While I agree with every example you show, these are terrible comparisons. In none of these case is the resource sold to me as "unlimited"
I disagree that they are terrible. I agree the examples I chose are different because in each case the consumer fundamentally understands the resource is limited and communal; and that if they monopolize it they can see and even be confronted by the victims of their actions. But the terms of use on the resource itself are 'unlimited'. There is no set number of hours you can play, or set number of danish you must not eat more of, and as long as you aren't monopolizing the resource and no one else is being unreasonably denied it, you can keep using it until its gone.
I know better because I work in IT and know how these things actually work but Joe AverageUser has no idea how bandwidth and oversubscription and COs work
I agree that consumers don't have the same understanding about bandwidth.
I am in no way told I am sharing it with anyone else and in fact told the exact opposite. It is my bandwidth to use and I can use it "unlimited".
I concede some ISPs are worse than others about the marketing. And I concede the message marketing would like to sell may not be a reflection of reality. (And spraying axe body spray won't get me tackled by babes.) Caveat emptor to a point, right?
And my argument isn't so much that cable companies were "right" to call it unlimited. My argument is simply that cable companies are right to implement and disclose caps because that is a better and more honest reflection of the real deal. And the people complaining about it simply aren't being realistic; and more importantly, that the cable company is not obligated to honor this unrealistic deal in perpetuity just because they want them to. They don't have a contract into the future. They got their unlimited bandwidth last month. Next month is a new deal. QQ that the telco isn't going to make the same mistake this month.
And I do not dispute that they are a shit company.
However, "unlimited bandwidth" offers for an inexpensive flat rate are a dead end (at all ISPs) given current trends in bandwidth demand, the available technology, and pricing.
They would rather really provide an unlimited service than have to honestly advertise their capped & limited plans.
This is largely because: a) marketing is idiots b) most consumers don't understand bandwidth
I'd be happy to switch to even a 1Mbps service, if the monthly fee was sufficiently low. And with that speed, it wouldn't even be possible to go over their data cap, so no need for metering. But that's too straight-forward and honest for them...
Lots of ISPs offer low end plans. I'm not saying comcast or someother ISP is a mess; just that unlimited bandwidth at the maximum speed the line can support is a bad idea.
Furthermore, I and most people would much rather a server that runs 100mbps when we use it, with the expectation that we can't use it 24x7. I want my web pages and email to load quickly, I want to watch netflix for an hour or two without buffering, I want to play the games i order on steam in 30 minutes not next next Friday. The high speed plan that I can't monopolize 24x7 is a very good fit for me, and for most people.
I said *WHEN* they understand that. At a brunch buffet they do understand it; I agree most still don't understand it for internet access.
B) even if true it doesn't matter. If a company offers something in unlimited amounts in means UNLIMITED
Yes and so what? They are no longer going to offer that.
If they made a bad deal then that is their fault and not the customer's problem.
Yes and? The customer's only problem is that telco is not renewing this offer next month. And because you don't have an extended contract with them, they don't have to provide that service next month. The caps aren't "retroactive". Each month, you have a new agreement. The consumer is free to cancel the service each month. SO IS THE PROVIDER.
They DID change the terms.
You got your unlimited bandwidth last month.
Unless you have a contract that extends into the future, neither of you have any significant obligation to each other going forwards.
They lured you in with one offer and then changed the offer.
No. They lured you in with one offer, fulfilled it, and THEN changed the offer for the future. That is not bait and switch.
By definition it is impossible to abuse UNLIMITED access by utilizing said access
The definition in question is not 'unlimited' we agree on what that means. The definition in question is that of 'abuse'. And yes, I absolutely am arguing that you can 'abuse' something that was offered without limit.
A baby sitter invited to help herself to what's in the kitchen if she wants a snack is abusing that offer if she eats everything in the house. "Abuse" doesn't mean she exceeded the offer (as you said, she can't technically exceed an unlimited offer.)
The word "Abuse" means that she exceeded the spirit and intention of the offer., which is absolutely what was done.
If you offer me unlimited bandwidth at a particular speed, you should not be surprised if I utilize it to the fullest extent possible.
I'm not surprised in the least.
However, you should not be surprised that the telco is electing to invoke its option to discontinuing your current service.
I expect to be able to use up to 30 Mb/s of bandwidth any second EVERY second.
Yes, I totally get that is what YOU expect. But its not reasonable if if you understand the technology. I agree that you CAN read it that way though; but its not what was really being offered for ~$60/mo (or whatever).
Marketing messed it up (as usual), and regular people don't really understand 'bandwidth' so confusion was inevitable.
So they are going to terminate this poorly written offer (which they have honored so far; despite the abuse), and write up a new one with bandwidth caps that you can either take or leave going forward.
It's better this way; the limits should be well defined; and it was unfortunate that they didn't define them before
Yet another shill for telecom companies
Whatever.
Let's be 100% clear here, I do not care 1 iota if someone else is using their 30 Mb/s link 24x7, 365, I just care that I get the bandwidth I paid for when I go to use it. End of story.
Yeah, I get it. And the telecome will sell you that for $20,000+ per month with a SLA and everything. The days of getting that for $60/mo by monopolizing a badly written offer however are over.
