Good points, and you're right that getting arrested wouldn't make any difference to me in regard to not making the same mistake twice. I like to think that I'm responsible enough to apologize, help and pay bills. The problem is the people who don't feel that responsibility and need to be coerced to do what's right, or in this case not wronging someone. A lot of people would fuck the guy in need of help over and only be concerned for themselves... It's like you said: "You apparently have no ability to understand that not everyone has your exact skillset."
As for trust in authority I guess the difference created by an ocean between us is larger than I thought... Here people still tell their kids to trust cops to help them and here people get fair trials without going bankrupt. Here we still trust authority to protect us from egotistical people who refuse to take any responsibility when given the opportunity. I can understand that someone who lives in a world where those things aren't true would see authority as cruel and a trial as punishment itself, but can you understand that in a world where these things do still hold true it's not nearly as severe?
And besides kids go in front of a judge (who wants to help them and looks at their background) for things as minor as graffiti or shoplifting candy and get a slap on the wrist (actually they really try to prevent kids like that from turning into criminals, part of which is not doing jailtime because that often makes it worse), don't you think that issues regarding the (almost) death of an infant are significantly more important and worthy enough of some time by that same (caring) judge*.
*based on the axiom that justice is being served equally for all and not just the right of the rich and famous.
In the Netherlands it is in fact a crime to leave someone in need of help entrusted to your care alone, at least in some situations when they can be in harms way.
But lets consider a time without criminal law when people lived as a tribal society and a clan would discuss these matters in their clan meetings (like some tribes such as the Maori still do today). When a young mother would have endangered a child thoughtlessness she would have been reprimanded and reminded that the child is not hers alone but it is a child of the whole tribe, and she has a sacred responsibility to care for and protect the child. She would not receive punishment but would be asked to observe tradition and perhaps be guided by older clan members. When however this woman was so careless to let something like that happen again there would certainly be another consequence beside strong words and a helping hand because by failing your child yo fail the whole clan... Solving a matter like this in the family court of a clan would be better in lots of regards than the modern day court equivalents, but in essence they serve the same role... A court can also help parents, not only punish them... Sadly there is less emphasis on this part nowadays but it is still an integral part of justice and most judges here keep in mind all personal circumstances. Helping people who have a hard time learning and repeat stupid mistakes becomes harder and these people often need to face some punishment to stimulate them to improve themselves. Like you mentioned a pattern of negligent behavior should be detected and acted upon, but how would you know if no authority is ever involved? Wouldn't a judge or other authority have to warn them to be able to establish this history of neglect?
You asked if i'm above lapses in judgement, of course not, I do stupid shit just like anyone else But I believe that when you fuck up bad you need to take responsibility... I have a recent stupid example from newyear when me and my friends messed around just a little and were kicking fireworks at each other. It's all harmless fun and games but there is an ever so slight chance something does go wrong and I accidentally blind someone. The way I look at it I knew a slight risk existed and took the chance nothing would happen and it didn't, but when something would have happened I would have taken responsibility because it was my fault and I chose to ignore the danger. There can be a lot of legal consequences from blinding someone with firework but I would have manned up and taken that responsibility. Of course no-one wants things to go so wrong it does damage that can't be undone, but when that happens most people just make excuses and shift blame... But do you really want people to blame others more for their fuck-ups? Do you really want parents to feel less responsibility towards their children and society and be more busy with themselves? I fucking hope I will never fuck up so bad that I hurt mine or any others children, but when I do I will take full responsibility and face the consequences.
P.S. On some ways authorities are the domestic enemy of the people, I completely agree with you there. But it hasn't come to a point that they have no merit or justice whatsoever. Well, until our justice system has become so corrupted and crazy that minors or mentally handicapped are given death sentences, some attempt at justice is still preferable to anarchy but there is a limit. We have to work with the flawed tools our society has (and attempt improve those), not abolish them because they are not perfect. I don't believe things are so hopeless yet, but perhaps given time and enough injustice I might change my mind about that...
