You're lucky, I'd kill to have even half of the stated bandwidth you're getting. Around here connections top out at 5mbps. And that's assuming that you're in a part of the city where Qwest feels that you deserve access to more than 1.5mbps connections. Centurylink took them over, so I'll have to see how they do in terms of fixing the problems.
I'm not optimistic as I've never received better service after a buyout.
Because it's common practice for companies to include weasel words like that so that nobody can sue them, even when it's understood by everybody involved that they are in fact promising to provide the connection. By your logic, there's no need for an ISP promising to provide 5mbps for a 5mbps connection when they could just provide the same 1.5mbps connection that they provide to the folks on the 1.5mbps plan.
If they aren't able to provide the connection, they're still engaging in fraudulent advertising.
That was my reasoning for going with Qwest. I'm not surprised that they're at the bottom of giving what they're advertising. But, they don't block ports and they don't have caps, so I'm largely stuck with them. Comcast was complete crap back when they provided our internet. Every single time that somebody would buy rights to provide our cable modem service the service got worse. By the time that Comcrap got a hold of it things got to the point where it would be out 3-4 hours literally every day.
Qwest at least has been able to keep the connection on constantly since we switched to DSL. If it's ever been off at any time it hasn't been long enough to notice.
Yes, but unless the ISP is hiring incompetent engineers, they should have enough of a grasp on the amounts that they can get pretty damn close to the amount that they can actually provide. This would change very quickly if ISPs were held accountable for false and misleading advertisements.
Making sure that the boxes are mostly full when they leave the warehouse is easy enough, the problem is that cereal can and does settle during shipment. It's also a lot harder for the manufacturer to cheat customers when they're selling a weight rather than a volume. Trying to determine when they were cheating the customer would be a real pain otherwise.
You don't think a pharmaceutical would love to become commonly known as X Corp., inventors of the cure for skin cancer?
I realize that it's popular to be paranoid of the pharmaceutical corporations, but perhaps it has more to do with the fact that most conditions are complicated and have multiple factors which lead to them.
Unless of course, you've got evidence that this is actually a conspiracy in which case I recommend that you take that evidence to your local news organization so that they can do an expose on it.
I take it you don't have a medical degree. Why on earth are you handing out medical advice on this?
Psychiatry is a complicated practice, nobody really knows what's going on up there, but to come in and suggest that they shouldn't be prescribing something like this because it's in the wrong classification is completely ignorant. Most doctors genuinely want to help, they're not going to be prescribing Seroquel if the patients aren't getting any better or if there's something else that works better.
There's already a way of doing that, you report it to the FDA or whatever the equivalent is in your area.
Individuals reporting these sorts of things to the public is the last thing you want to have. People have a tendency to draw correlations which aren't realistic and as soon as people find out about a possible side effect you have to worry about the placebo effect. Which on a side note is getting stronger at this point making a lot of medications passed by the FDA unable to beat a placebo if they had to go through trials now.
The problem with free speech is that there's no guarantee that those wishing to exercise it have any idea what they're talking about. Which is normally not much of a problem, but the concerns that the companies are expressing are definitely real, some medications do have legitimate off label use, but there's a tremendous liability to the companies when medications are being used for things they aren't cleared to treat, not to mention their inability to comment on issues about a specific individual who may or may not have had a particular side effect from their medication.
Get a better insurance company. The one I've got doesn't provide coverage for medications that haven't met their approval, which is much harder to get than the FDA approval is. The doctors can still order it up and get coverage, but there has to be some justification as to why the normal ones won't work.
As a result of that all those nasty medications lately that have been getting yanked haven't been prescribed by their providers.
When I saw the headline, I thought that the companies were being ridiculous. Then I thought about all the trouble with unsubstantiated accusations that immunizations can cause autism.
They're a search engine, the cases where that was found to be the case were dealing with specialist sites that specifically provided links to copyright materials rather than just a generalized search engine.
Neither Yahoo nor MS has anyways of knowing whether any of the information is in violation of copyright law. I doubt very much that the courts are going to find otherwise should it come to that.
You mean other than the fact that the GPL mandates that the source be provided? I don't personally agree that people should be forced to release their own code because they borrowed somebody elses code, but the GPL does require that and so they have to do it.
If they don't want to, there are options, such as getting the license changed or not using the code. But, it is a violation of the terms of the license.
Unless Yahoo is hosting the files, why on Earth should they be responsible for refusing to change their search results? The last thing we need is for search providers to drop results just because they're illegal.