Normal people understand "unlimited" to actually mean "unlimited" when used to promote the service.
Not when they understand its limited and communal resource that they are being given unmetered access to. Then they understand there aren't strict caps, but that they also cannot monopolize it. As in the examples I gave earlier.
"Unlimited transactions" on a bank account for example is something that isn't a limited communal resource so people can use as many as they need. Now I suppose if someone allocated an HFT trading computer to just transfer 1 cent between two unlimited accounts millions of times per second such that it actually started taxing the banks resources then they'd probably simply ask you to either stop or terminate your service.
But unlimited bandwidth, is like when you rent a house for $1500 includes all utilities. If you start consuming thousands of dollars worth of electricity, you are abusing the agreement -- no normal person things that 'All utilities' are included in the $1500 rent' is a license to consume terawatts.
That is called bait and switch among other things.
Nope. Its only bait and switch if they change the terms or product on you. In a no contract month to month service, changing the service before you've paid for another month and giving you the option to terminate service or transition to another service is not 'bait and switch'.
They gave you unlimited access. You 'abused' it. And now they are discontinuing that service, and offering you something else. They aren't contractually bound to give you unlimited bandwidth for as long as you want the service. Read your contract... its month to month for nearly all of us, and both parties are assumed to agree to renew each month unless they notify the other party.
At MOST you can argue that the imposition of caps in a subsequent month is an abuse of the implicit assumption to renew -- that they should assume you now want to cancel, and that you should be required to act to accept the new offer.
But in practice that would be a disaster as millions of people would get disconnected because they didn't bother to respond, and to the notice and then they'd scream about it. Maybe technically that would be 'better' in someway, but I generally side with the companies especially since only a tiny fraction would elect not to renew service under the new offer anyway.
It's all you can EAT. Not all you can take.
My example considered that. I didn't give an example where the guy showed up with tupperware and filled it up to take home. He ate, or at least attempted to eat everything he took.
If I go to the all-you can eat buffet, and ONLY take one thing; especially if I select something and just pick out the key expensive ingredient. (For example, a chicken and beans dish, where I just pick out all the chicken and leave the beans, I assure I can eat all of that thing. And I've seen other people do it. Those people are assholes.)
My sister (maybe 110lbs) was asked to stop at an all you can eat fish and chips place after downing 7 or 8 pieces of fish. She wasn't filling up on fries, and picked off most of the batter.. she just liked the fish. Apparently the offer of all-you-can eat had a cap after all. Should she have sued them? For damages? What damages? That she could have eaten another couple pieces of fish that day? So... maybe get her $10 back? Give me a break.
Normal people understand that an 'unlimited' offer of a resource that is actually both limited and communal should not be unreasonably monopolized.
If you are the guy that goes downstairs and takes the entire 'continental breakfast' plate of danish up to your hotel room your abusing the fact that the hotel didn't place a 'limit' on the number of danish you could have.
If you show up every morning at dawn and claim one of the beach volleyball courts, and then keep it to yourself all day, every day. You are abusing the the fact that the park has an unlimited first-come first serve policy.
If you walk into a chinese buffet for brunch at 11am, plunk down your $8 for all you can eat, and then promptly take the entire tray of sweet and sour chicken balls depriving everyone else of any. You are abusing the all-you-can eat offer. If the restaurant brings out a second tray of balls and you immediately rush up and help yourself to all of them too. Then sit back down, sip on unlimited pop for 6 hours, and then start serving yourself dinner. Well, your the kind of customer they invite you to "leave and not to come back".
Do you really need this explained to you?
Furthermore, the 'unlimited' with broadband is even more special because it's origins come from the limited -connection times- that we generally had with dial-up. No more 50 hours of dialup! No more busy signals! "Unlimited internet" initially meant 24x7 connectivity; you're always online!
It has never meant, "Go ahead and max out your download speed 24x7" except to people looking to abuse the fact that they weren't metering bandwidth.
Another poster indicated elsewhere MS was (at least recently) using 4TB 3.5" drives; and that sounds pretty reasonable to me; for an extant system with that kind of scale.
But yeah wouldn't be surprised if new deployments are looking at 8TB spinning platters for this sort of application.
It's worth pointing out that in the U.S. there is absolutely no requirement in the Constitution for a postal service
Article 1 Section 8's enumeration of Power of Congress are implicitly also exclusively *reserved* for Congress.
For example Congress is not merely empowered to establish currency; this task is reserved for congress. Congress is not merely empowered to declare wars or maintain the navy; the power to declare wars and maintain navies *rests* with congress. The states can't establish their own currencies, navies, nor declare their own wars.... nor can they establish their own post offices.
Historically, the post office was as important to congress as the military -- indeed it was critical and essential communications infrastructure for government to function. To say the constitution was written to "merely empower" congress to establish a post office as if to say it opens up the possibility that they could do it if they chose to is absurd.
Franky, in 2015, I think one could argue that Congress has the constitutional authority stemming from the postal service clause to build a national public internet. To interpret the establishment of 'post offices and post roads' as allowing them to run cables, and provision land, install servers etc. The purpose of the post office is to deliver communications between people after all. The internet is making the post office obsolete, because when all is said and done the internet *is* an automated computerized post office.
