You seem to be the one with a tenuous (at best) connection to reality. Not every line Verizon services is unlimited and not every call Verizon connects is domestic. If you had half a clue how a telecom network functions you would understand why everything is recorded by the billing system and sorted out once a month when the bills print.
Besides, if they didn't record this data, you'd bitch about how you lost that case because there was no record of the call your client made from his home, proving that he wasn't at the scene of the crime when it happened. That, or you'd just bitch that they don't provide a way for you to look up your call history or some such. And even if you didn't, the masses would; and really, in the grand scheme of things, compared to the vast number of people who do care about that functionality (and the vast majority of Verizon users who are NOT on unlimited plans), Verizon doesn't give a fuck about you. How's that for reality?
Also... since you seem to want to cling to "I only make domestic calls on my unlimited line": If Verizon didn't keep record of the calls they originate, what would stop the terminating and intermediary carriers from making up some random inflated number to bill them? I mean, they'd have no records of their own to show that they transferred X call to Y network for Z minutes. Likewise, without records of the calls they terminate on their network, how do they know how much to bill the originating and intermediary carriers who hand those call off to them?
Reality. I know it because I've worked with it. A lot.
I work with servers day in and day out. Hell, I even run a couple in a rack at home. I know what they cost to operate and maintain, thank you. You, on the other hand, seem to be of in fucking la-la land.
Being an attorney I'm sure you've read your contract and realize that international calls are billed, even on your "unlimited" plan.
I'm also sure that an attorney such as yourself is already aware that the NSA already has much, MUCH more data about your calls than what they collected from Verizon with this request, so this request shouldn't really bother you all that much. Now, the NSA's taps on each and every telecom switch in this country, that's bullshit, for sure. That said, I'm glad they listen to everyone and not just a targeted few; it greatly increases the noise floor and you and I have quiet voices. Well, I don't know about you, but I do.
No, it's billing data. Plain and simple. And if they don't make that data available to their users on their website (e.g. past bills), those users will pitch a bitch. And if they don't keep that information after they send the bills, what else can't they do? Make those past bills available.
But yes, I do see how you'd think it's bullshit that Verizon collects this data for billing purposes, since they're just as likely to bill correctly without it.
Why yes, let's get pissed at Verizon for collecting a list of call you make over their network. Why? Because if they didn't collect it, they couldn't bill you for those calls! I want my FREE CALLING! So Verizon, QUIT COLLECTING CALL METADATA AND USING IT TO BILL ME! That will have the side effect of preventing you from being ordered to hand it over, as well.
That's fine. If the paper copy costs 50 cents to print and distribute, charge 25 cents less for the e-book edition. Hell, charge the same price, I don't care. Don't fucking charge more, though.
Well, actually, as someone who resells books when I'm done with them, I do care. If you want me to buy the e-book edition, it needs to be priced at least close to (price of paperback - what i can sell it for when I'm done).
So let's assume, for a moment, that producing a digital copy and sending ig across the interned costs as much as producing a paper copy and shipping it to a store. This ignores the costs involved in writing the book, editing it, licensing included content, and all of that, as we're already in agreement that those costs are equal regardless of format, so let's just remove the remaining variables and say the productions and distribution costs are equal as well. Why the fuck does the e-book edition that I can't resell, can't copy pages from for reference, and can't put on the shelf for decorative purposes when I'm done reading it cost more than the paperback that allows me to do all of these things?
Now let's snap back to reality, where creating a digital copy once the initial works has been done costs nothing and sending it cross the internet costs less than a penny. Still admitting that writing, editing, and licensing costs are the same, why the fuck does the cheaper-overall-to-produce-and-distribute e-book edition cost more?
I'll grant you that, but you have to admit that they're not more expensive to write and edit either, since that work was done already for the paper edition. In fact, no, I won't grant you that, because that work was done already for the paper edition. If there was, at a minimum, price parity between the paperback and e-book editions, nobody would be complaining that the product that costs less to produce and distribute, while providing fewer benefits to the end user, costs more. Yes, they'd be complaining that the prices were the same, but they'd still be right.
