Yes I am going to blame him if he asks me for money to buy food and instead buys heroin.
Blaming a heroine junkie for buying H with any cash he gets is like blaming a rabid dog for biting you.
Who else would I blame for that?
You don't blame anybody for that. He's sick. That's what his sickness does. Blaming him or anyone else for it is counter productive.
And, therefore, when I see a person in legitimate need and have no way to separate them from those just looking for drug money,
Those 'just looking for drug money' are in legitimate need too. They just aren't in need of drug money.
I can assume that they are in the latter group and not feel any pangs from my conscience.
That's on you. Your line of logic here that you can't tell X from Y so therefore you treat everyone as Y, even though you know many of them are X. That can be used to rationalize are lot of really nasty stuff.
Even if you trust neither to prevent the respective vendors government out, you can reasonably trust the cisco not to be in bed with the chinese, and the hauwei not to be in bed with the americans.
So either state actor is blocked. If the chinese and americans are working *together* to break into your network... you've probably got a situation where your network shouldn't be connected to the internet period... transferring your data via usb sticks ferried by carrier pigeons and children.
Not really. It's far scarier to consider life in a panopticon where two people couldn't say something privately to eachother without the goverment listening to the conversation.
I am affected by their choices in that I wouldn't have given the money knowing that it was going to be misappropriated.
Riiiiight.
The homeless junkie you gave a dollar too... your going to blame HIM, a person with a mental disorder / addiction problem -- for 'misappropriation' of funds when he buys junk?
I'd blame the guy in the mirror for that misappropriation.
Why do people act like these things are any different than throwing change into someone's guitar case?
I expect it is because the guy with the guitar case isn't promising to give anyone a drone if you put money in his case.
You aren't wrong that people are setting their expectations wrong with kickstarter. The money goes in and the product may or may not ever come out. That's a gamble you take.
Its certainly not really an "investment" because your maximum reward is a consumer product worth roughly what you put in, and you certainly aren't a shareholder of the venture that creates the product.
But kickstarters do have an obligation to make a good faith attempt to deliver on their promise. Its not illegal or even a breach of contract to fail at the attempt. But it would be a breach to simply take the money and walk away or otherwise act fraudulently.
Its clearly a very different proposition than outright charity too.
If Islam is so great, how come so many people are trying to get away from it?
They aren't. They are taking Islam with them.
What they are trying to get away from is war and the destruction that goes with all that; caused by fanatical extremist nutjobs they don't agree with but lack the power to do anything about.
It seems that the only folks who want to go to the Islamic state are...
Maladjusted, unhappy, people who feel afraid, helpless, and isolated who want to be part of something bigger and stronger to validate themselves and feel powerful. So... the same sort of people who join street gangs, and for much the same reasons.
Islam is worse than Nazis
ISIS is getting up there. They're still a genocide of millions behind them, but they aren't good people that's for sure. And we shouldn't wait for them ratchet up the death toll any further.
But why blame Islam? Some nutjobs perverted and distorted the religion to integrate it with their propaganda . The root religion is no more at fault here than Christianity was the root problem of the Nazis and their racist perversion of Christianity "Positive Christianity".
West will suffer wherever we offer Muslims refuge.
Your comparison to the Nazi's seems apt again. Were all German's that fled Germany during world war 2 closet Nazi's? That the only reason anyone fled Germany was to start up local Nazi seed groups?
I gather, you fear that any Christians lurking about are secretly planning Spanish Inquisition 2.0 too.
I can count on about 3 fingers the number of times I've plugged my MacBook Pro into a terrestrial Ethernet cable.
1) Some us want to do things at more than wifi speed at work. You know like transfer large files.
2) Configuring network gear. From routers, to switches, to server ILO and iDRAC etc.
3) Network troubleshooting. (from as simple as... "is this network jack working" to "enable port mirroring on the switch and analyze a traffic problem")
4) Network hotspot. (I used my laptop as wireless bridge for other wired devices pretty regularly.
I'm fine with the macbook air not having a network jack. I'm fine with the macbook not having a network jack. You trade size for convenience etc. And joe consumer or even pro-sumer doesn't need it much.
But an actual professional, needs an ethernet port, frequently. And a dongle is annoying, forgettable, and fragile.
Pros need connectors. Not dongles. To not have a network port on a pro laptop is a joke. (And I say this as someone with a 2015 MBP.)
You can argue that some CEO waving around a pro doesn't need an ethernet port, and you'd be right. He doesn't need more than an air either. The pro for him is a status symbol.
Apple should capitalize on that... the macbook elite; a status symblol mac for ceo's that's more expensive than the rest. A macbook pro for people who need to get work done and need it to be able to actually do things and connect to things, and a macbook air for budget conscious users who just need an ultrabook to do email, write essays, and do light spreadsheet, web browsing, maybe even a little on-the-go html editing etc.