Surely you aren't going to argue that the fact that we don't print packets on paper and carry them by horseback from node to node (as the founders intended!!) is an issue? This is/. after all; and we've been mocking people for years for acting like doing some 100 year old thing "on a computer" makes it different than the original thing in some important way.
It's infinitely better that fundamental rights be generically written so as not to tie civilization to any one specific technology.
I don't disagree with you, and your not wrong. First, RTFA...
-- The PM is to introduce a "universal service obligation" for broadband, giving the public a legal right to request an "affordable" connection.
It would put broadband on a similar footing to other basic services such as water and electricity. --
Its not being enshrined as an amendment to the magna carta or something.
It's infinitely better that fundamental rights be generically written so as not to tie civilization to any one specific technology.
And while I agree with this. If they don't pass legislation to "enshrine" specific technology then its legal status is indeterminate and in limbo until the courts set binding precendents. Especially since the courts are bound by the law as it is written, not the will of the people or even common sense. Which is precisely the wrong way to go about protecting your rights. Its good to proactively legislate that certain technologies are captured by your more abstract rights.
Finally, to your railroad argument vs freedom of movement; I offer you the modern air travel "no-fly list"... as an example where if something is not explicitly enshrined you get bullshit like this that will take decades to work out. The internet has a lot in common with it, and someone who wishes to deny you the internet simply argues... your freedom of speech is not curtailed: you can still say what ever you want to people in person; you just can't say it on the internet....
I applaud any nation that proactively says: "Noope. We're not having that nonsense here. Denying you the internet is a violation of your rights. All citizens should have affordable access." And if in the year 2400 such a ruling on the books is as quaint as those ordinances that still require the school house to stable your horse... so be it. (Although I am in favor of a better system of removing obsolete law than we have now.)
When everything is a fundamental right, then that completely devalues the definition of "fundamental".
Internet access should be enshrined as a right. This extends beyond just remote rural citizens to everyday citizens everyday lives.
I'm sure you recall the scene in the matrix where Neo demands his call and they edit out his mouth. "What good is a phone call if you can't speak..."
In modern society the internet is replacing the post office. We increasingly use it to commuicate with eachother and with our government.
To deny someone the internet in 2020 is akin to denying them the post office in 1920. Not only should access be mandated, but it really should be enshrined as a right -- such that it cannot be easily curtailed by a judge or future legislators at whim.
What are the big complaints with all social science data? They are nearly all subject to selection biases; many are self-selecting and/or opt-in, etc. And the sample sizes are usually quite small.
This is pretty much the only source of data that is taken from the population selected at random, is mandatory, and the sample size is massive. Its good data.
Its taken once every 5 years, but only affects around 20% of the population. My household has never even been selected. Growing up my parents received it only once that I know of. It is not a "huge burdern".
Very little of the data collected is qualifies as 'secret' or 'personal'. Here it is; see for yourself.
Very little of it is objectionable; who lives in the house hold, how are they all related to each other, what is their level of education, where do they work/what do they do, where are they from.
The objections stem from:
Religion. Well there are no questions about religion on this one at all. None nada zero zip.
Sex: The only questions on sex are gender; and if you happen to self identify yourself as a same-sex spouse in the relationships. I suppose some transgendered individual who has decided to identify as neither male nor female might object to having to pick one. That's hardly a valid reason to argue against the census though.
Medical: There are some medical questions that some might object to. Difficulty seeing? hearing? walking? slow learning? long term health problem? These are extremely vague and generic; and are clearly useful for allocating and planning health services and very basic health trends.
Race / Language: There's some questions asking one to identify people's origin. (where they were born in canada or internationally, ethnicity, etc.) first nations status, immigration status, etc.
There are some legitimate historical cases where this last was used to persecute. But realistically, if we're going to round people up from country X for concentration camps, we'll be able manage that just fine without the census. Immigration records, and birth certificates to id them and their descendents, then tax forms and drivers licenses to find them will catch them anyway; throw in a neighborhood informant program.
Meanwhile the census data provides a good clear picture of the countries changing demographics that has a lot of legitimate uses.
The OP clearly was referring to a stack of 1TB 3.5" drives when he said it would be a tall stack. And he was right.
Sure In an actual modern large scale cloud storage system (like what would be underneath Office 365) they aren't going to be using 1TB 3.5" drives. The cost / density / etc ratios aren't at the sweet spot. But that's really entirely beside the point.
He adequately made the point that 75TB is FAR more data than most normal people would even have, several times over.
One piece of shit they've left in is the broken UI idea that tabs should be above the toolbars and bookmarks.
Why is that a broken idea? I only have one tool bar, and it contains the address bar and search box, along with the adblock pro, ghostery, etc. All of those functions are applicable to the currently displayed tab; the little number in ghostery for example is how many things were blocked in the current tab. The address bar is the address of the current tab, etc.
Even the home button and bookmarks are navigation controls that apply to the current tab. (although multi-tab bookmarks are an exception to that -- but I don't use those.)
Really the ONLY things that don't really semantically belong "inside the tab" is the settings hamburger menu and the the downloads button. But wasting space above the tabs for just those two items is silly; and I don't object them in the tab.
