As I said I gave you a deep discount. But if you still think that electrical noise and crosstalk are in any way relevant to the quality of sound sent through IP packets, then you don't know what you're talking about. In fact it puts you clearly in their target audiophile category with the only thing saving you being the size of your wallet. They could likely con you by selling making the same claims about an ordinary cable and selling it at a a mere 50% premium.
Given the differences in specs they could probably show some increased noise and crosstalk, as well as less bandwidth. Does it make any real difference? For most applications probably not but that's different than proving a performance increase and thus showing the claims were not false.
Oh. I see the problem. Your connection to the Internet goes through a low quality Ethernet cable, or even, shudder, a WiFi connection. But fear not. I provide you with a premium high-fidelity Ethernet cable that will let you see the full clarity of my prose. With it the words will be sharper, their meaning will come into focus. Never again will you have to wonder at the meaning of what you read. And it can be yours now for the low low price of $1000.
All those billions of dollars are from only 10k accounts so the % of shady customers probably is reaching 100.
The leak actually concerns 106k accounts from 203 countries and totalling 180 billion euros (strangely the BBC claims only $118bn), with half of them actively trying to evade taxes (accounts in tax havens) and the rest at least hiding money. That said not all of them are really shady: there are really a number of accounts that the current holders inherited and never got the courage to declare to their country's revenue service. But if you know what percentage of the accounts that is you're better informed than me.
While my 10 cent comment is also a bit of hyperbole, they probably could construct a rig with Cat 6 components, plug in a cheap cat 5 cable and show performance degradation.
I really doubt that.
While I think their claims are bunk the GP's question why they aren't sued into oblivion is that not only hyperbole accepted in advertising it would be a lot easier to prove the claims were merely puffery than to prove they were false and misleading.
We'll have to disagree with that. I think their claims fly right past the hyperbole zone and land squarely in the outright lie territory. I still think Consumer Reports, The Better Business Bureau or even any competitor would have no trouble getting them condemned for false advertising.
ISPs get plenty of money from spammers. Ever heard of Ecatel?
No. And a search on Google did not return any ISP called Ecatel. There is a server hosting company by that name but that's no ISP. Their relation to spammers is also not clear. So you'll have to be more specific.
Are you saying that shielding and twisting in ethernet cables don't matter?
The twisting is part of the Ethernet specification so it's identical between the 10 cent cable and the $10.000 one. The shielding only matters if the cable is subjected to radio noise and $10 cables have that too anyway.
Is the sound better than a ten cent cable when plugged into professionl gear? Probably. Uni directional transfer?
I doubt you'll find a 10 cent Ethernet cable of that length. Regardless any $5 cat-5 compliant ethernet cable will produce exactly the same sound as this $10000 cable. And I do mean a bit for bit identical and totally indistinguishable by ear or machine. The only exception would be if they use that cable to transmit analog signals instead of Ethernet data.
At any given instance electrons travel only in one direction.
Individual electrons are not data. That company claims the data travels in only one direction but that would prevent TCP from working and also cause the cable to fail the Ethernet requirements. So either calling it an Ethernet cable is a lie, or claiming data travels in only one direction is a lie. So either way they lied and that's no hyperbole.
How come these companies don't get sued into oblivion for false advertising (claiming an impact on sound quality, unidirectional data transfer, 100Gbps compatibility). And why don't the reviewers get sued too for professional misconduct?
The cartoons in question were absolutely racist and disgusting.
The ones that Charlie Hebdo republished in support of free speech or their own? All of them? Even this one which only denounces extremists?
We even have laws against hate speech in the USA.
So? Are you saying that denouncing religious extremism would be outlawed by the same law that allowed religious nuts to disrupt the funerals of thousands of gay soldiers with insults like "Thank God for dead soldiers",
Or, on other words, you shouldn't react violently, but if you insult someone's mother you should probably expect that person to react negatively. Insulting others is to deliberately provoke reactions from them: you shouldn't be surprised if those reactions turn violent (given adequate provocation), because that, sadly, is human nature.
