> The only way the US will compete, ever, is if our > standard of living drops...a lot.
Either that, or their standard of living rises... a lot. How is that possible, though, when their current standard of living is so low, and their population is so large? Maybe if nanotechnology progresses quickly enough to bring the Indian standard of living up to something remotely close to middle class America... On the other, if technology stays as it is, then yes, it does seem our standard of living will drop a lot.
I realize maybe it did sound a bit tongue in cheek. I was being totally serious though. The point is that people equate high bandwidth usage with being a bad "netizen", whereas actually the opposite extreme is just as harmful to internet economics. If the average user were to gradually increase their bandwidth consumption, at a steady and moderate rate, it would provide the necessary impetus for providers to keep improving their technology.
Okay okay, I'll admit that it's true SOME users may be using too much bandwidth and that it may possibly be justified to limit their use. However, despite the persuasive arguments presented here by people who have had experience running ISP's, it's also important for us not to lose sight of the other side of the argument, namely, that by having the right to arbitrarily pick out certain users as "abusers", ISP's may themselves abuse their power in order to fatten up their wallets at the same time as reducing quality of service.
ISP's are targetting users who are significantly above the average. Of course, however, the average is made up of highs and lows. ISP's are now trying to cut away the highs. If they succeed, then the middle becomes the new high, just waiting for the next onslaught. From the perspective of money-grubbing, backwards-looking ISP's the problem is the power user who wants too much bandwidth. In the big picture, however, the REAL problem is the low bandwidth user, who refuses to use their fair share and encourages ISP's to pursue these regressive policies.
Just try to picture what would happen if everyone became so paranoid and timid that they drastically reduced their bandwidth usage: the AVERAGE goes down, and then people who were previously average end up above average. The ISP's wallet gets fattened by the cost reductions, but their appetite just goes up. The executives feel the need to continue their "growth" to satisfy the owners. The next round of victims gets targetted by the ISP. Revenue growth ends up being sought through the ultimately destructive strategy of a gradual reduction of "costs" which are in fact hardware investments, without which the next generation of bandwidth and applications could never arrive.
Therefore, if AT ALL possible, always try to use AT LEAST as much bandwidth as the average user, if not slightly more. They can't terminate 50% of users, or even 40% of users. In fact, you could probably be in the top 10% without getting complaints. Let's be conservative though, and choose to use only enough bandwidth to be in the 75% (i.e. top 25%) Imagine if everyone did this. If everyone tried to do this, the average bandwidth usage would gradually increase, making it harder for the ISP to extort and terrorize power users. If the upward drift happens gradually, technology would hopefully keep up, and we would gradually get faster and faster bandwidth. Isn't that what progress should be?
If, instead, people reacted by cutting down on bandwidth and uploads, then the average might DECREASE. Then, the ISP could boot off the biggest users, reduce their infrastructure investment, hoping instead to make money off of the low-power users. After the pool of clueless low-power users is fully tapped, and with no infrastructure investment, the only further avenue for squeezing out more profits would be to reduce expenses even further by setting off another round of kicking off intensive users. With each successive wave of account terminations, the average usage would decrease, thereby decreasing the expense per revenue stream. There is a clear financial incentive for this scenario, which would ultimately lead to stagnation.
So, IF YOU ARE USING LESS THAN THE AVERAGE BANDWIDTH, then THIS IS YOUR FAULT.
It may sound like I'm joking, but I'm dead serious.
If you are using less than the average bandwidth, you are actually doing everyone a huge disfavour. Instead, you should be everyone a huge favour (including the industry, and hardware makers) by using MORE bandwidth. Share some torrents. Seed some even. Let it run for a few days a month. Try to be at least in the 60% percentile in terms bandwidth use.
In the long run, everyone will benefit.
Encourage technological progress! Use more bandwidth! (That is, you're not already in the top 5%. If you are already in the top 5%, then maybe cut down a bit, or just be careful and hold steady. Some day, if everyone else is as altruistic as you are (i.e. download and upload as much stuff)
Actually, it probably IS copyright that Mike Rowe is being sued under, and here's why. Under Canadian trademark law, a person is allowed to use his or her own name. Smart & Biggar are, I am sure, aware of this. That is probably why they are trying to sue for copyright infringement. The fact that they are making such a stretch just shows how weak they feel their case would be in an action for trademark infringement. So it could be Mike Rowe stands a good chance after all.