I certainly do not think tabs below the address bar makes any real sense at all. So why do you think its "broken"?
There are lots of things I think are broken, but that's not one of them.
I don't use it myself, but I have nothing against it in principle.
However, it started out as an add-on; and it really should have stayed an add-on. It is not core functionality of a browser; so it shouldn't be bloating the browser.
At least sync makes it so you can run your own sync server if you are so inclined; so its its 100x better than pocket which backs onto a 3rd party commercial service, but it still shouldn't' have been integrated.
My calculus course was huge, and the lectures were done in a theatre that sat hundreds. But from there we were assigned to different "Tutorial groups" for lab work, homework, TA questions, etc.
I guess if course enrollment for a mandatory course like Calculus exceeded the seating capacity of the theatre, they'd have needed something like sections to run multiple theaters in parallel.
I could see an argument for saying they should all be run the same, especially if they are being given the same test. (When I was in unversity calculus was graded on the curve so the results from year to year would be normalized, but since they weren't running them in parallel they wouldn't have needed to normalize them... but assuming each section was sufficiently large curve grading by section could solve that problem as well.
it tries to criminalize "[disturbing] the functioning of a computer system".
Ok.
Performing an update is used as an example of how one could break that law, should it pass.
But the law, as written, is clearly *attempting* to criminalize malicious disturbance. And it's pure sophistry to argue that this should includes the lawful system maintainer installing patches and updates to maintain the system. Even if some of them require a reboot, or contain a bug that causes downtime, etc etc.
Only a complete idiot would interpret it that way. Granted, the world is full of complete idiots, some who would derive a benefit if they interpreted that way, so they would in fact interpret it that way, and throw piles of money around trying to convince everyone that it means what they want it to mean.
I'm not sure what a 'section' is. I didn't go to university in the states. But my Calculus I (derivatives), Calculus II (integrals), and Calculus III (intro to differential calc or somethign) courses were all taught in different semesters by different professors; all from the same big expensive textbook.
So if that's what's going on here, there is *some* merit to not having the kids have to buy 3 different textbooks, and one prof who decided to go off his own way with a different textbook would be... an unpopular choice with the students and I could see a grievance being filed; especially if they have to buy the $180 book as well next semester anyway.
That said my calculus I/II/III textbook was "only" $110 bucks; the James Stewart one; I think there was even a slashdot article when he passed away last year... because pretty much everyone uses that textbook. I still have it. I still use it.
For what its worth my interactions with the research scientists I mentioned is professional; I work with them to apply their experimental results; as part of product development. I've also consulted with them to develop software solutions to analyze large data sets to help them interpret experimental results, etc.
So yeah, I am working with them specifically to build bridges from their fields of expertise to mine. And digging through the unavoidable jargon can take some effort, but the language complexity just isn't there.
I think you are right to a point; that the papers they publish are written to a particular audience; and that audience has a particular set of expectations. But I maintain the whole thing is largely artificial. Its not who they are and not how they need to write to communicate effectively.
Its same as the way we all wear suits to meet the investors but never any other time. Its "expected" by that audience. But its not really us, and its not "necessary"... except to satisfy some sort of convention.
ditto for the language sophistication in academic papers. Its only necessary because its expected.
It's much easier to just use a standard image and use remote access tools to work on a virtual computer that's not within the jurisdiciton/reach of the people you're worried about.
Sigh. So first we tell people, if you don't want people to see it don't put it on the internet. Hell, if you really don't want it getting out, keep the machine its on airgapped. Simple, right? Then as soon as you want to cross the border... you jump up and tell them if you don't want people to see it, hey, you should put it on the internet!!
Wait... what?
Its not bad advice per se; and relatively speaking the data may well be safer online then on a laptop at the border.
But its only relatively better... if we're talking about the same data that we earlier advised "don't put this online", then that advice still holds.
So what is the best way to take THAT data across the border with you?
they are not writing for publication in a forum intended for their peers
I assure you that you are correct. They are absolutely writing specifically to attempt to impress their peers by trying to sound more intelligent perhaps sound more credible by writing more complex prose.
Your attempt to refute my statement disregards cost associated with the simplification - a core tenet of my claim.
I recognize that there would be a cost associated with the simplification, but I assert that the articles are not simply neglecting to pay that cost but in fact deliberately put effort into obfuscating things.
I've had conversations and correspondence with many scientists; and they do not normally speak or write anything like what they submit for publication.
Yes, they do use lots of jargon, and technical language as needed when needed, but the language and sentence structure they use normally is far more accessible.
Compare and contrast said classification of academic papers with something like patent filings, if you really want to see unnecessary obfuscation.
Except that's necessary;-)
If it were plain the examiner would realize there was nothing new to patent.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with every example you show, these are terrible comparisons. In none of these case is the resource sold to me as "unlimited"
I disagree that they are terrible. I agree the examples I chose are different because in each case the consumer fundamentally understands the resource is limited and communal; and that if they monopolize it they can see and even be confronted by the victims of their actions. But the terms of use on the resource itself are 'unlimited'. There is no set number of hours you can play, or set number of danish you must not eat more of, and as long as you aren't monopolizing the resource and no one else is being unreasonably denied it, you can keep using it until its gone.