The trouble with apple is that the current pro really isn't all that pro. I'd gladly swap the size of my 2015 macbook pro with my 2009 macbook pro if that meant it could have an ethernet port, even more battery, etc.
Some vendors go too far with too many SKUs for it to make any sense. Apple goes the other way... but also too far. There aren't enough sku's to really cover what people actually need.
And besides, if something decides to torch my internal FW or Ethernet port, I get to replace a multi-hundred-dollar motherboard (probably), or at least require surgery to replace an internal interface board. If something torches an Thunderbolt Ethernet dongle, HOPEFULLY it will only require a quick and relatively inexpensive swap-out of the dongle.
Nonsense. You've still got the thunderbolt port to fry. Adding a dongle doesn't reduce your 'risk surface' it adds to it. Not only can your 'thunderbolt port' go, but now you also have the risk of your dongle getting lost or broken. And as ANYONE who has ever used dongles know, the odds of the dongle being responsible for wrecking your port are pretty high. Because now instead of a nice flush surface you've got a dongle sticking out of your expensive port just waiting to lever your laptops internal guts around.
Right now I would definitely trade both of my dedicated ports (which by the way, I thought I wanted!) for another Thunderbolt port.
I'm having a hard time picturing a situation where you need a *bunch* of thunderbolt ports and you aren't at a desk you sit at regularly. You could just install a thunderbolt hub if you needed more.
That's the difference between ethernet and thunderbolt. I AM likely to need ethernet anywhere; so simply leaving a dongle plugged into the ehternet cable at my desk isn't good enough. But I'm only likely to need thunderbolt at my desk (especially multiple thunderbolt.)
1 - Tell us we don't want something at all. 2 - Watch everyone ignore you and build versions of it anyway. 3- Show up late to the party with an Apple version and say you invented it; rake in the money.
We're moving from stage 1 to stage 2 now.
So translation: Apple is working on it, but its not ready yet.
Pocket is a proprietary system, with a commerical company behind it, that produced an addon that a small number of people used.
That was fine. Nobody objected to it. Nobody cared.
Then one day, pocket was integrated into the browser. Why? WHY? What possible reason was there to integrate a 3rd party commercial add on directly into the codebase.No good one.
The free software people were pissed at having a proprietary service.
The no-bloat were pissed off at another completely pointless feature; especially when the add-on was working just fine for the people who wanted it.
And the rest of us look at it as the thin edge of the wedge; as in if Mozilla is willing to just thrust this on us... where does it end? Facebook integration next built right in? Twitter after that? Snapchat? Zynga games? Chatroulette? Not as addons... all built right in to firefox.
"Disable telemetry. As promised, the November update includes the ability for enterprise IT to disable telemetry feedback to Microsoft. âoeWe strongly recommend against this, as this data helps us deliver a secure, reliable, and more delightful personalized experience,â Microsoft explains."
Does this mean the disable telemetry group policy settings can now apply that setting to Pro? (Like the majority we get our PCs with OEM Windows and then join them to the domains.)
Or is this still restricted only to the actual Windows 10 enterprise SKU?
If the former... awesome news... if the latter? WTF... I thought the enterprise sku already had the option to disable telemetry?!!
Every joule of that has to be generated and distributed somehow. Now, say that houses were charged on the capacity and length of the lines running out from the substations (the places where high-voltage power is stepped down to something closer to usable voltage). If the tenant uses lots of electricity, is that a problem for the landlord?
The electricity example was simply to illustrate how one can abuse a deal in a given pricing. Your scenario is irrelevant to that.
At the Microsoft Account sign in page, you click Create New Account, then at the bottom of the new account form click "Sign in without a microsoft account."
I concede its slightly unintuitive, and definitely treated as a second class option... but if you don't already have a microsoft account, you are going to end up on the form to create one, with the option to sign in without one... so you can't actually even miss it if you read.
It's not remotely "damn near impossible"?
And i don't know what you are going on about with "Apple *watching* this experiment"; you do know that by default OSX has you signing into your computer with an apple cloud account now too right? And you have to do pretty much the same gymnastics you do with Windows to opt out of it. And this has been true for the last 2 or 3 releases of OSX already.
This is actually a pretty annoying issue. One of my biggest complaints with windows 10 is actually how much Q&A and troubleshooting tips etc exist for the pre-releases. Lots of it (most even) doesn't apply to the final release at all due it be related to experiments in the pre-releases that didn't make it final or simply bugs that were quashed in later builds and final. But it pollutes every search for any windows 10 issue.