There are probably better ways (like for most things, I realize that), but in our current society with our current legal system it is the best response in my opinion. I hope the woman will be reunited with her baby tomorrow, but she deserves a reprimand for her irresponsibility. She was stupid and lucky (note that someone else called the fire department while she was out, if they didn't this story could have had a much worse ending), and she should know not only that but also that society does not tolerate people treating their babies like that. I really don't wish people like her anything terrible, but I also shiver to think how some people would treat their children if something like this makes the news with the note that the women just gets away with it... People do a lot of stupid shit they know/feel isn't right if they just think they can get away with it.
You say the line is intent, but the saying 'the road to hell is paved with good intent' has an origin, a lot of people are convicted that had the best intent but it just went wrong (like with the baby in the car). Proper criteria would be if something went wrong and people *could* have known and prevented it. When you accidentally kill without intent it is still manslaughter, but when you can show you had no way of knowing or preventing (a true accident) you can go free. So I would say this would differ per person for this scenario... You are right the DA has a role in evaluating these criteria, but the judge is the only one with the power to really evaluate the full story and respond appropriately.
An example: Just this week in the Netherlands a young mother was arrested because she let her child alone and they found out because she left a pan on the stove that started smoking and someone called the fire department... She didn't have bad intent, and nothing serious happened (the kid is checked at the hospital for mild smoke inhalation), but it could have ended bad and is very neglectful so she learned the hard way that beside the scare she has to explain herself before a judge now... There probably won't be harsh consequences like losing her kid but the message is the important part. It is sad (and perhaps unnecessary) that she is now unable to visit her kid in the hospital, but how is she (and others by example) supposed to learn responsibility if there were no consequence at all?
I agree with you that we don't need a lot more trivial lawsuits, and situations like this need to be carefully evaluated because like we both agree it is a very harsh consequence. But I don't think the death of an infant trusted to someones care is trivial, and there are situations where it definitely is needed to take action. In that case the fact that those people are down is not important just like the guy who drives drunk, crashes and kills his own wife in the passenger seat, it's sad that he already lost his wife but it should not be an excuse not to prosecute. But it can and *should* be an excuse for a judge to be lenient and withhold strong punishment. Like I said this is fairly common in European courts.
If a non-extreme view like mine makes you sick you must have a stomach that is easily upset... What I don't understand (and I guess neither does your stomach) is that your reasoning would equally apply to parents who leave their baby in the car (often this is no real problem but sometimes the baby dies from heat and thirst). In my opinion these parents are responsible for their children's death and should be prosecuted for negligence, but according to your logic they shouldn't be punished because they suffered enough? And what about people who suffocate their baby intentionally? You have to get real, there is a line *somewhere* where you obviously do want parents to be held accountable, that line isn't easy for you or me to define, but a judge with proper legal knowledge has a much better capability for this... I just propose to use the experts we - as a society - have for exactly the purpose we have them, to legally assess the situation.
I get your objections, they are valid and I understand that it can be a delicate situation. But you rant on how sick the very idea makes you and neglect to name any good alternative...
judges often take into account the personal situation, a good rightful judge would convict the parents without giving an additional punishment... these kinds of verdicts are common in europe. no one thinks it is a good idea to also throw them in jail, but they have to show that people are supposed to act responsibly and can't lay the blame on others when their stupidity kills. in fact over here they also prosecute the people that give the stupid advice that leads to deaths mostly to make the point that it's not right even though there is never a conviction for this.
you look at this matter too black and white, this isn't american politics where you have to be at one of two extremes, there is a middle ground here that isn't extreme. i find this attitude distasteful, implying someone is a sadist because his point is not on your side so it must be the most opposite evil... if you don't trust your judges to use good judgement and be just that is a whole other problem that you should try to fix, but over here you are not sent to the death camps the moment you have to appear before a judge... and if you believe a judge is too much too assess a situation legally when a child dies what other measure do you suggest the government should use to discourage this from happening again? Write a strongly worded letter perhaps and ask them if they please will promise to do better next time? i mean really, what's your solution?