I know better because I work in IT and know how these things actually work but Joe AverageUser has no idea how bandwidth and oversubscription and COs work
I agree that consumers don't have the same understanding about bandwidth.
I am in no way told I am sharing it with anyone else and in fact told the exact opposite. It is my bandwidth to use and I can use it "unlimited".
I concede some ISPs are worse than others about the marketing. And I concede the message marketing would like to sell may not be a reflection of reality. (And spraying axe body spray won't get me tackled by babes.) Caveat emptor to a point, right?
And my argument isn't so much that cable companies were "right" to call it unlimited. My argument is simply that cable companies are right to implement and disclose caps because that is a better and more honest reflection of the real deal. And the people complaining about it simply aren't being realistic; and more importantly, that the cable company is not obligated to honor this unrealistic deal in perpetuity just because they want them to. They don't have a contract into the future. They got their unlimited bandwidth last month. Next month is a new deal. QQ that the telco isn't going to make the same mistake this month.
I'm not defending comcast as a whole.
And I do not dispute that they are a shit company.
However, "unlimited bandwidth" offers for an inexpensive flat rate are a dead end (at all ISPs) given current trends in bandwidth demand, the available technology, and pricing.
They would rather really provide an unlimited service than have to honestly advertise their capped & limited plans.
This is largely because:
a) marketing is idiots
b) most consumers don't understand bandwidth
I'd be happy to switch to even a 1Mbps service, if the monthly fee was sufficiently low. And with that speed, it wouldn't even be possible to go over their data cap, so no need for metering. But that's too straight-forward and honest for them...
Lots of ISPs offer low end plans. I'm not saying comcast or someother ISP is a mess; just that unlimited bandwidth at the maximum speed the line can support is a bad idea.
Furthermore, I and most people would much rather a server that runs 100mbps when we use it, with the expectation that we can't use it 24x7. I want my web pages and email to load quickly, I want to watch netflix for an hour or two without buffering, I want to play the games i order on steam in 30 minutes not next next Friday. The high speed plan that I can't monopolize 24x7 is a very good fit for me, and for most people.
A) They don't understand tha
I said *WHEN* they understand that. At a brunch buffet they do understand it; I agree most still don't understand it for internet access.
B) even if true it doesn't matter. If a company offers something in unlimited amounts in means UNLIMITED
Yes and so what? They are no longer going to offer that.
If they made a bad deal then that is their fault and not the customer's problem.
Yes and? The customer's only problem is that telco is not renewing this offer next month. And because you don't have an extended contract with them, they don't have to provide that service next month. The caps aren't "retroactive". Each month, you have a new agreement. The consumer is free to cancel the service each month. SO IS THE PROVIDER.
They DID change the terms.
You got your unlimited bandwidth last month.
Unless you have a contract that extends into the future, neither of you have any significant obligation to each other going forwards.
They lured you in with one offer and then changed the offer.
No. They lured you in with one offer, fulfilled it, and THEN changed the offer for the future. That is not bait and switch.
By definition it is impossible to abuse UNLIMITED access by utilizing said access
The definition in question is not 'unlimited' we agree on what that means. The definition in question is that of 'abuse'. And yes, I absolutely am arguing that you can 'abuse' something that was offered without limit.
A baby sitter invited to help herself to what's in the kitchen if she wants a snack is abusing that offer if she eats everything in the house. "Abuse" doesn't mean she exceeded the offer (as you said, she can't technically exceed an unlimited offer.)
The word "Abuse" means that she exceeded the spirit and intention of the offer., which is absolutely what was done.
If you offer me unlimited bandwidth at a particular speed, you should not be surprised if I utilize it to the fullest extent possible.
I'm not surprised in the least.
However, you should not be surprised that the telco is electing to invoke its option to discontinuing your current service.
I expect to be able to use up to 30 Mb/s of bandwidth any second EVERY second.
Yes, I totally get that is what YOU expect. But its not reasonable if if you understand the technology. I agree that you CAN read it that way though; but its not what was really being offered for ~$60/mo (or whatever).
Marketing messed it up (as usual), and regular people don't really understand 'bandwidth' so confusion was inevitable.
So they are going to terminate this poorly written offer (which they have honored so far; despite the abuse), and write up a new one with bandwidth caps that you can either take or leave going forward.
It's better this way; the limits should be well defined; and it was unfortunate that they didn't define them before
Yet another shill for telecom companies
Whatever.
Let's be 100% clear here, I do not care 1 iota if someone else is using their 30 Mb/s link 24x7, 365, I just care that I get the bandwidth I paid for when I go to use it. End of story.
Yeah, I get it. And the telecome will sell you that for $20,000+ per month with a SLA and everything. The days of getting that for $60/mo by monopolizing a badly written offer however are over.
Normal people understand "unlimited" to actually mean "unlimited" when used to promote the service.
Not when they understand its limited and communal resource that they are being given unmetered access to. Then they understand there aren't strict caps, but that they also cannot monopolize it. As in the examples I gave earlier.