No. I see this logical fallacy all the time. The cost of bandwidth is not the cost of keeping the switches powered up; it is not equal to keeping the lights on.
First when you use the bandwidth someone else can't. So if you demand to use your maximum speed every second all month (as many people here think is there entitlement), then nobody else can use the lights. Then end up being dedicated to your sole use.
And the cost of doing that isn't just the cost of keeping them turned on. You now have to cover the cost buying them and of installing them (and not just the bulb, the wiring, the fixtures, the breaker boxes, etc...the whole thing.) And it'll need upgrading every few years or so with new faster ones (cutting over from your lights metaphor to networks here). So instead of a few cents a month for electricity, you have have to consider 10s of thousands of dollars periodically. Its still pretty affordable if 3,000 people are dividing that cost and sharing the bandwidth, the company can maintain it, do customer service, etc and charge you a few 10s of dollars per month to access it.
But if you want it all dedicated to yourself. Then you'll have to pay all costs associated with it. And it not cheap. Figure your bill going up by at LEAST a factor of 30, if you don't want them to oversubscribe the bandwidth at all.
I have an objection against the usage of the word "communal" here.
I don't have a vested interest in the word. Substitute 'shared' if you prefer.
The user entered a contract with a company one-on-one and exercises the contract to the limit. If they are depriving others from said resource because the traffic is aggregated in the company network, the problem lies with the contract the company issued, not the user.
Ok. So what? The company recognizes it is a problem, and it is changing the contract going forward. The user is not being sued. The user is not be retroactively charged ? The user is not being wronged or harmed in any way.
And here is where the problem lies. The company puts "unlimited" on paper and then expects "but nobody will actually use it all". The babysitter was offered a snack and the provider badly misjudged the babysitters' appetite. I say it is rude to offer a snack and then to leave your babysitter hungry.
And I say it is equally rude for the babysitter to show up without having eaten yet that week anticipating to take 'full advantage' of their hosts offer to help themselves to a snack.
Spirit and intent is subjective.
Agreed.
For example, I [...use a good chunk of internet...] Is this abuse? I certainly don't think so. But I bet you it is quite a bit more than the average user.
Rather than speculate, lets actually check. What was your usage the last few months, and how much do you pay for your unlimited?
I'm paying $100/mo for 120mbps service. I use between 150GB and 390GB (with a median around 350GB; the 150GB was low outlier.) My ISP official cap for my plan is 550GB so I'm not even scratching the surface. (next tier up is 800GB). I torrent ISOs, I cut my cable subscription.We watch a couple hours of netflix/other streams daily. The kids watch bunches of youtube. We download big titles off steam. Over the years, my caps and speeds have increased so the isp is obviously doing its end of the bargain with the network upgrades. I've never met anyone who actually had issues with the caps that wasn't doing something either commercial that needed business, or was just a video hoarder and torrent junkie downloading more content each month than he could watch in a year.
So for $100, I get 100Mbps, and up to 550GB and it fits me just fine. Some people say though that I should be allowed to use 100Mbps continually 24x7. How much traffic is that actually?
100Mbps / 8b/B ~= 12.5MBps (bits to bytes) 12.5MBps = 45,000 MB/h =~ 44GB/h (lets assume its a binary GB as I'm not sure) 44GB/h x 24h/d x 31d/m = 32736 GB/month ~= 32TB/month
We can agree that bandwidth use is subjective. We can agree that different ISPs with different caps will be distributed on a spectrum of what is reasonable to unreasonable. I don't defend Comcasts specific pricing or caps. Maybe comcasts caps are unreasonably low. I don't disagree that even if the caps are reasonable today that comcast might not upgrade in pace with demand, or that comcast is trying to extort money.
But disagreeing with caps based on any of that is like arguing metering electricity or charging for sugar by the pound is a bad idea because they might jack the price up.
I only defend the idea that caps are a reasonable and appropriate solution. Because you can't tell me a home user is not 'abusing' the deal by demanding that he is entitled to transfer 32TB per month. That's roughly the equivalent of 3200 dual layer DVDs; that could contain ~10,000 hours of DVD quality video every month.
If someone wants and needs that I accept that, but the price level for that kind of service is not $100/mo. And the guy who wants that should suck it up and pay $10,000+ month, so the rest of us can all have half a terabyte or so at high speeds over the course of a month, by oversubscribing a fat pipe and dividing the cost among a few hundred people.
Bandwidth is a finite and communal resource. Deal with it.
People DO have contracts that extend into the future.
A small number yes. But its not the general case. And its not the case affecting the majority of the people whining here.
And if THOSE people DO have the terms changed on them then yes, they do have a case. But I've almost never seen a telco do that. The only thing I've seen most of them do is refuse to renew the contract when its term is up. They almost invariably grandfather people with contracts at least until they expire, and often beyond that.