So what he should have said is that Charlie Hebdo should be commended for continuing to denounce the extremists of all religions who would distort these faiths to justify their intolerance and thirst for violence, this while knowing full well the personal risks this exposed them to. But instead he relayed the terrorists' message: "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.".
Charlie Hebdo insulted all Muslims. They did it deliberately, they knew it, and that was their goal. Well, they achieved it.
That's your personal interpretation. They criticized extremists of all religions
There was no fun in those cartoons.
The goal of a satirical publication is not just humor but also to get some messages across. And while I don't particularly like Charlie Hebdo in general, some of their drawings make pretty good points.
They were warned many times, but they kept insulting not Christians, not Jewish, only Muslims.
That's a lie: here are pages of Charlie Hebdo caricatures of Jesus and Moise. They even made a Shoah Hebdo edition just like they did a Charia Hebdo one.
What we know is cases like this usually have money involved, and the second known thing is that US Jewish groups support anti-muslim politicians and parties in Europe. Was that the case here? I don't know, looks very likely.
Charlie Hebdo's only source of income was its readership. And suggesting they were funded by politicians really shows you havenoidea what you're talking about.
And the issue isn't as black/white as that either. Freedom comes with a price-tag; are we all willing to pay the price? And if not, is it right to force the majority to pay the price so that a minority can say what they like without having to fear any consquences?
So you're saying that all it takes is a couple of murderers for you to cave in and give up on fundamental rights like freedom of speech? Do you really think they will stop there if they are successful? Did you really think you could pass this off as a reasonable solution?
He didn't say he's fine with it. You're not quoting him for a reason.
I will then: “If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," Francis said, throwing a pretend punch at Gasparri. This pretend punch makes his statement very ambiguous as it looks like this is how he would react.
His next statement is totally unambiguous however: "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others." That's precisely the terrorists' point.
Or, on other words, you shouldn't react violently, but if you insult someone's mother you should probably expect that person to react negatively.
He also "threw a pretend punch at Gasparri" which makes his statement very ambiguous as it makes it look like this is how he would react.
Furthermore he spoke against freedom of speech, unambiguously this time: "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others." This is precisely the point of the terrorists.
Because they might start idolising Mohammed, and start praying to him, or worse start praying to the picture - when in reality Mohammed is just the messenger, and Allah is the one to pray to.
So you're saying muslims should have no issue with Mohammed's caricatures. Or are they really worried true believers will start to pray to Charlie Hebdo's front pages?
Yes, in places where vote tampering is legal, an open ballot is much more likely to be abused.
There have already been attempts to sell votes in the US even though no one can prove how they voted. Once you make it possible to verify the temptation to sell and the pressure from the buyers is going to be that much greater. And making it illegal is not likely to be more effective than for drugs.
Or are you saying that the US political situation is no more stable than 1900s Chile?
Read the paper. It's 1958, not 1900. So it's not like it's old history. And at that time Chile had had a democracy for 26 years already. Also I think you greatly overestimate the health of the US democratic process: how long has it been since a party other than the Republicans or the Democrats has been in power?
Sorry, we were raised to take care of ourselves after we left our parent's homes. But if you need your hand held, be glad you live somewhere where that is possible.
So what do people who don't need hand holding need tax software or CPAs for?
Grownups who can actually take care of themselves report their income directly to the 'IRS', either on paper for neanderthals or online for homo sapiens. Isn't it only little kids who still live with their parents who need someone else to do everything for them?
Making it easier to vote by moving the action from a polling station to your pocket could only increase turnout, especially in the primaries.
There are many professional elections that have switched to online voting in France and every time the E-Voting proponents trumpeted the turnout boost this would no doubt bring. Unfortunately they have essentiallybeenwrongeverytime.
How is their electronic voting system transparent? I don't know much about it.