That's 50% of visible light, as in 50% of the minimum level of light in the visible spectrum required to be seen by the naked eye. If this sensor can "see" light that is 1/500th the intensity required to be seen by the naked eye, whereas current sensors can only "see" light that is 2x the intensity required to be seen by the naked eye, then the new sensor is 1000x more sensitive. It's not rocket science; hell, it's not even physics or optical science, just plain ol' algebra.
If you own a car, you have an alarm on that car, you put The Club on that car, you lock that car, you keep that car in a locked garage, and you keep those keys on your person at all times; you know, every reasonable security measure; and that car is stolen and used in a crime or involved in an accident, you are not liable. In fact, you can to much less to secure that car (pretty much anything that doesn't involve leaving the keys in it or handing the keys over to someone else) and still not be held liable for the actions of another party who used your vehicle.
This is very similar to an internet connection, in that it can be secured or not secured, used with permission and used without permission, even used with or without your knowledge, and the rules of liability should be similar, as well.
To blow another large hole in your gun analogy, I'd like to point out that, in most jurisdiction within the US, if it can not be proven that you fired the gun, it must be proven that you willingly supplied the gun to whoever did fire it before you will be held liable for the results of that firing. [primary source: my father in law, credentials withheld due to active duty status (nonmilitary); secondary source: my coworker's stepfather, a recently retired cop; tertiary source: my coworker's mother, a recently retired police dispatcher] Even your analogy indicated that the "owner" of an internet connection should not be held liable for the use of that connection to commit an infringement unless, as is the case with a car or gun, it can be proven that they, or a party they explicitly authorized, were, in fact, the one who used that connection to commit said infringement. The laws governing liability for acts committed with firearms and vehicles do account for security, as well, in that they do place liability on the shoulders of the owner if a vehicle is left with the keys in the ignition or a gun is left sitting out in the open, or similar situations where parties not explicitly authorized by the owner may have easy access; the law places liability on the owner in those cases, and I agree that similar laws regarding internet connections should place liability on the "owner" of the connection when an ethernet port is left in an unsecured location (e.g. unlocked utility box on the side of the building) or a wireless router is left unsecured. The flip side of that is that, if steps are taken to secure the resource, just as with firearms and vehicles, liability should fall on the party who circumvented those measures and used the resource without the permission or knowledge of the "owner".
The law is already very clear on this, but for some reason people get confused when you throw in the phrase "on a computer". See: USPTO.
What percentage of guns can be taken from inside the home they're sitting in, locked up or not, without setting foot in that home? The analogy just doesn't fit, quit trying to force it.
When I'm using my gun, I know, beyond any doubt, that nobody else is; when I'm not using it, it's locked up securely. When I'm using my internet connection, I know I've taken reasonable steps to secure it and only allow authorized users, but I don't have the same level of assurance that those measures haven't been bypassed, and it's no more secure when I'm not using it than when I am. The number of possible users and means by which access can be gained makes all the difference.
An internet connection can easily be shared between multiple simultaneous users. When 5 people can aim and fire 1 gun at the same time, I'll agree with you.
If you leave it at your desk most of the time, wouldn't something like, oh, I don't know... a less expensive and more powerful *desktop* be a better fit? Paired with something like Surface Pro, you have the same functionality you've got now.
I can see the argument for not wanting one, and I'm not saying everyone *should* want one. I'm just trying to make clear the arguments *for* wanting one, since those of you who don't can't seem to wrap your closed minds around why someone else would.
As for the digitizer, it has the all the features of the $2000 digitizer (albeit about half the size) I've been eyeballing, plus an entire PC built into it. If I'm looking at a $2000 digitizer, I obviously have a serious need for one, so why wouldn't I buy this?
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be the one with a tenuous (at best) connection to reality. Not every line Verizon services is unlimited and not every call Verizon connects is domestic. If you had half a clue how a telecom network functions you would understand why everything is recorded by the billing system and sorted out once a month when the bills print.
Besides, if they didn't record this data, you'd bitch about how you lost that case because there was no record of the call your client made from his home, proving that he wasn't at the scene of the crime when it happened. That, or you'd just bitch that they don't provide a way for you to look up your call history or some such. And even if you didn't, the masses would; and really, in the grand scheme of things, compared to the vast number of people who do care about that functionality (and the vast majority of Verizon users who are NOT on unlimited plans), Verizon doesn't give a fuck about you. How's that for reality?