And if they don't, and they break the contract Guess what, that's not even illegal. People break contracts all the time when its no longer in their best interests to honor it. Its a perfect normal and civil matter. It exposes the company to liability for damages to the other party.
So go ahead and sue the telco for imposing a cap; on your contract that terminates next year. What are your damages? At most its the cost of the data overage you are likely to incur relative to another available plan. So you'll get the difference on that when you win. They'll probably even just settle out of court.
Only an idiot thinks that your contract somehow makes them obligated to provide a service they no longer wish to provide, they can ALWAYS breach, and pay damages instead. And only a complete lunatic thinks that they are entitled to be grandfathered to the same terms even after the contract expires.
If they offer "unlimited" service then you cannot abuse that by using it as much as possible.
You seem to be using some other definition of 'abuse', and then declaring that its not "abuse by definition".
Suppose you are looking for a new apartment and a friend offers to let you stay at his place "until you find a place". Suppose he was privately expecting it to take a few days, maybe a week... and three months later your still there... that's abusing the offer.
Abuse doesn't mean exceed the offer. One cannot *exceed* an unlimited offer. *That* is by definition. Abuse merely means to take far greater advantage of the deal than the other party intended. Its not legally wrong to abuse a good deal, nor even a violation of the contract. People abuse good deals all the time.
For example a store offers a loss leader deal. And you immediately buy up all their stock. They obviously intended people to buy a few; and the deal was to attract customers to the store... you cleaned them out, and are now selling them on ebay. Customers who who up after you are annoyed. The store gets nothing out of it but a headache. You abused the deal. You took far more advantage of it then they anticipated or intended. That's what the word means in this context.
The store should have had a limit per customer or something. Lesson learned; next time they will. (And its what the carriers are now doing.)
I don't see what all the hand wringing is about. A too-good-to-be-sustainable offer was made, and now its being discontinued. You had your ride; and now its over.
If they didn't have the resources to offer what they were offering then the company is committing fraud.
Read the fine print. They never offered you what you are attempting to claim they did. Besides what you are suggesting they offered you while charging you Why the hell are you defending these weasels?
Because even though they are weasels and deserve to be lined up and shot, they aren't in the wrong on this particular issue.
I can only consume what can be delivered to the house, and that's kilowatts.
Is that worth nit-picking over?
In any case it should be pretty doable to consume 200kWh per day, or ~76MWh per year and run a $700/mo+ electrical bill without breaking a sweat. (Average home is 10MWh annually.)
And that would be abusing the 'utilities included in rent' deal, which is really the only point I was trying to make.
Pretty sure I've never read ANY of the rules you mentioned anywhere I've ever been.
I don't dispute that those are the common sense rules that would naturally be in effect.
Picking away the breading and throwing that away is violating the rules. If the rules weren't written down, they should have continued to serve her, and then written down the rules so it isn't a problem in the future.
And this is exactly what the ISPs are doing. The "rules" ('dont monopolize the bandwidth) wasn't written down, so people got their unlimited bandwidth for the last X months (the ISP served them what it offered them). And now they are writing down the rules and applying them going forward starting next month... or even a few months hence. Since nearly all of us do not have a forward contract with our ISP we have the option to take the new deal next month or cancel.
I looked just now. I guess it depends what you consider lowend, and what you consider cheap.
Best advertised rate from the local DSL and cable monopolies are both ~$55/month for 15/1.
The best I can do locally is 5/1 for $24.95 month with a Cable reseller. (And I suspect that calling the cable company directly will give me a access to the same lower tier at a simiar price point if I ask.)
I concede your area is different from mine. And that many regions don't have any competition at all, nor even resellers.
I also think that its probably for the best that the really low end plans are dropping off -- the web is getting painful below 10mbps and selling plans below that is sort of like selling under-powered comuters... it ultimately just harms consumer perception of the company.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I am going to blame him if he asks me for money to buy food and instead buys heroin.
Blaming a heroine junkie for buying H with any cash he gets is like blaming a rabid dog for biting you.
Who else would I blame for that?
You don't blame anybody for that. He's sick. That's what his sickness does. Blaming him or anyone else for it is counter productive.
And, therefore, when I see a person in legitimate need and have no way to separate them from those just looking for drug money,
Those 'just looking for drug money' are in legitimate need too. They just aren't in need of drug money.
I can assume that they are in the latter group and not feel any pangs from my conscience.
That's on you. Your line of logic here that you can't tell X from Y so therefore you treat everyone as Y, even though you know many of them are X. That can be used to rationalize are lot of really nasty stuff.
The solution was covered.
2 firewalls in sequence.