There are some electronic voting machines in a few towns but they are no better than elsewhere and will hopefully go away. Rather I was referring to the paper voting which is the main way to vote here.
Unicity: The 'one voter, one vote' principle.
Based on voter lists like elsewhere and the identity card to avoid impersonation.
Confidentiality: Each voter expresses his/her choice alone.
There is one ballot per candidate and you must pick one ballot of each before going in the voting booth. Behind the curtains you pick which ballot to put in the envelope and discard the rest of the ballots.
Anonymity: It is impossible to link a ballot to the voter who cast it.
The envelope goes into a transparent urn and gets thoroughly mixed with the others when the envelopes are taken out. Furthermore putting an identifying mark on a ballot invalidates it further guaranteeing a ballot cannot be linked to a voter.
Sincerity: The results of the election must faithfully reflect the will of the voters
The ballots are counted by volunteer voters right at the polling station as soon as the election closes. That is ballots are not moved around and/or stored before being counted. Counting one ballot involves four volunteers, one who opens the envelope and passes the ballot to the diagonally opposite volunteer who reads the ballot aloud and two who write down the count. Volunteers are further watched over by election officials and party representatives. This just requires about 1% of voters to volunteer and the polling station results are announced to everyone present within about 1.5 hour.
Transparency: Voters should be able to verify that the election system is working properly.
Voters can keep track of everything from the moment the urn is sealed, and verifiably empty since it's transparent, to the moment the polling station results are announced (and after that parties can and do perform their own tallying to verify that too). Voters can also watch ballots being counted, or make sure the urn is not tampered with during the day, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
As I said I gave you a deep discount. But if you still think that electrical noise and crosstalk are in any way relevant to the quality of sound sent through IP packets, then you don't know what you're talking about. In fact it puts you clearly in their target audiophile category with the only thing saving you being the size of your wallet. They could likely con you by selling making the same claims about an ordinary cable and selling it at a a mere 50% premium.
Of course you have to type "$0". How can you expect to get away with omitting the name of the command you want to run?
Given the differences in specs they could probably show some increased noise and crosstalk, as well as less bandwidth. Does it make any real difference? For most applications probably not but that's different than proving a performance increase and thus showing the claims were not false.
Oh. I see the problem. Your connection to the Internet goes through a low quality Ethernet cable, or even, shudder, a WiFi connection. But fear not. I provide you with a premium high-fidelity Ethernet cable that will let you see the full clarity of my prose. With it the words will be sharper, their meaning will come into focus. Never again will you have to wonder at the meaning of what you read. And it can be yours now for the low low price of $1000.
All those billions of dollars are from only 10k accounts so the % of shady customers probably is reaching 100.
The leak actually concerns 106k accounts from 203 countries and totalling 180 billion euros (strangely the BBC claims only $118bn), with half of them actively trying to evade taxes (accounts in tax havens) and the rest at least hiding money. That said not all of them are really shady: there are really a number of accounts that the current holders inherited and never got the courage to declare to their country's revenue service. But if you know what percentage of the accounts that is you're better informed than me.
While my 10 cent comment is also a bit of hyperbole, they probably could construct a rig with Cat 6 components, plug in a cheap cat 5 cable and show performance degradation.
I really doubt that.
While I think their claims are bunk the GP's question why they aren't sued into oblivion is that not only hyperbole accepted in advertising it would be a lot easier to prove the claims were merely puffery than to prove they were false and misleading.
We'll have to disagree with that. I think their claims fly right past the hyperbole zone and land squarely in the outright lie territory. I still think Consumer Reports, The Better Business Bureau or even any competitor would have no trouble getting them condemned for false advertising.
ISPs get plenty of money from spammers. Ever heard of Ecatel?
No. And a search on Google did not return any ISP called Ecatel. There is a server hosting company by that name but that's no ISP. Their relation to spammers is also not clear. So you'll have to be more specific.
Are you saying that shielding and twisting in ethernet cables don't matter?