Damn typos: I said "wear user".... i meant "weak user"
Sorry.
Anyway, since I'm posting again I might as well add that corporate executives, and corporations, respond to market signals, and sometimes in perverse and destructive ways. It might sound weird that I'm advocating the heavy usage of a resource by people who might not otherwise need it. However, the reality is that if these low-power users increase, the "savings" don't get passed on to other needy high-power users, but instead increase the profits. This could set off a highly undesirable direction in shareholder expectations and set off management in a dangerous direction of "growth" through cost reduction. Such a path would choke off investment in higher bandwidth for the future. On the other hand, if these lower-power users become higher power, they will prevent or dissuade the company leadership from embarking on an immediately profitable but ultimately self-destructive project of "(revenue) growth by (technological) stagnation".
If the users don't allow the executives to achieve growth by stagnation, then the board cannot do anything about it. It's not the CEO's fault if the users want what they pay for. The CEO keeps his job. The stock holders give up their hopes for immediate profits through cost reduction. In the end, though, the CEOs need to find something to do to justify their existence and promise a path to increased revenue. And only if this path to increased revenue involves technological progress, will we see technological progress.
The parent is right that the average is made up of highs and lows. And ISP's are now trying to cut away the highs. If they succeed, then the middle becomes the new high, just waiting for the next pogrom. From the perspective of money-grubbing, backwards-looking ISP's the problem is the power user. The REAL problem however, is the lows. The real problem is, in fact, not the power user, but the "wear user".
Just try to picture what would happen if everyone became so paranoid and timid that they drastically reduced their bandwidth usage: the AVERAGE goes down, and then people who were previously average end up above average. The ISP's wallet gets fattened by the cost reductions, but their appetite just goes up. The executives feel the need to continue their "growth" to satisfy the owners. The next round of victims gets targetted by the ISP. Revenue growth ends up being sought through the ultimately destructive strategy of a gradual reduction of "costs" which are in fact hardware investments, without which the next generation of bandwidth and applications could never arrive.
Therefore, if AT ALL possible, always try to use AT LEAST as much bandwidth as the average user, if not slightly more. They can't terminate 50% of users, or even 40% of users. In fact, you could probably be in the top 10% without getting complaints. Let's be conservative though, and choose to use only enough bandwidth to be in the 75% (i.e. top 25%) Imagine if everyone did this. If everyone tried to do this, the average bandwidth usage would gradually increase, making it harder for the ISP to extort and terrorize power users. If the upward drift happens gradually, technology would hopefully keep up, and we would gradually get faster and faster bandwidth. Isn't that what progress should be?
If, instead, people reacted by cutting down on bandwidth and uploads, then the average might DECREASE. Then, the ISP could boot off the biggest users, reduce their infrastructure investment, hoping instead to make money off of the low-power users. After the pool of clueless low-power users is fully tapped, and with no infrastructure investment, the only further avenue for squeezing out more profits would be to reduce expenses even further by setting off another round of kicking off intensive users. With each successive wave of account terminations, the average usage would decrease, thereby decreasing the expense per revenue stream. There is a clear financial incentive for this scenario, which would ultimately lead to stagnation.
So, IF YOU ARE USING LESS THAN THE AVERAGE BANDWIDTH, then THIS IS YOUR FAULT.
It may sound like I'm joking, but I'm dead serious.
If you are using less than the average bandwidth, you are actually doing everyone a huge disfavour. Instead, you should be everyone a huge favour (including the industry, and hardware makers) by using MORE bandwidth. Share some torrents. Seed some even. Let it run for a few days a month. Try to be at least in the 60% percentile in terms bandwidth use.
In the long run, everyone will benefit.