Cisco + Huewei
Even if you trust neither to prevent the respective vendors government out, you can reasonably trust the cisco not to be in bed with the chinese, and the hauwei not to be in bed with the americans.
So either state actor is blocked. If the chinese and americans are working *together* to break into your network... you've probably got a situation where your network shouldn't be connected to the internet period... transferring your data via usb sticks ferried by carrier pigeons and children.
Quite scary
Not really. It's far scarier to consider life in a panopticon where two people couldn't say something privately to eachother without the goverment listening to the conversation.
Your assuming the guy was playing a guitar. And the presence of a guitar case lends some reasonableness to that assumption.
But lots of homeless people have their guitar case out for donations whether htey are playing or not. And some don't even have an instrument.
I am affected by their choices in that I wouldn't have given the money knowing that it was going to be misappropriated.
Riiiiight.
The homeless junkie you gave a dollar too... your going to blame HIM, a person with a mental disorder / addiction problem -- for 'misappropriation' of funds when he buys junk?
I'd blame the guy in the mirror for that misappropriation.
Instead they spend the money you give them on drugs and alcohol.
1) You are not affected by their choices in any way.
2) Clearly they are eating something between the drugs and alcohol.
Why do people act like these things are any different than throwing change into someone's guitar case?
I expect it is because the guy with the guitar case isn't promising to give anyone a drone if you put money in his case.
You aren't wrong that people are setting their expectations wrong with kickstarter. The money goes in and the product may or may not ever come out. That's a gamble you take.
Its certainly not really an "investment" because your maximum reward is a consumer product worth roughly what you put in, and you certainly aren't a shareholder of the venture that creates the product.
But kickstarters do have an obligation to make a good faith attempt to deliver on their promise. Its not illegal or even a breach of contract to fail at the attempt. But it would be a breach to simply take the money and walk away or otherwise act fraudulently.
Its clearly a very different proposition than outright charity too.
What? Your university didn't rename
Earth Sciences to "Where are the Kittens at?" and Biology to "Adorable Kitten Studies"?
If Islam is so great, how come so many people are trying to get away from it?
They aren't. They are taking Islam with them.
What they are trying to get away from is war and the destruction that goes with all that; caused by fanatical extremist nutjobs they don't agree with but lack the power to do anything about.
It seems that the only folks who want to go to the Islamic state are ...
Maladjusted, unhappy, people who feel afraid, helpless, and isolated who want to be part of something bigger and stronger to validate themselves and feel powerful. So... the same sort of people who join street gangs, and for much the same reasons.
Islam is worse than Nazis
ISIS is getting up there. They're still a genocide of millions behind them, but they aren't good people that's for sure. And we shouldn't wait for them ratchet up the death toll any further.
But why blame Islam? Some nutjobs perverted and distorted the religion to integrate it with their propaganda . The root religion is no more at fault here than Christianity was the root problem of the Nazis and their racist perversion of Christianity "Positive Christianity".
West will suffer wherever we offer Muslims refuge.
Your comparison to the Nazi's seems apt again. Were all German's that fled Germany during world war 2 closet Nazi's? That the only reason anyone fled Germany was to start up local Nazi seed groups?
I gather, you fear that any Christians lurking about are secretly planning Spanish Inquisition 2.0 too.
I can count on about 3 fingers the number of times I've plugged my MacBook Pro into a terrestrial Ethernet cable.
1) Some us want to do things at more than wifi speed at work. You know like transfer large files.
2) Configuring network gear. From routers, to switches, to server ILO and iDRAC etc.
3) Network troubleshooting. (from as simple as ... "is this network jack working" to "enable port mirroring on the switch and analyze a traffic problem")
4) Network hotspot. (I used my laptop as wireless bridge for other wired devices pretty regularly.
I'm fine with the macbook air not having a network jack. I'm fine with the macbook not having a network jack. You trade size for convenience etc. And joe consumer or even pro-sumer doesn't need it much.
But an actual professional, needs an ethernet port, frequently. And a dongle is annoying, forgettable, and fragile.
Pros need connectors. Not dongles. To not have a network port on a pro laptop is a joke. (And I say this as someone with a 2015 MBP.)
You can argue that some CEO waving around a pro doesn't need an ethernet port, and you'd be right. He doesn't need more than an air either. The pro for him is a status symbol.
Apple should capitalize on that ... the macbook elite; a status symblol mac for ceo's that's more expensive than the rest. A macbook pro for people who need to get work done and need it to be able to actually do things and connect to things, and a macbook air for budget conscious users who just need an ultrabook to do email, write essays, and do light spreadsheet, web browsing, maybe even a little on-the-go html editing etc.