sadistic? there is no need for name calling... and i do know doctors make mistakes like all humans, that is exactly what second opinions are for. i will make mistakes that will probably seem obvious in hindsight, but when that mistake cost someone their life i completely expect that to have consequences... also note that i said a conviction isn't even needed, just the message that it's an unacceptable failure. the 'experts' on the other hand should receive punishment but that is much harder to achieve in practice... the reason this is hard is because they always claim they didn't force anyone but only offered advice and they're free to offer any advice no matter how stupid. legally this is how responsibility works, so people should be careful whose advice they follow, whether from the doctor, charlatans, politicians, priests or crazy homeless people... you and only you are end responsible for your actions, there is more to the story than that but legally thats how it works. it is understandable that people try to blame others for their mistakes, but thankfully this isn't how law works.
keywords: 'best efforts'... parents that believe idiots and thereby endanger their children are negligent. this isn't something that can only be seen in hindsight. i'm sure you can see the difference between an innocent bystander and people who ignore their own doctors advice because of an idiot from tv or the internet.
Is it unethical to punish a person for letting a human being that was entrusted to their care die a preventable death? I agree that a judge *should* not give them any punishment because they have been punished enough, but at the very least they deserve a conviction.
I trust science in general, and when there have been billions of vaccinations given without too many side effects (all of which are well documented) but there is still the possibility that something else goes wrong. When something does (after all children *have* died directly after vaccination) the cause is either a mass coverup of faulty vaccines or another simpler problem. I don't trust medical company's, like any company can't be trusted by their nature, but it i'll believe the logical simplest explanation.
I agree, it's kindof cruel and those parents won't learn... But even if it does not help them or leads to a conviction it shows a very clear warning to others and that's more needed now. Parents are entrusted with the care for their offspring, but their offspring is not their own body nor their property so they have to treat them responsibly. This message needs to be known to every parent, and (sadly) I don't know what other way would get the message across...
You might argue it is OK for a parent to let their 8 year old drive their car, after all it's their car and their child... But I disagree because their is a good chance the 8 year old crashes and not only injures himself but others (possibly me or my children). The vaccine is the same, when enough people endanger themselves they endanger the whole species. It's not just yourself and your children you should worry about.
Why is that always the response to this valid point? The guy points out an obvious truth that people with too much power tend to be corrupted evil bastards with lack of morals and ethics and your solution is to go back to the stone age... What about trying to keep modern things but still addressing this issue by not giving crazy amounts of power to any single human being? I'm fairly sure that we can figure out how to do that *and* keep corporations and society functioning...
Yeah, but even then there are different conclusions possible. If you assume autism or death was caused by a vaccine based on this fallacy why jump to the conclusion the vaccine is bad. It could just as well have been any other problem like contamination. This can of course be accidental but I would not even expect mayor manufacturers to destroy entire batches when a few are known to be polluted (after all they even shipped AIDS infected products knowingly so I don't really have their general code of ethics in high regard). So if and when jumping to conclusions based on incomplete evidence and a logical fallacy I would claim a polluted vaccine probably caused it instead of boycotting all vaccines...
People who have been misled by false information are just that: 'misled'. People who choose to endanger their children (and others secondarily) after they know the facts are provably negligent.
While it may be hard to prosecute for this because it is not that black-and-white (and people can always play the religion wildcard) it is possible to prosecute negligent parents when it does go wrong and their children die of a preventable disease... It is not pretty since they already lost their child, but other people might learn from their mistakes... If people don't see the consequence and learn from it we all are at risk of infection so there is a reasonable incentive to prosecute and shame these willfully neglectful parents as much as legally possible so people will say 'they would never mistreat their children like that'.
Not quite the whole story. In peak hours when your 20 Mbit ADSL drops to 2 Mbit speeds it's simply because they oversold the line that much... The problem isn't buffering but trying to use 1000% of the bandwidth, that is never going to work smoothly. Buffers don't really change it because you have a choice for either large buffers + higher latencies or small buffers + more dropped packets, your throughput will suffer about the same...
In my experience most software will handle some higher latencies just fine, but too many dropped packets will fuck almost any protocol up (most are not so sturdy when you remove a few percentage of the packets). So the choice for larger buffers is a valid one as long as the connection is this saturated.
...or you can pay 23 bucks a month for an unlimited plan like I do at Verizon.
... until Verizon starts acting like a child and claims that 'unlimited' is not really what you and I understand it to mean...