Also... since you seem to want to cling to "I only make domestic calls on my unlimited line": If Verizon didn't keep record of the calls they originate, what would stop the terminating and intermediary carriers from making up some random inflated number to bill them? I mean, they'd have no records of their own to show that they transferred X call to Y network for Z minutes. Likewise, without records of the calls they terminate on their network, how do they know how much to bill the originating and intermediary carriers who hand those call off to them?
Reality. I know it because I've worked with it. A lot.
Oh, I've also spent more than a few days on the track, so I know about race car pricing, as well.
Got any other shit analogies for me? Yes, I'm a jack of all trades; I figure if I'm gonna be a know-it-all, I probably should, if ya get me.
I work with servers day in and day out. Hell, I even run a couple in a rack at home. I know what they cost to operate and maintain, thank you. You, on the other hand, seem to be of in fucking la-la land.
Being an attorney I'm sure you've read your contract and realize that international calls are billed, even on your "unlimited" plan.
I'm also sure that an attorney such as yourself is already aware that the NSA already has much, MUCH more data about your calls than what they collected from Verizon with this request, so this request shouldn't really bother you all that much. Now, the NSA's taps on each and every telecom switch in this country, that's bullshit, for sure. That said, I'm glad they listen to everyone and not just a targeted few; it greatly increases the noise floor and you and I have quiet voices. Well, I don't know about you, but I do.
So that accounts for 100% of calls made on Verizon's network? Maybe it's time for me to switch then!
Nevermind that the NSA already has more detailed information than what people are pissed that Verizon is handing over...
No, it's billing data. Plain and simple. And if they don't make that data available to their users on their website (e.g. past bills), those users will pitch a bitch. And if they don't keep that information after they send the bills, what else can't they do? Make those past bills available.
But yes, I do see how you'd think it's bullshit that Verizon collects this data for billing purposes, since they're just as likely to bill correctly without it.
Why yes, let's get pissed at Verizon for collecting a list of call you make over their network. Why? Because if they didn't collect it, they couldn't bill you for those calls! I want my FREE CALLING! So Verizon, QUIT COLLECTING CALL METADATA AND USING IT TO BILL ME! That will have the side effect of preventing you from being ordered to hand it over, as well.
DERP.
That's fine. If the paper copy costs 50 cents to print and distribute, charge 25 cents less for the e-book edition. Hell, charge the same price, I don't care. Don't fucking charge more, though.
Well, actually, as someone who resells books when I'm done with them, I do care. If you want me to buy the e-book edition, it needs to be priced at least close to (price of paperback - what i can sell it for when I'm done).
DERP.
So let's assume, for a moment, that producing a digital copy and sending ig across the interned costs as much as producing a paper copy and shipping it to a store. This ignores the costs involved in writing the book, editing it, licensing included content, and all of that, as we're already in agreement that those costs are equal regardless of format, so let's just remove the remaining variables and say the productions and distribution costs are equal as well. Why the fuck does the e-book edition that I can't resell, can't copy pages from for reference, and can't put on the shelf for decorative purposes when I'm done reading it cost more than the paperback that allows me to do all of these things?
Now let's snap back to reality, where creating a digital copy once the initial works has been done costs nothing and sending it cross the internet costs less than a penny. Still admitting that writing, editing, and licensing costs are the same, why the fuck does the cheaper-overall-to-produce-and-distribute e-book edition cost more?
I'll grant you that, but you have to admit that they're not more expensive to write and edit either, since that work was done already for the paper edition. In fact, no, I won't grant you that, because that work was done already for the paper edition. If there was, at a minimum, price parity between the paperback and e-book editions, nobody would be complaining that the product that costs less to produce and distribute, while providing fewer benefits to the end user, costs more. Yes, they'd be complaining that the prices were the same, but they'd still be right.
That's 50% of visible light, as in 50% of the minimum level of light in the visible spectrum required to be seen by the naked eye. If this sensor can "see" light that is 1/500th the intensity required to be seen by the naked eye, whereas current sensors can only "see" light that is 2x the intensity required to be seen by the naked eye, then the new sensor is 1000x more sensitive. It's not rocket science; hell, it's not even physics or optical science, just plain ol' algebra.