The trouble with apple is that the current pro really isn't all that pro. I'd gladly swap the size of my 2015 macbook pro with my 2009 macbook pro if that meant it could have an ethernet port, even more battery, etc.
Some vendors go too far with too many SKUs for it to make any sense. Apple goes the other way ... but also too far. There aren't enough sku's to really cover what people actually need.
And besides, if something decides to torch my internal FW or Ethernet port, I get to replace a multi-hundred-dollar motherboard (probably), or at least require surgery to replace an internal interface board. If something torches an Thunderbolt Ethernet dongle, HOPEFULLY it will only require a quick and relatively inexpensive swap-out of the dongle.
Nonsense. You've still got the thunderbolt port to fry. Adding a dongle doesn't reduce your 'risk surface' it adds to it. Not only can your 'thunderbolt port' go, but now you also have the risk of your dongle getting lost or broken. And as ANYONE who has ever used dongles know, the odds of the dongle being responsible for wrecking your port are pretty high. Because now instead of a nice flush surface you've got a dongle sticking out of your expensive port just waiting to lever your laptops internal guts around.
Right now I would definitely trade both of my dedicated ports (which by the way, I thought I wanted!) for another Thunderbolt port.
I'm having a hard time picturing a situation where you need a *bunch* of thunderbolt ports and you aren't at a desk you sit at regularly. You could just install a thunderbolt hub if you needed more.
That's the difference between ethernet and thunderbolt. I AM likely to need ethernet anywhere; so simply leaving a dongle plugged into the ehternet cable at my desk isn't good enough. But I'm only likely to need thunderbolt at my desk (especially multiple thunderbolt.)
The three phases of Apple:
1 - Tell us we don't want something at all.
2 - Watch everyone ignore you and build versions of it anyway.
3- Show up late to the party with an Apple version and say you invented it; rake in the money.
We're moving from stage 1 to stage 2 now.
So translation: Apple is working on it, but its not ready yet.
but why does Pocket matter?
Its not what it is, it's what it represents.
Pocket is a proprietary system, with a commerical company behind it, that produced an addon that a small number of people used.
That was fine. Nobody objected to it. Nobody cared.
Then one day, pocket was integrated into the browser. Why? WHY? What possible reason was there to integrate a 3rd party commercial add on directly into the codebase.No good one.
The free software people were pissed at having a proprietary service.
The no-bloat were pissed off at another completely pointless feature; especially when the add-on was working just fine for the people who wanted it.
And the rest of us look at it as the thin edge of the wedge; as in if Mozilla is willing to just thrust this on us... where does it end? Facebook integration next built right in? Twitter after that? Snapchat? Zynga games? Chatroulette? Not as addons... all built right in to firefox.
"Disable telemetry. As promised, the November update includes the ability for enterprise IT to disable telemetry feedback to Microsoft. âoeWe strongly recommend against this, as this data helps us deliver a secure, reliable, and more delightful personalized experience,â Microsoft explains."
Does this mean the disable telemetry group policy settings can now apply that setting to Pro? (Like the majority we get our PCs with OEM Windows and then join them to the domains.)
Or is this still restricted only to the actual Windows 10 enterprise SKU?
If the former... awesome news... if the latter? WTF... I thought the enterprise sku already had the option to disable telemetry?!!
Every joule of that has to be generated and distributed somehow. Now, say that houses were charged on the capacity and length of the lines running out from the substations (the places where high-voltage power is stepped down to something closer to usable voltage). If the tenant uses lots of electricity, is that a problem for the landlord?
The electricity example was simply to illustrate how one can abuse a deal in a given pricing. Your scenario is irrelevant to that.
Microsoft has made it damn near impossible
Damn near impossible?
At the Microsoft Account sign in page, you click Create New Account, then at the bottom of the new account form click "Sign in without a microsoft account."
I concede its slightly unintuitive, and definitely treated as a second class option... but if you don't already have a microsoft account, you are going to end up on the form to create one, with the option to sign in without one... so you can't actually even miss it if you read.
It's not remotely "damn near impossible"?
And i don't know what you are going on about with "Apple *watching* this experiment"; you do know that by default OSX has you signing into your computer with an apple cloud account now too right? And you have to do pretty much the same gymnastics you do with Windows to opt out of it. And this has been true for the last 2 or 3 releases of OSX already.
This is actually a pretty annoying issue. One of my biggest complaints with windows 10 is actually how much Q&A and troubleshooting tips etc exist for the pre-releases. Lots of it (most even) doesn't apply to the final release at all due it be related to experiments in the pre-releases that didn't make it final or simply bugs that were quashed in later builds and final. But it pollutes every search for any windows 10 issue.
Perhaps they should have thought of that before?