I have absolutely no trust that the price hikes are in any relation to the total increased cost of the bandwidth. Network upgrades should have been figured into the subscription already, if they claim now it's not sufficient they either underestimated the rise in bandwidth use or just neglected to upgrade the network accordingly... Either way it looks bad for a company whose primary business is communication.
And do you really think the surcharge for overuse is based on any reality of economics besides greed? When you go over your 'pre-agreed' data limit and use some more it's suddenly gold being burned by 3G... To come back to your fast food analogy it would be like getting a single packet of ketchup with your $1,49 fries, and when you finish that and want more the next packet of ketchup will cost you $100.
Tell me about it, my unlimited plan used to be just that, unlimited. But now my provider (Vodafone) tries to sell extra packages and started sending letters when I hit just the 700Mb mark claiming 'fair use'... The new packages come as 'bandwidth' upgrades to the basic package, you'd better pay up those extra 10 euro miniumum otherwise when you do nothing you will suddenly get a bill of hundreds of euro's for the excess bandwidth... I calculated I would pay like 80x the money if I don't act, and 3x the money if I buy into the extortion scam.
They try to push the price-hike by whining with arguments that the network is flooded by smartphones from people that actually use bandwidth they pay for... But the stupidest part is that at the same time they advertise their new network packages with ads where people use their smartphone for all bandwidth intensive applications and claim 'Our network is ready for it'. Fuck them and their dirty tactics! When my subscription expires I'm so outta there, I'm willing to accept a lesser network just to make the point.
This is not the exception, but the rule... Given the 'right' circumstances any person is capable of evil deeds such as this. This happens faster and easier than most people like to admit...
And you won't convince me that the Iraq war is morally just because Saddam was evil... Two wrongs don't make a right, the fact that he was an evil dictator was a convenient excuse but not a valid reason by far.
Slashdot Mirror
Good points, and you're right that getting arrested wouldn't make any difference to me in regard to not making the same mistake twice. I like to think that I'm responsible enough to apologize, help and pay bills. The problem is the people who don't feel that responsibility and need to be coerced to do what's right, or in this case not wronging someone. A lot of people would fuck the guy in need of help over and only be concerned for themselves... It's like you said: "You apparently have no ability to understand that not everyone has your exact skillset."
As for trust in authority I guess the difference created by an ocean between us is larger than I thought... Here people still tell their kids to trust cops to help them and here people get fair trials without going bankrupt. Here we still trust authority to protect us from egotistical people who refuse to take any responsibility when given the opportunity. I can understand that someone who lives in a world where those things aren't true would see authority as cruel and a trial as punishment itself, but can you understand that in a world where these things do still hold true it's not nearly as severe?
And besides kids go in front of a judge (who wants to help them and looks at their background) for things as minor as graffiti or shoplifting candy and get a slap on the wrist (actually they really try to prevent kids like that from turning into criminals, part of which is not doing jailtime because that often makes it worse), don't you think that issues regarding the (almost) death of an infant are significantly more important and worthy enough of some time by that same (caring) judge*.
*based on the axiom that justice is being served equally for all and not just the right of the rich and famous.
In the Netherlands it is in fact a crime to leave someone in need of help entrusted to your care alone, at least in some situations when they can be in harms way.
But lets consider a time without criminal law when people lived as a tribal society and a clan would discuss these matters in their clan meetings (like some tribes such as the Maori still do today). When a young mother would have endangered a child thoughtlessness she would have been reprimanded and reminded that the child is not hers alone but it is a child of the whole tribe, and she has a sacred responsibility to care for and protect the child. She would not receive punishment but would be asked to observe tradition and perhaps be guided by older clan members. When however this woman was so careless to let something like that happen again there would certainly be another consequence beside strong words and a helping hand because by failing your child yo fail the whole clan... Solving a matter like this in the family court of a clan would be better in lots of regards than the modern day court equivalents, but in essence they serve the same role... A court can also help parents, not only punish them... Sadly there is less emphasis on this part nowadays but it is still an integral part of justice and most judges here keep in mind all personal circumstances. Helping people who have a hard time learning and repeat stupid mistakes becomes harder and these people often need to face some punishment to stimulate them to improve themselves. Like you mentioned a pattern of negligent behavior should be detected and acted upon, but how would you know if no authority is ever involved? Wouldn't a judge or other authority have to warn them to be able to establish this history of neglect?