There's a lot of libertarians around here. But most folks are just concerned with the abuses of power that the RIAA and MPAA engage in and the robbing of the public domain to profit an oligarchy.
Few people here think that a person shouldn't be able to make a living creating copyright works, just that the time period needs to be balanced with the right of the people to own their culture.
The difference is that before those chips didn't typically pass the QA for their originally intended clock speed. Now, you're paying for a chip that could have been sold at the higher clock speed, but isn't because Intel figured out that they could make you pay to use that last bit of capacity. The machine already has to have cooling and a chip that's capable of handling the higher clock speed. The only thing that's missing is Intel's OK to do so.
I'm not sure how precisely that's OK. If Intel doesn't like the consequences of selling products, then perhaps Intel should get out of the business of selling things for profit. Once one buys it, they have precisely no rights to dictate how the product is used.
No, they're selling you a chip that can pass QA as a faster chip and then charging you money in order to use the full capacity. In the past it wasn't an issue as the processors being downclocked were typically not capable of passing QA for their full clockspeed and were subsequently marked down so that they could pass the QA at the lower clockspeed. There were some that were nonetheless capable of handling the full speed, but most would become unstable or have issues that the more stringent testing would require.
Ultimately, it's BS and just another example of Intel behaving poorly.
I don't buy Intel chips because they engage in this sort of scamming. They've sold you a chip for $200 and are telling you what you can and can't do with it. You've paid for a chip that can pass the QA process as a faster chip, but they're not going to let you use the full capacity that you've paid for unless you pay they're extra money.
You'd have to be a real tool to think that it's not a scam.
Because Intel was willing to charge say $200 for a chip that had those capabilities, but won't let you make full use of the chip without paying extra for the privilege of using the full capacity of the chip.
Intel sold you the processor for $200 and it happens to be the same chip as the one that costs say $300.
I'd say that it's a scam and that the DoJ ought to come down hard on them.
Slashdot Mirror
You're lucky, I'd kill to have even half of the stated bandwidth you're getting. Around here connections top out at 5mbps. And that's assuming that you're in a part of the city where Qwest feels that you deserve access to more than 1.5mbps connections. Centurylink took them over, so I'll have to see how they do in terms of fixing the problems.
I'm not optimistic as I've never received better service after a buyout.
Because it's common practice for companies to include weasel words like that so that nobody can sue them, even when it's understood by everybody involved that they are in fact promising to provide the connection. By your logic, there's no need for an ISP promising to provide 5mbps for a 5mbps connection when they could just provide the same 1.5mbps connection that they provide to the folks on the 1.5mbps plan.
If they aren't able to provide the connection, they're still engaging in fraudulent advertising.
That was my reasoning for going with Qwest. I'm not surprised that they're at the bottom of giving what they're advertising. But, they don't block ports and they don't have caps, so I'm largely stuck with them. Comcast was complete crap back when they provided our internet. Every single time that somebody would buy rights to provide our cable modem service the service got worse. By the time that Comcrap got a hold of it things got to the point where it would be out 3-4 hours literally every day.
Qwest at least has been able to keep the connection on constantly since we switched to DSL. If it's ever been off at any time it hasn't been long enough to notice.
Yes, but unless the ISP is hiring incompetent engineers, they should have enough of a grasp on the amounts that they can get pretty damn close to the amount that they can actually provide. This would change very quickly if ISPs were held accountable for false and misleading advertisements.
Qwest gives the same amount of bandwidth up whether regardless of what plan you're on. Which is good to know now if I want to downgrade.
Making sure that the boxes are mostly full when they leave the warehouse is easy enough, the problem is that cereal can and does settle during shipment. It's also a lot harder for the manufacturer to cheat customers when they're selling a weight rather than a volume. Trying to determine when they were cheating the customer would be a real pain otherwise.
You don't think a pharmaceutical would love to become commonly known as X Corp., inventors of the cure for skin cancer?
I realize that it's popular to be paranoid of the pharmaceutical corporations, but perhaps it has more to do with the fact that most conditions are complicated and have multiple factors which lead to them.
Unless of course, you've got evidence that this is actually a conspiracy in which case I recommend that you take that evidence to your local news organization so that they can do an expose on it.
I take it you don't have a medical degree. Why on earth are you handing out medical advice on this?
Psychiatry is a complicated practice, nobody really knows what's going on up there, but to come in and suggest that they shouldn't be prescribing something like this because it's in the wrong classification is completely ignorant. Most doctors genuinely want to help, they're not going to be prescribing Seroquel if the patients aren't getting any better or if there's something else that works better.