The twisting is part of the Ethernet specification so it's identical between the 10 cent cable and the $10.000 one. The shielding only matters if the cable is subjected to radio noise and $10 cables have that too anyway.
Is the sound better than a ten cent cable when plugged into professionl gear? Probably. Uni directional transfer?
I doubt you'll find a 10 cent Ethernet cable of that length. Regardless any $5 cat-5 compliant ethernet cable will produce exactly the same sound as this $10000 cable. And I do mean a bit for bit identical and totally indistinguishable by ear or machine. The only exception would be if they use that cable to transmit analog signals instead of Ethernet data.
At any given instance electrons travel only in one direction.
Individual electrons are not data. That company claims the data travels in only one direction but that would prevent TCP from working and also cause the cable to fail the Ethernet requirements. So either calling it an Ethernet cable is a lie, or claiming data travels in only one direction is a lie. So either way they lied and that's no hyperbole.
money changes hands!
I doubt this company has deep enough pockets to buy protection from their politicians.
why do isp's allow spammers? money!
No. ISPs don't get any money from spammers, quite the contrary. Spammers are a nuisance to ISPs.
How come these companies don't get sued into oblivion for false advertising (claiming an impact on sound quality, unidirectional data transfer, 100Gbps compatibility). And why don't the reviewers get sued too for professional misconduct?
Is "a laser capable of emitting a beam of pure anti-matter".
Photons are their own antiparticle so that part is easy. However, being massless photons are hardly matter.
The cartoons in question were absolutely racist and disgusting.
The ones that Charlie Hebdo republished in support of free speech or their own? All of them? Even this one which only denounces extremists?
We even have laws against hate speech in the USA.
So? Are you saying that denouncing religious extremism would be outlawed by the same law that allowed religious nuts to disrupt the funerals of thousands of gay soldiers with insults like "Thank God for dead soldiers",
Or, on other words, you shouldn't react violently, but if you insult someone's mother you should probably expect that person to react negatively. Insulting others is to deliberately provoke reactions from them: you shouldn't be surprised if those reactions turn violent (given adequate provocation), because that, sadly, is human nature.
So what he should have said is that Charlie Hebdo should be commended for continuing to denounce the extremists of all religions who would distort these faiths to justify their intolerance and thirst for violence, this while knowing full well the personal risks this exposed them to. But instead he relayed the terrorists' message: "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.".
Charlie Hebdo insulted all Muslims. They did it deliberately, they knew it, and that was their goal. Well, they achieved it.
That's your personal interpretation. They criticized extremists of all religions
There was no fun in those cartoons.
The goal of a satirical publication is not just humor but also to get some messages across. And while I don't particularly like Charlie Hebdo in general, some of their drawings make pretty good points.
They were warned many times, but they kept insulting not Christians, not Jewish, only Muslims.
That's a lie: here are pages of Charlie Hebdo caricatures of Jesus and Moise. They even made a Shoah Hebdo edition just like they did a Charia Hebdo one.
What we know is cases like this usually have money involved, and the second known thing is that US Jewish groups support anti-muslim politicians and parties in Europe. Was that the case here? I don't know, looks very likely.
Charlie Hebdo's only source of income was its readership. And suggesting they were funded by politicians really shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
And the issue isn't as black/white as that either. Freedom comes with a price-tag; are we all willing to pay the price? And if not, is it right to force the majority to pay the price so that a minority can say what they like without having to fear any consquences?
So you're saying that all it takes is a couple of murderers for you to cave in and give up on fundamental rights like freedom of speech? Do you really think they will stop there if they are successful? Did you really think you could pass this off as a reasonable solution?
He didn't say he's fine with it. You're not quoting him for a reason.
I will then: “If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," Francis said, throwing a pretend punch at Gasparri.
This pretend punch makes his statement very ambiguous as it looks like this is how he would react.
His next statement is totally unambiguous however: "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others." That's precisely the terrorists' point.
Or, on other words, you shouldn't react violently, but if you insult someone's mother you should probably expect that person to react negatively.