You asked if i'm above lapses in judgement, of course not, I do stupid shit just like anyone else But I believe that when you fuck up bad you need to take responsibility... I have a recent stupid example from newyear when me and my friends messed around just a little and were kicking fireworks at each other. It's all harmless fun and games but there is an ever so slight chance something does go wrong and I accidentally blind someone. The way I look at it I knew a slight risk existed and took the chance nothing would happen and it didn't, but when something would have happened I would have taken responsibility because it was my fault and I chose to ignore the danger. There can be a lot of legal consequences from blinding someone with firework but I would have manned up and taken that responsibility. Of course no-one wants things to go so wrong it does damage that can't be undone, but when that happens most people just make excuses and shift blame... But do you really want people to blame others more for their fuck-ups? Do you really want parents to feel less responsibility towards their children and society and be more busy with themselves? I fucking hope I will never fuck up so bad that I hurt mine or any others children, but when I do I will take full responsibility and face the consequences.
P.S. On some ways authorities are the domestic enemy of the people, I completely agree with you there. But it hasn't come to a point that they have no merit or justice whatsoever. Well, until our justice system has become so corrupted and crazy that minors or mentally handicapped are given death sentences, some attempt at justice is still preferable to anarchy but there is a limit. We have to work with the flawed tools our society has (and attempt improve those), not abolish them because they are not perfect. I don't believe things are so hopeless yet, but perhaps given time and enough injustice I might change my mind about that...
There are probably better ways (like for most things, I realize that), but in our current society with our current legal system it is the best response in my opinion. I hope the woman will be reunited with her baby tomorrow, but she deserves a reprimand for her irresponsibility. She was stupid and lucky (note that someone else called the fire department while she was out, if they didn't this story could have had a much worse ending), and she should know not only that but also that society does not tolerate people treating their babies like that. I really don't wish people like her anything terrible, but I also shiver to think how some people would treat their children if something like this makes the news with the note that the women just gets away with it... People do a lot of stupid shit they know/feel isn't right if they just think they can get away with it.
You say the line is intent, but the saying 'the road to hell is paved with good intent' has an origin, a lot of people are convicted that had the best intent but it just went wrong (like with the baby in the car). Proper criteria would be if something went wrong and people *could* have known and prevented it. When you accidentally kill without intent it is still manslaughter, but when you can show you had no way of knowing or preventing (a true accident) you can go free. So I would say this would differ per person for this scenario... You are right the DA has a role in evaluating these criteria, but the judge is the only one with the power to really evaluate the full story and respond appropriately.
An example: Just this week in the Netherlands a young mother was arrested because she let her child alone and they found out because she left a pan on the stove that started smoking and someone called the fire department... She didn't have bad intent, and nothing serious happened (the kid is checked at the hospital for mild smoke inhalation), but it could have ended bad and is very neglectful so she learned the hard way that beside the scare she has to explain herself before a judge now... There probably won't be harsh consequences like losing her kid but the message is the important part. It is sad (and perhaps unnecessary) that she is now unable to visit her kid in the hospital, but how is she (and others by example) supposed to learn responsibility if there were no consequence at all?
I agree with you that we don't need a lot more trivial lawsuits, and situations like this need to be carefully evaluated because like we both agree it is a very harsh consequence. But I don't think the death of an infant trusted to someones care is trivial, and there are situations where it definitely is needed to take action. In that case the fact that those people are down is not important just like the guy who drives drunk, crashes and kills his own wife in the passenger seat, it's sad that he already lost his wife but it should not be an excuse not to prosecute. But it can and *should* be an excuse for a judge to be lenient and withhold strong punishment. Like I said this is fairly common in European courts.