There's already a way of doing that, you report it to the FDA or whatever the equivalent is in your area.
Individuals reporting these sorts of things to the public is the last thing you want to have. People have a tendency to draw correlations which aren't realistic and as soon as people find out about a possible side effect you have to worry about the placebo effect. Which on a side note is getting stronger at this point making a lot of medications passed by the FDA unable to beat a placebo if they had to go through trials now.
The problem with free speech is that there's no guarantee that those wishing to exercise it have any idea what they're talking about. Which is normally not much of a problem, but the concerns that the companies are expressing are definitely real, some medications do have legitimate off label use, but there's a tremendous liability to the companies when medications are being used for things they aren't cleared to treat, not to mention their inability to comment on issues about a specific individual who may or may not have had a particular side effect from their medication.
Get a better insurance company. The one I've got doesn't provide coverage for medications that haven't met their approval, which is much harder to get than the FDA approval is. The doctors can still order it up and get coverage, but there has to be some justification as to why the normal ones won't work.
As a result of that all those nasty medications lately that have been getting yanked haven't been prescribed by their providers.
When I saw the headline, I thought that the companies were being ridiculous. Then I thought about all the trouble with unsubstantiated accusations that immunizations can cause autism.
They're a search engine, the cases where that was found to be the case were dealing with specialist sites that specifically provided links to copyright materials rather than just a generalized search engine.
Neither Yahoo nor MS has anyways of knowing whether any of the information is in violation of copyright law. I doubt very much that the courts are going to find otherwise should it come to that.
They'd have fewer funding problems if they named them after GOP Reps.
You mean other than the fact that the GPL mandates that the source be provided? I don't personally agree that people should be forced to release their own code because they borrowed somebody elses code, but the GPL does require that and so they have to do it.
If they don't want to, there are options, such as getting the license changed or not using the code. But, it is a violation of the terms of the license.
Unless Yahoo is hosting the files, why on Earth should they be responsible for refusing to change their search results? The last thing we need is for search providers to drop results just because they're illegal.
There's a lot of libertarians around here. But most folks are just concerned with the abuses of power that the RIAA and MPAA engage in and the robbing of the public domain to profit an oligarchy.
Few people here think that a person shouldn't be able to make a living creating copyright works, just that the time period needs to be balanced with the right of the people to own their culture.
That wasn't my point, but regardless glad to be of assistance.
They seem to still be in active development adding support for new hardware over time.
With the BSD license it would be a non-issue because people can do what they want with it.
That's not to say that people like like the BSD license think it's OK to violate the licensing agreement.
The difference is that before those chips didn't typically pass the QA for their originally intended clock speed. Now, you're paying for a chip that could have been sold at the higher clock speed, but isn't because Intel figured out that they could make you pay to use that last bit of capacity. The machine already has to have cooling and a chip that's capable of handling the higher clock speed. The only thing that's missing is Intel's OK to do so.
I'm not sure how precisely that's OK. If Intel doesn't like the consequences of selling products, then perhaps Intel should get out of the business of selling things for profit. Once one buys it, they have precisely no rights to dictate how the product is used.
No, they're selling you a chip that can pass QA as a faster chip and then charging you money in order to use the full capacity. In the past it wasn't an issue as the processors being downclocked were typically not capable of passing QA for their full clockspeed and were subsequently marked down so that they could pass the QA at the lower clockspeed. There were some that were nonetheless capable of handling the full speed, but most would become unstable or have issues that the more stringent testing would require.
Ultimately, it's BS and just another example of Intel behaving poorly.
I don't buy Intel chips because they engage in this sort of scamming. They've sold you a chip for $200 and are telling you what you can and can't do with it. You've paid for a chip that can pass the QA process as a faster chip, but they're not going to let you use the full capacity that you've paid for unless you pay they're extra money.
You'd have to be a real tool to think that it's not a scam.
Firefox 6 is 1 better than Firefox 5, duh.
You'd be an idiot to pay even if they did. My Sansa is running Rockbox. Which reminds me that there's probably an update for that out by now.
Because Intel was willing to charge say $200 for a chip that had those capabilities, but won't let you make full use of the chip without paying extra for the privilege of using the full capacity of the chip.
Intel sold you the processor for $200 and it happens to be the same chip as the one that costs say $300.
I'd say that it's a scam and that the DoJ ought to come down hard on them.