is "Best Efforts" and if those "best efforts" happen to be "not at all"- well, that's just not their problem, is it?
One day, someone should send in a letter to one of them stating "I'm sorry, paying our Comcast bill is a best effort service, and due to technical difficulties we were unable to provision that service this month. We apologise for the inconvenience, and remind you that there is no SLA on the 'Bill Paying' service."
And in NZ, we don't have caps so much as we have internet plungers.
Actually if you use Linux and Apple you WILL pay for patches, MSFT? Nope. At least that is what a friend at my local cableco has told me and I wouldn't be surprised if that is the same at other ISPs. Oh and you can't blame it on MSFT this time either, unless you want to blame them for the ease of use that is WSUS Server.
Because according to my friend that is what they are rolling out, your Windows Updates will be local thanks to WSUS and since Linux doesn't have a "one size fits all" repo and with Apple there are more iPads and iPhones than Macs so the cableco doesn't even think about them. According to my friend they'll be doing the same with Netflix, all the popular movies will be on a local CDN.
WSUS is the Enterprise local update server. It's not being rolled out by your cable company, at least not for customers. It actually cannot be, since it requires an NT domain. Unless your cable company is setting up an NT domain and requiring you to join it. Microsoft patches will continue to be delivered the same way Apple patches are - directly from the developer (MS/Apple) delivered over Akamai's CDN. Which your ISP likely has a local caching node co-located in their datacentre for.
Yeah, they won't have a choice once it goes Mac App Store, which does deltas.
And then if you try to do it as an app, they reject it because "we don't want your stinking web clippings".
It's not documented. And it's not actually meant to work. In iOS 5, it doesn't.
User agent spoofing isn't possible in iOS 5. It's an accident that it works in iOS 4.
Fuck off, APK. Your hosts file stuff I can live with, but I draw the line at racist trolling you piece of crap.
(Note: not Jewish, or American).
I also wish your congresspeople and their staff were busy all day playing video games, then they wouldn't have time to write up multi-thousand page laws to shove on us, a completely different country.
Say, with your government writing our laws, does this mean I get to vote for your congress now?
Any modern OS allows you to modify the volume per application (Windows Vista and Windows 7 do, I'm told Linux does as well with a particular mixer installed. Mac OS doesn't though).
Who the hell are the Masai?
Although I do rather like the idea of being a warrior.
Clearly, I'm in the wrong industry.
Whoosh.
Actually, the copier in the public library is there to facilitate authorised fair use copying of excerpts of copyrighted material for academic, parody, or other protected purposes. They usually even have a sign up telling you not to copy the whole book (leaving aside that every library I've ever visited, the copies cost money so you'd actually spend less buying the book than copying it).
At least until the next emergency session of parliament to address Christchurch earthquake recovery, anyway.
Actually, that's wrong. Carriers can also lockdown Android to not allow installation of non-market apps. AT&T used to.
Don't blame Microsoft - it was only around 2003 that they finally decided to stop shipping Windows Server for the Alpha processor. HP though...
It's people like you that are the reason the world hates America. Take your racist bigotry, and piss off.
Except that real money has laws enforcing its acceptance as exchange for goods. Not so for Bitcoins.
WebDAV is a protocol, not a product. A WebDAV server could support versioning (for example, Sharepoint does - and that's a WebDAV server).
Firefox? Who said anything about Firefox?
Well, considering you entered your password into a public-facing website, just to test how secure it is, the answer is...
Your password is not very secure at all.