If a non-extreme view like mine makes you sick you must have a stomach that is easily upset... What I don't understand (and I guess neither does your stomach) is that your reasoning would equally apply to parents who leave their baby in the car (often this is no real problem but sometimes the baby dies from heat and thirst). In my opinion these parents are responsible for their children's death and should be prosecuted for negligence, but according to your logic they shouldn't be punished because they suffered enough? And what about people who suffocate their baby intentionally? You have to get real, there is a line *somewhere* where you obviously do want parents to be held accountable, that line isn't easy for you or me to define, but a judge with proper legal knowledge has a much better capability for this... I just propose to use the experts we - as a society - have for exactly the purpose we have them, to legally assess the situation.
I get your objections, they are valid and I understand that it can be a delicate situation. But you rant on how sick the very idea makes you and neglect to name any good alternative...
judges often take into account the personal situation, a good rightful judge would convict the parents without giving an additional punishment... these kinds of verdicts are common in europe. no one thinks it is a good idea to also throw them in jail, but they have to show that people are supposed to act responsibly and can't lay the blame on others when their stupidity kills. in fact over here they also prosecute the people that give the stupid advice that leads to deaths mostly to make the point that it's not right even though there is never a conviction for this.
you look at this matter too black and white, this isn't american politics where you have to be at one of two extremes, there is a middle ground here that isn't extreme. i find this attitude distasteful, implying someone is a sadist because his point is not on your side so it must be the most opposite evil... if you don't trust your judges to use good judgement and be just that is a whole other problem that you should try to fix, but over here you are not sent to the death camps the moment you have to appear before a judge... and if you believe a judge is too much too assess a situation legally when a child dies what other measure do you suggest the government should use to discourage this from happening again? Write a strongly worded letter perhaps and ask them if they please will promise to do better next time? i mean really, what's your solution?
sadistic? there is no need for name calling... and i do know doctors make mistakes like all humans, that is exactly what second opinions are for. i will make mistakes that will probably seem obvious in hindsight, but when that mistake cost someone their life i completely expect that to have consequences... also note that i said a conviction isn't even needed, just the message that it's an unacceptable failure. the 'experts' on the other hand should receive punishment but that is much harder to achieve in practice... the reason this is hard is because they always claim they didn't force anyone but only offered advice and they're free to offer any advice no matter how stupid. legally this is how responsibility works, so people should be careful whose advice they follow, whether from the doctor, charlatans, politicians, priests or crazy homeless people... you and only you are end responsible for your actions, there is more to the story than that but legally thats how it works. it is understandable that people try to blame others for their mistakes, but thankfully this isn't how law works.
keywords: 'best efforts'... parents that believe idiots and thereby endanger their children are negligent. this isn't something that can only be seen in hindsight. i'm sure you can see the difference between an innocent bystander and people who ignore their own doctors advice because of an idiot from tv or the internet.
Is it unethical to punish a person for letting a human being that was entrusted to their care die a preventable death? I agree that a judge *should* not give them any punishment because they have been punished enough, but at the very least they deserve a conviction.
I trust science in general, and when there have been billions of vaccinations given without too many side effects (all of which are well documented) but there is still the possibility that something else goes wrong. When something does (after all children *have* died directly after vaccination) the cause is either a mass coverup of faulty vaccines or another simpler problem. I don't trust medical company's, like any company can't be trusted by their nature, but it i'll believe the logical simplest explanation.
I agree, it's kindof cruel and those parents won't learn... But even if it does not help them or leads to a conviction it shows a very clear warning to others and that's more needed now. Parents are entrusted with the care for their offspring, but their offspring is not their own body nor their property so they have to treat them responsibly. This message needs to be known to every parent, and (sadly) I don't know what other way would get the message across...
You might argue it is OK for a parent to let their 8 year old drive their car, after all it's their car and their child... But I disagree because their is a good chance the 8 year old crashes and not only injures himself but others (possibly me or my children). The vaccine is the same, when enough people endanger themselves they endanger the whole species. It's not just yourself and your children you should worry about.
Damn, wrong side of the bed today? Chill out friend.
Why is that always the response to this valid point? The guy points out an obvious truth that people with too much power tend to be corrupted evil bastards with lack of morals and ethics and your solution is to go back to the stone age... What about trying to keep modern things but still addressing this issue by not giving crazy amounts of power to any single human being? I'm fairly sure that we can figure out how to do that *and* keep corporations and society functioning...