If your solution amounts to "be perfect" you aren't contributing anything useful.
They certainly shouldn't be able to change it for existing customers within the period where there's a cancellation fee.
Right they can't do that. Most people aren't affected in this way though.
And in most scenarios the changes are given with a lot of advance notice.
And anyone affected in that way would trivially be able to get any cancellation fees waived.
It's like waiting til someone moves all their stuff in before doubling the rent.
Good thing nobody is doing that then, right?
No. I see this logical fallacy all the time. The cost of bandwidth is not the cost of keeping the switches powered up; it is not equal to keeping the lights on.
First when you use the bandwidth someone else can't. So if you demand to use your maximum speed every second all month (as many people here think is there entitlement), then nobody else can use the lights. Then end up being dedicated to your sole use.
And the cost of doing that isn't just the cost of keeping them turned on. You now have to cover the cost buying them and of installing them (and not just the bulb, the wiring, the fixtures, the breaker boxes, etc...the whole thing.) And it'll need upgrading every few years or so with new faster ones (cutting over from your lights metaphor to networks here). So instead of a few cents a month for electricity, you have have to consider 10s of thousands of dollars periodically. Its still pretty affordable if 3,000 people are dividing that cost and sharing the bandwidth, the company can maintain it, do customer service, etc and charge you a few 10s of dollars per month to access it.
But if you want it all dedicated to yourself. Then you'll have to pay all costs associated with it. And it not cheap. Figure your bill going up by at LEAST a factor of 30, if you don't want them to oversubscribe the bandwidth at all.
I have an objection against the usage of the word "communal" here.
I don't have a vested interest in the word. Substitute 'shared' if you prefer.
The user entered a contract with a company one-on-one and exercises the contract to the limit. If they are depriving others from said resource because the traffic is aggregated in the company network, the problem lies with the contract the company issued, not the user.
Ok. So what? The company recognizes it is a problem, and it is changing the contract going forward. The user is not being sued. The user is not be retroactively charged ? The user is not being wronged or harmed in any way.
And here is where the problem lies. The company puts "unlimited" on paper and then expects "but nobody will actually use it all". The babysitter was offered a snack and the provider badly misjudged the babysitters' appetite. I say it is rude to offer a snack and then to leave your babysitter hungry.
And I say it is equally rude for the babysitter to show up without having eaten yet that week anticipating to take 'full advantage' of their hosts offer to help themselves to a snack.
Spirit and intent is subjective.
Agreed.
For example, I [...use a good chunk of internet...] Is this abuse? I certainly don't think so. But I bet you it is quite a bit more than the average user.
Rather than speculate, lets actually check. What was your usage the last few months, and how much do you pay for your unlimited?
I'm paying $100/mo for 120mbps service. I use between 150GB and 390GB (with a median around 350GB; the 150GB was low outlier.) My ISP official cap for my plan is 550GB so I'm not even scratching the surface. (next tier up is 800GB). I torrent ISOs, I cut my cable subscription .We watch a couple hours of netflix/other streams daily. The kids watch bunches of youtube. We download big titles off steam. Over the years, my caps and speeds have increased so the isp is obviously doing its end of the bargain with the network upgrades. I've never met anyone who actually had issues with the caps that wasn't doing something either commercial that needed business, or was just a video hoarder and torrent junkie downloading more content each month than he could watch in a year.
So for $100, I get 100Mbps, and up to 550GB and it fits me just fine. Some people say though that I should be allowed to use 100Mbps continually 24x7. How much traffic is that actually?
100Mbps / 8b/B ~= 12.5MBps (bits to bytes)
12.5MBps = 45,000 MB/h =~ 44GB/h (lets assume its a binary GB as I'm not sure)
44GB/h x 24h/d x 31d/m = 32736 GB/month ~= 32TB/month
We can agree that bandwidth use is subjective. We can agree that different ISPs with different caps will be distributed on a spectrum of what is reasonable to unreasonable. I don't defend Comcasts specific pricing or caps. Maybe comcasts caps are unreasonably low. I don't disagree that even if the caps are reasonable today that comcast might not upgrade in pace with demand, or that comcast is trying to extort money.
But disagreeing with caps based on any of that is like arguing metering electricity or charging for sugar by the pound is a bad idea because they might jack the price up.
I only defend the idea that caps are a reasonable and appropriate solution. Because you can't tell me a home user is not 'abusing' the deal by demanding that he is entitled to transfer 32TB per month. That's roughly the equivalent of 3200 dual layer DVDs; that could contain ~10,000 hours of DVD quality video every month.
If someone wants and needs that I accept that, but the price level for that kind of service is not $100/mo. And the guy who wants that should suck it up and pay $10,000+ month, so the rest of us can all have half a terabyte or so at high speeds over the course of a month, by oversubscribing a fat pipe and dividing the cost among a few hundred people.