"Unlimited transactions" on a bank account for example is something that isn't a limited communal resource so people can use as many as they need. Now I suppose if someone allocated an HFT trading computer to just transfer 1 cent between two unlimited accounts millions of times per second such that it actually started taxing the banks resources then they'd probably simply ask you to either stop or terminate your service.
But unlimited bandwidth, is like when you rent a house for $1500 includes all utilities. If you start consuming thousands of dollars worth of electricity, you are abusing the agreement -- no normal person things that 'All utilities' are included in the $1500 rent' is a license to consume terawatts.
That is called bait and switch among other things.
Nope. Its only bait and switch if they change the terms or product on you. In a no contract month to month service, changing the service before you've paid for another month and giving you the option to terminate service or transition to another service is not 'bait and switch'.
They gave you unlimited access. You 'abused' it. And now they are discontinuing that service, and offering you something else. They aren't contractually bound to give you unlimited bandwidth for as long as you want the service. Read your contract... its month to month for nearly all of us, and both parties are assumed to agree to renew each month unless they notify the other party.
At MOST you can argue that the imposition of caps in a subsequent month is an abuse of the implicit assumption to renew -- that they should assume you now want to cancel, and that you should be required to act to accept the new offer.
But in practice that would be a disaster as millions of people would get disconnected because they didn't bother to respond, and to the notice and then they'd scream about it. Maybe technically that would be 'better' in someway, but I generally side with the companies especially since only a tiny fraction would elect not to renew service under the new offer anyway.
It's all you can EAT. Not all you can take.
My example considered that. I didn't give an example where the guy showed up with tupperware and filled it up to take home. He ate, or at least attempted to eat everything he took.
If I go to the all-you can eat buffet, and ONLY take one thing; especially if I select something and just pick out the key expensive ingredient. (For example, a chicken and beans dish, where I just pick out all the chicken and leave the beans, I assure I can eat all of that thing. And I've seen other people do it. Those people are assholes.)
My sister (maybe 110lbs) was asked to stop at an all you can eat fish and chips place after downing 7 or 8 pieces of fish. She wasn't filling up on fries, and picked off most of the batter.. she just liked the fish. Apparently the offer of all-you-can eat had a cap after all. Should she have sued them? For damages? What damages? That she could have eaten another couple pieces of fish that day? So... maybe get her $10 back? Give me a break.
"How do they abuse an offer of 'unlimited'?"
Normal people understand that an 'unlimited' offer of a resource that is actually both limited and communal should not be unreasonably monopolized.
If you are the guy that goes downstairs and takes the entire 'continental breakfast' plate of danish up to your hotel room your abusing the fact that the hotel didn't place a 'limit' on the number of danish you could have.
If you show up every morning at dawn and claim one of the beach volleyball courts, and then keep it to yourself all day, every day. You are abusing the the fact that the park has an unlimited first-come first serve policy.
If you walk into a chinese buffet for brunch at 11am, plunk down your $8 for all you can eat, and then promptly take the entire tray of sweet and sour chicken balls depriving everyone else of any. You are abusing the all-you-can eat offer. If the restaurant brings out a second tray of balls and you immediately rush up and help yourself to all of them too. Then sit back down, sip on unlimited pop for 6 hours, and then start serving yourself dinner. Well, your the kind of customer they invite you to "leave and not to come back".
Do you really need this explained to you?
Furthermore, the 'unlimited' with broadband is even more special because it's origins come from the limited -connection times- that we generally had with dial-up. No more 50 hours of dialup! No more busy signals! "Unlimited internet" initially meant 24x7 connectivity; you're always online!
It has never meant, "Go ahead and max out your download speed 24x7" except to people looking to abuse the fact that they weren't metering bandwidth.
Another poster indicated elsewhere MS was (at least recently) using 4TB 3.5" drives; and that sounds pretty reasonable to me; for an extant system with that kind of scale.
But yeah wouldn't be surprised if new deployments are looking at 8TB spinning platters for this sort of application.
It's worth pointing out that in the U.S. there is absolutely no requirement in the Constitution for a postal service
Article 1 Section 8's enumeration of Power of Congress are implicitly also exclusively *reserved* for Congress.
For example Congress is not merely empowered to establish currency; this task is reserved for congress. Congress is not merely empowered to declare wars or maintain the navy; the power to declare wars and maintain navies *rests* with congress. The states can't establish their own currencies, navies, nor declare their own wars.... nor can they establish their own post offices.
Historically, the post office was as important to congress as the military -- indeed it was critical and essential communications infrastructure for government to function. To say the constitution was written to "merely empower" congress to establish a post office as if to say it opens up the possibility that they could do it if they chose to is absurd.
Franky, in 2015, I think one could argue that Congress has the constitutional authority stemming from the postal service clause to build a national public internet. To interpret the establishment of 'post offices and post roads' as allowing them to run cables, and provision land, install servers etc. The purpose of the post office is to deliver communications between people after all. The internet is making the post office obsolete, because when all is said and done the internet *is* an automated computerized post office.
Surely you aren't going to argue that the fact that we don't print packets on paper and carry them by horseback from node to node (as the founders intended!!) is an issue? This is /. after all; and we've been mocking people for years for acting like doing some 100 year old thing "on a computer" makes it different than the original thing in some important way.