You mean your poppy?
Yes, he oat to be awarded for his efforts.
So, girls are always statistics, then?
If you can't see that you're too close to the person in front of you, then you are an inattentive asshole driver. Just sayin'.
If you had god damned ara^H^H^Hcabbies trying to run you down all the time, you'd be racist too!!
DISCLOSURE: Neither racist nor from NY.
That solution covers the "do not need" while ignoring the "I object". Roll again.
If you own a car, you have an alarm on that car, you put The Club on that car, you lock that car, you keep that car in a locked garage, and you keep those keys on your person at all times; you know, every reasonable security measure; and that car is stolen and used in a crime or involved in an accident, you are not liable. In fact, you can to much less to secure that car (pretty much anything that doesn't involve leaving the keys in it or handing the keys over to someone else) and still not be held liable for the actions of another party who used your vehicle.
This is very similar to an internet connection, in that it can be secured or not secured, used with permission and used without permission, even used with or without your knowledge, and the rules of liability should be similar, as well.
To blow another large hole in your gun analogy, I'd like to point out that, in most jurisdiction within the US, if it can not be proven that you fired the gun, it must be proven that you willingly supplied the gun to whoever did fire it before you will be held liable for the results of that firing. [primary source: my father in law, credentials withheld due to active duty status (nonmilitary); secondary source: my coworker's stepfather, a recently retired cop; tertiary source: my coworker's mother, a recently retired police dispatcher] Even your analogy indicated that the "owner" of an internet connection should not be held liable for the use of that connection to commit an infringement unless, as is the case with a car or gun, it can be proven that they, or a party they explicitly authorized, were, in fact, the one who used that connection to commit said infringement. The laws governing liability for acts committed with firearms and vehicles do account for security, as well, in that they do place liability on the shoulders of the owner if a vehicle is left with the keys in the ignition or a gun is left sitting out in the open, or similar situations where parties not explicitly authorized by the owner may have easy access; the law places liability on the owner in those cases, and I agree that similar laws regarding internet connections should place liability on the "owner" of the connection when an ethernet port is left in an unsecured location (e.g. unlocked utility box on the side of the building) or a wireless router is left unsecured. The flip side of that is that, if steps are taken to secure the resource, just as with firearms and vehicles, liability should fall on the party who circumvented those measures and used the resource without the permission or knowledge of the "owner".
The law is already very clear on this, but for some reason people get confused when you throw in the phrase "on a computer". See: USPTO.
What percentage of guns can be taken from inside the home they're sitting in, locked up or not, without setting foot in that home? The analogy just doesn't fit, quit trying to force it.
When I'm using my gun, I know, beyond any doubt, that nobody else is; when I'm not using it, it's locked up securely. When I'm using my internet connection, I know I've taken reasonable steps to secure it and only allow authorized users, but I don't have the same level of assurance that those measures haven't been bypassed, and it's no more secure when I'm not using it than when I am. The number of possible users and means by which access can be gained makes all the difference.
An internet connection can easily be shared between multiple simultaneous users. When 5 people can aim and fire 1 gun at the same time, I'll agree with you.
4chan Profile for: Anonymous
/b/
Employer:
Occupation: Legion
Hobbies: Not forgiving, not forgetting, being expected
That's where I stopped reading.
Offpissing. I think I found a new word that I like.
Believe it or not, I am familiar with my work load and computational options.
Yet, by your posts here, I can deduce that you assume I'm not familiar with mine. No wonder I would question that.
If you leave it at your desk most of the time, wouldn't something like, oh, I don't know... a less expensive and more powerful *desktop* be a better fit? Paired with something like Surface Pro, you have the same functionality you've got now.
I can see the argument for not wanting one, and I'm not saying everyone *should* want one. I'm just trying to make clear the arguments *for* wanting one, since those of you who don't can't seem to wrap your closed minds around why someone else would.
As for the digitizer, it has the all the features of the $2000 digitizer (albeit about half the size) I've been eyeballing, plus an entire PC built into it. If I'm looking at a $2000 digitizer, I obviously have a serious need for one, so why wouldn't I buy this?