There are NO communal resources here
Bandwidth is a finite and communal resource. Deal with it.
People DO have contracts that extend into the future.
A small number yes. But its not the general case. And its not the case affecting the majority of the people whining here.
And if THOSE people DO have the terms changed on them then yes, they do have a case. But I've almost never seen a telco do that. The only thing I've seen most of them do is refuse to renew the contract when its term is up. They almost invariably grandfather people with contracts at least until they expire, and often beyond that.
And if they don't, and they break the contract Guess what, that's not even illegal. People break contracts all the time when its no longer in their best interests to honor it. Its a perfect normal and civil matter. It exposes the company to liability for damages to the other party.
So go ahead and sue the telco for imposing a cap; on your contract that terminates next year. What are your damages? At most its the cost of the data overage you are likely to incur relative to another available plan. So you'll get the difference on that when you win. They'll probably even just settle out of court.
Only an idiot thinks that your contract somehow makes them obligated to provide a service they no longer wish to provide, they can ALWAYS breach, and pay damages instead. And only a complete lunatic thinks that they are entitled to be grandfathered to the same terms even after the contract expires.
If they offer "unlimited" service then you cannot abuse that by using it as much as possible.
You seem to be using some other definition of 'abuse', and then declaring that its not "abuse by definition".
Suppose you are looking for a new apartment and a friend offers to let you stay at his place "until you find a place". Suppose he was privately expecting it to take a few days, maybe a week... and three months later your still there... that's abusing the offer.
Abuse doesn't mean exceed the offer. One cannot *exceed* an unlimited offer. *That* is by definition. Abuse merely means to take far greater advantage of the deal than the other party intended. Its not legally wrong to abuse a good deal, nor even a violation of the contract. People abuse good deals all the time.
For example a store offers a loss leader deal. And you immediately buy up all their stock. They obviously intended people to buy a few; and the deal was to attract customers to the store... you cleaned them out, and are now selling them on ebay. Customers who who up after you are annoyed. The store gets nothing out of it but a headache. You abused the deal. You took far more advantage of it then they anticipated or intended. That's what the word means in this context.
The store should have had a limit per customer or something. Lesson learned; next time they will. (And its what the carriers are now doing.)
I don't see what all the hand wringing is about. A too-good-to-be-sustainable offer was made, and now its being discontinued. You had your ride; and now its over.
If they didn't have the resources to offer what they were offering then the company is committing fraud.
Read the fine print. They never offered you what you are attempting to claim they did. Besides what you are suggesting they offered you while charging you Why the hell are you defending these weasels?
Because even though they are weasels and deserve to be lined up and shot, they aren't in the wrong on this particular issue.
I can only consume what can be delivered to the house, and that's kilowatts.
Is that worth nit-picking over?
In any case it should be pretty doable to consume 200kWh per day, or ~76MWh per year and run a $700/mo+ electrical bill without breaking a sweat. (Average home is 10MWh annually.)
And that would be abusing the 'utilities included in rent' deal, which is really the only point I was trying to make.
It wasn't an all you can pick apart on eat some of what you order place.
I really doubt they'd have been any happier if she'd eaten the batter.
The sequence in question is:
1 ...
12
123
1234
12345
Neither 2 nor 5 are in the sequence so your original post was fine.
All-you-can-eat places do have rules.
Pretty sure I've never read ANY of the rules you mentioned anywhere I've ever been.
I don't dispute that those are the common sense rules that would naturally be in effect.
Picking away the breading and throwing that away is violating the rules. If the rules weren't written down, they should have continued to serve her, and then written down the rules so it isn't a problem in the future.
And this is exactly what the ISPs are doing. The "rules" ('dont monopolize the bandwidth) wasn't written down, so people got their unlimited bandwidth for the last X months (the ISP served them what it offered them). And now they are writing down the rules and applying them going forward starting next month... or even a few months hence. Since nearly all of us do not have a forward contract with our ISP we have the option to take the new deal next month or cancel.
I looked just now. I guess it depends what you consider lowend, and what you consider cheap.
Best advertised rate from the local DSL and cable monopolies are both ~$55/month for 15/1.
The best I can do locally is 5/1 for $24.95 month with a Cable reseller. (And I suspect that calling the cable company directly will give me a access to the same lower tier at a simiar price point if I ask.)
I concede your area is different from mine. And that many regions don't have any competition at all, nor even resellers.
I also think that its probably for the best that the really low end plans are dropping off -- the web is getting painful below 10mbps and selling plans below that is sort of like selling under-powered comuters... it ultimately just harms consumer perception of the company.