It's infinitely better that fundamental rights be generically written so as not to tie civilization to any one specific technology.
I don't disagree with you, and your not wrong. First, RTFA...
--
The PM is to introduce a "universal service obligation" for broadband, giving the public a legal right to request an "affordable" connection.
It would put broadband on a similar footing to other basic services such as water and electricity.
--
Its not being enshrined as an amendment to the magna carta or something.
It's infinitely better that fundamental rights be generically written so as not to tie civilization to any one specific technology.
And while I agree with this. If they don't pass legislation to "enshrine" specific technology then its legal status is indeterminate and in limbo until the courts set binding precendents. Especially since the courts are bound by the law as it is written, not the will of the people or even common sense. Which is precisely the wrong way to go about protecting your rights. Its good to proactively legislate that certain technologies are captured by your more abstract rights.
Finally, to your railroad argument vs freedom of movement; I offer you the modern air travel "no-fly list"... as an example where if something is not explicitly enshrined you get bullshit like this that will take decades to work out. The internet has a lot in common with it, and someone who wishes to deny you the internet simply argues ... your freedom of speech is not curtailed: you can still say what ever you want to people in person; you just can't say it on the internet....
I applaud any nation that proactively says: "Noope. We're not having that nonsense here. Denying you the internet is a violation of your rights. All citizens should have affordable access." And if in the year 2400 such a ruling on the books is as quaint as those ordinances that still require the school house to stable your horse... so be it. (Although I am in favor of a better system of removing obsolete law than we have now.)
When everything is a fundamental right, then that completely devalues the definition of "fundamental".
Internet access should be enshrined as a right. This extends beyond just remote rural citizens to everyday citizens everyday lives.
I'm sure you recall the scene in the matrix where Neo demands his call and they edit out his mouth. "What good is a phone call if you can't speak..."
In modern society the internet is replacing the post office. We increasingly use it to commuicate with eachother and with our government.
To deny someone the internet in 2020 is akin to denying them the post office in 1920. Not only should access be mandated, but it really should be enshrined as a right -- such that it cannot be easily curtailed by a judge or future legislators at whim.
The census is important.
What are the big complaints with all social science data?
They are nearly all subject to selection biases; many are self-selecting and/or opt-in, etc. And the sample sizes are usually quite small.
This is pretty much the only source of data that is taken from the population selected at random, is mandatory, and the sample size is massive. Its good data.
Its taken once every 5 years, but only affects around 20% of the population. My household has never even been selected. Growing up my parents received it only once that I know of. It is not a "huge burdern".
Very little of the data collected is qualifies as 'secret' or 'personal'. Here it is; see for yourself.
http://www12.statcan.ca/nhs-en...
Very little of it is objectionable; who lives in the house hold, how are they all related to each other, what is their level of education, where do they work/what do they do, where are they from.
The objections stem from:
Religion. Well there are no questions about religion on this one at all. None nada zero zip.
Sex: The only questions on sex are gender; and if you happen to self identify yourself as a same-sex spouse in the relationships. I suppose some transgendered individual who has decided to identify as neither male nor female might object to having to pick one. That's hardly a valid reason to argue against the census though.
Medical: There are some medical questions that some might object to. Difficulty seeing? hearing? walking? slow learning? long term health problem? These are extremely vague and generic; and are clearly useful for allocating and planning health services and very basic health trends.
Race / Language: There's some questions asking one to identify people's origin. (where they were born in canada or internationally, ethnicity, etc.) first nations status, immigration status, etc.
There are some legitimate historical cases where this last was used to persecute. But realistically, if we're going to round people up from country X for concentration camps, we'll be able manage that just fine without the census. Immigration records, and birth certificates to id them and their descendents, then tax forms and drivers licenses to find them will catch them anyway; throw in a neighborhood informant program.
Meanwhile the census data provides a good clear picture of the countries changing demographics that has a lot of legitimate uses.
Your not wrong.. but...
The OP clearly was referring to a stack of 1TB 3.5" drives when he said it would be a tall stack. And he was right.
Sure In an actual modern large scale cloud storage system (like what would be underneath Office 365) they aren't going to be using 1TB 3.5" drives. The cost / density / etc ratios aren't at the sweet spot. But that's really entirely beside the point.
He adequately made the point that 75TB is FAR more data than most normal people would even have, several times over.
One piece of shit they've left in is the broken UI idea that tabs should be above the toolbars and bookmarks.
Why is that a broken idea? I only have one tool bar, and it contains the address bar and search box, along with the adblock pro, ghostery, etc. All of those functions are applicable to the currently displayed tab; the little number in ghostery for example is how many things were blocked in the current tab. The address bar is the address of the current tab, etc.
Even the home button and bookmarks are navigation controls that apply to the current tab. (although multi-tab bookmarks are an exception to that -- but I don't use those.)
Really the ONLY things that don't really semantically belong "inside the tab" is the settings hamburger menu and the the downloads button. But wasting space above the tabs for just those two items is silly; and I don't object them in the tab.
I certainly do not think tabs below the address bar makes any real sense at all. So why do you think its "broken"?