Encourage technological progress! Use more bandwidth! (That is, you're not already in the top 5%. If you are already in the top 5%, then maybe cut down a bit, or just be careful and hold steady. Some day, if everyone else is as altruistic as you are (i.e. download and upload as much stuff) the average will move up, and you will no longer be the top 5%, at which point you could increase your usage accordingly.
Set up a torrent seed on your grandma's computer, sharing a distro or something. Limit her upload to 5k. Let it run. She'll be doing her part to help make the world a better place.
It's easy to be an altruist. Get kazaa. Or edonkey. Or go to suprnova. Share some linux distros. It's fun, and it will make you feel warm fuzzies inside knowing you're helping the internet grow.
YEs, but as I pointed out in another thread here, if everyone is so paranoid and timid that they drastically reduce their bandwidth usage, then the AVERAGE does down, and then people who were previously average end up above average and targetted by the ISP. Therefore, if at all possible, always try to use AT LEAST as much bandwidth as the average user, if not slightly more. They can't cut off 50% of users, or even 40% of users. In fact, you could probably be in the top 10% without getting complaints. Let's be conservative though, and choose to use only enough bandwidth to be in the 75% (i.e. top 25%) Imagine if everyone did this. If everyone tried to do this, the average bandwidth usage would gradually increase, making it harder for the ISP to extort and terrorize power users. If the upward drift happens gradually, technology would hopefully keep up, and we would gradually get faster and faster bandwidth. Isn't that what progress should be?
If, instead, people reacted by cutting down on bandwidth and uploads, then the average might DECREASE. Then, the ISP could boot off the biggest users, reduce their infrastructure investment, hoping instead to make money off of the low-power users. After the pool of clueless low-power users is fully tapped, and with no infrastructure investment, the only further avenue for squeezing out more profits would be to reduce expenses even further by setting off another round of kicking off intensive users. With each successive wave of account terminations, the average usage would decrease, thereby decreasing the expense per revenue stream. There is a clear financial incentive for this scenario, which would ultimately lead to stagnation.
So, IF YOU ARE USING LESS THAN THE AVERAGE BANDWIDTH, then THIS IS YOUR FAULT.
It may sound like I'm joking, but I'm dead serious.
If you are using less than the average bandwidth, you are actually doing everyone a huge disfavour. Instead, you should be everyone a huge favour (including the industry, and hardware makers) by using MORE bandwidth. Share some torrents. Seed some even. Let it run for a few days a month. Try to be at least in the 60% percentile in terms bandwidth use.
In the long run, everyone will benefit.
Encourage technological progress! Use more bandwidth! (That is, you're not already in the top 5%. If you are already in the top 5%, then maybe cut down a bit, or just be careful and hold steady. Some day, if everyone else is as altruistic as you are (i.e. download and upload as much stuff) the average will move up, and you will no longer be the top 5%, at which point you could increase your usage accordingly.
It's easy to be an altruist. Get kazaa. Or edonkey. Or go to suprnova. Share some linux distros. It's fun, and it will make you feel warm fuzzies inside knowing you're helping the internet grow.
I am not kidding. If you are using substantially less than the average, you are also part of this problem (though your ISP may love you). At least try to increase your usage to closer to average, or even slightly above average. If everyone did that, then the average would move up, and everyone wins.
Acceptable bandwidth usage is like hugz and luv: the more you use, the more everyone has.
Either your skills are so indispensible that people are willing to hire you regardless, or else you somehow distance yourself from responsibility for the actions of your past associations.
That's assuming the 3 people are not downloading from each other as well (maybe they're seeds or something) If you have 3 BT users, each uploading at 26 kb/s, then the total available UL bandwidth is 78kb/s, split among the three. If the other two users are seeds, then yes, you get 78 kb/s dl. If all three are downloading at the same rate, everyone only gets 26 kb/s.
What every single discussion of this issue has neglected to consider is that it is possible for you to borrow your friend's CD without having physically having it in your possession. For instance you could get his permission to use his CD, and then send someone to go pick it up for you. Or, you could borrow his CD AND his computer and then use his computer and broadband connection to send the contents of the CD to yourself. Thus, you are copying something for yourself. Who is uploading? Is it you or your friend? Stripped of all the legal construction, really it is the computer that is uploading, under instructions of a program, most likely written by a 3rd party, and in response to a query or request from you, the downloader. In order to assign blame and responsibility, however, the law has to attribute the actions of the computer to someone. The question then becomes: who is in charge of the computer as it uploads a packet?