Shhhhht, that is what I want *them* to believe. ;)
Yeah, but even then there are different conclusions possible. If you assume autism or death was caused by a vaccine based on this fallacy why jump to the conclusion the vaccine is bad. It could just as well have been any other problem like contamination. This can of course be accidental but I would not even expect mayor manufacturers to destroy entire batches when a few are known to be polluted (after all they even shipped AIDS infected products knowingly so I don't really have their general code of ethics in high regard). So if and when jumping to conclusions based on incomplete evidence and a logical fallacy I would claim a polluted vaccine probably caused it instead of boycotting all vaccines...
People who have been misled by false information are just that: 'misled'. People who choose to endanger their children (and others secondarily) after they know the facts are provably negligent.
While it may be hard to prosecute for this because it is not that black-and-white (and people can always play the religion wildcard) it is possible to prosecute negligent parents when it does go wrong and their children die of a preventable disease... It is not pretty since they already lost their child, but other people might learn from their mistakes... If people don't see the consequence and learn from it we all are at risk of infection so there is a reasonable incentive to prosecute and shame these willfully neglectful parents as much as legally possible so people will say 'they would never mistreat their children like that'.
Not quite the whole story. In peak hours when your 20 Mbit ADSL drops to 2 Mbit speeds it's simply because they oversold the line that much... The problem isn't buffering but trying to use 1000% of the bandwidth, that is never going to work smoothly. Buffers don't really change it because you have a choice for either large buffers + higher latencies or small buffers + more dropped packets, your throughput will suffer about the same...
In my experience most software will handle some higher latencies just fine, but too many dropped packets will fuck almost any protocol up (most are not so sturdy when you remove a few percentage of the packets). So the choice for larger buffers is a valid one as long as the connection is this saturated.
Someone mod this up... it was the most essential bit of the article and parent got the quote right!
Yeah, I read mildly interested until I encountered the word 'parachute' and almost spilled my coffee... well played joke indeed.
Oh crap, you forgot to post AC... Now you're going to "Voluntary Re-Education Camp"!
... until Verizon starts acting like a child and claims that 'unlimited' is not really what you and I understand it to mean...
I have absolutely no trust that the price hikes are in any relation to the total increased cost of the bandwidth. Network upgrades should have been figured into the subscription already, if they claim now it's not sufficient they either underestimated the rise in bandwidth use or just neglected to upgrade the network accordingly... Either way it looks bad for a company whose primary business is communication.
And do you really think the surcharge for overuse is based on any reality of economics besides greed? When you go over your 'pre-agreed' data limit and use some more it's suddenly gold being burned by 3G... To come back to your fast food analogy it would be like getting a single packet of ketchup with your $1,49 fries, and when you finish that and want more the next packet of ketchup will cost you $100.
That's why spyware would do exactly what is described here, use the 3G and not the Wifi... Because 3G traffic is much harder to capture and inspect...
Tell me about it, my unlimited plan used to be just that, unlimited. But now my provider (Vodafone) tries to sell extra packages and started sending letters when I hit just the 700Mb mark claiming 'fair use'... The new packages come as 'bandwidth' upgrades to the basic package, you'd better pay up those extra 10 euro miniumum otherwise when you do nothing you will suddenly get a bill of hundreds of euro's for the excess bandwidth... I calculated I would pay like 80x the money if I don't act, and 3x the money if I buy into the extortion scam.
They try to push the price-hike by whining with arguments that the network is flooded by smartphones from people that actually use bandwidth they pay for... But the stupidest part is that at the same time they advertise their new network packages with ads where people use their smartphone for all bandwidth intensive applications and claim 'Our network is ready for it'. Fuck them and their dirty tactics! When my subscription expires I'm so outta there, I'm willing to accept a lesser network just to make the point.
This is not the exception, but the rule... Given the 'right' circumstances any person is capable of evil deeds such as this. This happens faster and easier than most people like to admit...
And you won't convince me that the Iraq war is morally just because Saddam was evil... Two wrongs don't make a right, the fact that he was an evil dictator was a convenient excuse but not a valid reason by far.