There are lots of things I think are broken, but that's not one of them.
but in terms of raw storage, a stack of 38 9.5mm tall 2.5" 2TB drives would only be 361mm
You think Microsoft is using "2.5" notebook hard drives" in its storage cloud?
Even if they used 1TB drives
Well, that WAS the size he specifically mentioned.
Are you a midget?
Pretty obvious to everyone but you that he'd have been referring to standard 3.5" drives.
You know... something like...
http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-...
I don't use it myself, but I have nothing against it in principle.
However, it started out as an add-on; and it really should have stayed an add-on. It is not core functionality of a browser; so it shouldn't be bloating the browser.
At least sync makes it so you can run your own sync server if you are so inclined; so its its 100x better than pocket which backs onto a 3rd party commercial service, but it still shouldn't' have been integrated.
Yes. I made that observation myself.
Thanks, that's interesting.
My calculus course was huge, and the lectures were done in a theatre that sat hundreds. But from there we were assigned to different "Tutorial groups" for lab work, homework, TA questions, etc.
I guess if course enrollment for a mandatory course like Calculus exceeded the seating capacity of the theatre, they'd have needed something like sections to run multiple theaters in parallel.
I could see an argument for saying they should all be run the same, especially if they are being given the same test. (When I was in unversity calculus was graded on the curve so the results from year to year would be normalized, but since they weren't running them in parallel they wouldn't have needed to normalize them... but assuming each section was sufficiently large curve grading by section could solve that problem as well.
it tries to criminalize "[disturbing] the functioning of a computer system".
Ok.
Performing an update is used as an example of how one could break that law, should it pass.
But the law, as written, is clearly *attempting* to criminalize malicious disturbance. And it's pure sophistry to argue that this should includes the lawful system maintainer installing patches and updates to maintain the system. Even if some of them require a reboot, or contain a bug that causes downtime, etc etc.
Only a complete idiot would interpret it that way. Granted, the world is full of complete idiots, some who would derive a benefit if they interpreted that way, so they would in fact interpret it that way, and throw piles of money around trying to convince everyone that it means what they want it to mean.
I'm not sure what a 'section' is. I didn't go to university in the states. But my Calculus I (derivatives), Calculus II (integrals), and Calculus III (intro to differential calc or somethign) courses were all taught in different semesters by different professors; all from the same big expensive textbook.
So if that's what's going on here, there is *some* merit to not having the kids have to buy 3 different textbooks, and one prof who decided to go off his own way with a different textbook would be ... an unpopular choice with the students and I could see a grievance being filed; especially if they have to buy the $180 book as well next semester anyway.
That said my calculus I/II/III textbook was "only" $110 bucks; the James Stewart one; I think there was even a slashdot article when he passed away last year ... because pretty much everyone uses that textbook. I still have it. I still use it.
For what its worth my interactions with the research scientists I mentioned is professional; I work with them to apply their experimental results; as part of product development. I've also consulted with them to develop software solutions to analyze large data sets to help them interpret experimental results, etc.
So yeah, I am working with them specifically to build bridges from their fields of expertise to mine. And digging through the unavoidable jargon can take some effort, but the language complexity just isn't there.
I think you are right to a point; that the papers they publish are written to a particular audience; and that audience has a particular set of expectations. But I maintain the whole thing is largely artificial. Its not who they are and not how they need to write to communicate effectively.
Its same as the way we all wear suits to meet the investors but never any other time. Its "expected" by that audience. But its not really us, and its not "necessary"... except to satisfy some sort of convention.
ditto for the language sophistication in academic papers. Its only necessary because its expected.
It's much easier to just use a standard image and use remote access tools to work on a virtual computer that's not within the jurisdiciton/reach of the people you're worried about.
Sigh. So first we tell people, if you don't want people to see it don't put it on the internet. Hell, if you really don't want it getting out, keep the machine its on airgapped. Simple, right? Then as soon as you want to cross the border ... you jump up and tell them if you don't want people to see it, hey, you should put it on the internet!!
Wait... what?
Its not bad advice per se; and relatively speaking the data may well be safer online then on a laptop at the border.
But its only relatively better... if we're talking about the same data that we earlier advised "don't put this online", then that advice still holds.
So what is the best way to take THAT data across the border with you?
hear as you chat with them as you take their orders at the MickeyD's drive thru.
Is that really what you've reduced yourself to here?
they are not writing for publication in a forum intended for their peers
I assure you that you are correct. They are absolutely writing specifically to attempt to impress their peers by trying to sound more intelligent perhaps sound more credible by writing more complex prose.
Your attempt to refute my statement disregards cost associated with the simplification - a core tenet of my claim.
I recognize that there would be a cost associated with the simplification, but I assert that the articles are not simply neglecting to pay that cost but in fact deliberately put effort into obfuscating things.
I've had conversations and correspondence with many scientists; and they do not normally speak or write anything like what they submit for publication.
Yes, they do use lots of jargon, and technical language as needed when needed, but the language and sentence structure they use normally is far more accessible.
Compare and contrast said classification of academic papers with something like patent filings, if you really want to see unnecessary obfuscation.
Except that's necessary ;-)
If it were plain the examiner would realize there was nothing new to patent.