He also "threw a pretend punch at Gasparri" which makes his statement very ambiguous as it makes it look like this is how he would react.
Furthermore he spoke against freedom of speech, unambiguously this time: "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others." This is precisely the point of the terrorists.
Because they might start idolising Mohammed, and start praying to him, or worse start praying to the picture - when in reality Mohammed is just the messenger, and Allah is the one to pray to.
So you're saying muslims should have no issue with Mohammed's caricatures. Or are they really worried true believers will start to pray to Charlie Hebdo's front pages?
I've not see any vote selling things reported on,
Then let me help you in in this very difficult search.
though it's trivial to prove how you voted. Yes, even today, with secret ballots.
You will have to be a lot more specific for your assertion to carry any weight.
Yes, in places where vote tampering is legal, an open ballot is much more likely to be abused.
There have already been attempts to sell votes in the US even though no one can prove how they voted. Once you make it possible to verify the temptation to sell and the pressure from the buyers is going to be that much greater. And making it illegal is not likely to be more effective than for drugs.
Or are you saying that the US political situation is no more stable than 1900s Chile?
Read the paper. It's 1958, not 1900. So it's not like it's old history. And at that time Chile had had a democracy for 26 years already. Also I think you greatly overestimate the health of the US democratic process: how long has it been since a party other than the Republicans or the Democrats has been in power?
Sorry, we were raised to take care of ourselves after we left our parent's homes. But if you need your hand held, be glad you live somewhere where that is possible.
So what do people who don't need hand holding need tax software or CPAs for?
Grownups who can actually take care of themselves report their income directly to the 'IRS', either on paper for neanderthals or online for homo sapiens. Isn't it only little kids who still live with their parents who need someone else to do everything for them?
Making it easier to vote by moving the action from a polling station to your pocket could only increase turnout, especially in the primaries.
There are many professional elections that have switched to online voting in France and every time the E-Voting proponents trumpeted the turnout boost this would no doubt bring. Unfortunately they have essentially been wrong every time.
This is asserted without historical proof.
Historical proof was provided when Chile switched from open ballots to secret ballots: Land and Power: Theory and Evidence from Chile.
How is their electronic voting system transparent? I don't know much about it.
There are some electronic voting machines in a few towns but they are no better than elsewhere and will hopefully go away. Rather I was referring to the paper voting which is the main way to vote here.
Unicity: The 'one voter, one vote' principle.
Based on voter lists like elsewhere and the identity card to avoid impersonation.
Confidentiality: Each voter expresses his/her choice alone.
There is one ballot per candidate and you must pick one ballot of each before going in the voting booth. Behind the curtains you pick which ballot to put in the envelope and discard the rest of the ballots.
Anonymity: It is impossible to link a ballot to the voter who cast it.
The envelope goes into a transparent urn and gets thoroughly mixed with the others when the envelopes are taken out. Furthermore putting an identifying mark on a ballot invalidates it further guaranteeing a ballot cannot be linked to a voter.
Sincerity: The results of the election must faithfully reflect the will of the voters The ballots are counted by volunteer voters right at the polling station as soon as the election closes. That is ballots are not moved around and/or stored before being counted. Counting one ballot involves four volunteers, one who opens the envelope and passes the ballot to the diagonally opposite volunteer who reads the ballot aloud and two who write down the count. Volunteers are further watched over by election officials and party representatives. This just requires about 1% of voters to volunteer and the polling station results are announced to everyone present within about 1.5 hour.
Transparency: Voters should be able to verify that the election system is working properly.
Voters can keep track of everything from the moment the urn is sealed, and verifiably empty since it's transparent, to the moment the polling station results are announced (and after that parties can and do perform their own tallying to verify that too). Voters can also watch ballots being counted, or make sure the urn is not tampered with during the day, etc.
9:42 may be good enough for the masses but for the elite only 13:37 will do. And that's why the elite chooses Free as their ISP.