Arguments could be made that, unless you have complete control over a computer, you are not really borrowing it. On the other hand, one could also argue that you are borrowing timeslices on his computer and that the uploaded packets are occurring during the timeslices in which you have control of his CPU.
A P2P user could argue that, were it not for commands sent by the downloader, the P2P program would not have sent any packets upstream. Thus, the downloader is instructing and, in effect, controlling the computer insofar as it is uploading a file.
To stretch things a bit, you could make an analogy with CDs. If you take the position that a person is responsible for everything done by an object that they own, then by lending your CD to someone else, you would be equally guilty of "copying", for the following reason: when your friend puts the CD into a player, a laser strikes the surface of the CD. The CD causes the light to be reflected in a certain way such that the light contains a copy of the data on the CD. So the CD is engaged in copying. Since you are the owner of the CD, you are guilty of copying. That's a bit of a strawman, but that's essentially the position we want to attack.
We want to say that a computer that is owned by you and is used to send a file to another computer does not necessarily make you guilty of copying if the computer is being borrowed by the person to whom the data is being sent.
I've thought about this issue, since I've seen this coming to Canada for some time. It seems to me one good way of making sure the private copying provisions of the Canadian Copyright Act do apply to P2P is by making sure that your p2p software "lends" a portion of your harddrive to the other user.
The case against p2p in Canada is based on the premise that private copying provision only applies to a person making a copy for their own use. A person cannot make a copy for someone else. The questions becomes: how do you characterize a stream of data coming off harddrive A and onto harddrive B? Is person A "copying" the data? It is taken as given that the private copying provision DOES apply to a person borrowing a CD from a friend and copying it. But how about if the person B borrows a harddrive from a friend A and copies THAT? Now what if person B borrows person A's computer, without necessarily moving it physically. This is done with colocs, so it's nothing new. What if person B borrows person A's computer for a few computing cycles at a time, with only certain permissions?
Then, if person B is the one borrowing and using computer A at the instant that it is transmitting data, the scenario falls squarely within what the private copying provision is intended to include.
I don't know about Dell, as I've never had to deal with their customer support. Whenever I've called American Express, however, I've found that the many customer support people who had very slight Indian accents were extremely curteous and helpful. On the other hand, I've spoken to some women with Southern accents who were real bitches. I'm just saying you can't generalize.
The guy wasn't even asking for 200 dollars as far as I could tell. The better analogy for what he did is walking up to someone and threatening to punch their face IF THEY DON'T STOP KEYING YOUR CAR.
Slashdot Mirror
> The only way the US will compete, ever, is if our > standard of living drops...a lot.
Either that, or their standard of living rises... a lot. How is that possible, though, when their current standard of living is so low, and their population is so large? Maybe if nanotechnology progresses quickly enough to bring the Indian standard of living up to something remotely close to middle class America... On the other, if technology stays as it is, then yes, it does seem our standard of living will drop a lot.
I realize maybe it did sound a bit tongue in cheek. I was being totally serious though. The point is that people equate high bandwidth usage with being a bad "netizen", whereas actually the opposite extreme is just as harmful to internet economics. If the average user were to gradually increase their bandwidth consumption, at a steady and moderate rate, it would provide the necessary impetus for providers to keep improving their technology.
Okay, I don't get this, a phsycian, with the handle womenshealth, wants to join the crowd of sad computer fanboy slashdotter computer technologists?
I don't understand...
Okay okay, I'll admit that it's true SOME users may be using too much bandwidth and that it may possibly be justified to limit their use. However, despite the persuasive arguments presented here by people who have had experience running ISP's, it's also important for us not to lose sight of the other side of the argument, namely, that by having the right to arbitrarily pick out certain users as "abusers", ISP's may themselves abuse their power in order to fatten up their wallets at the same time as reducing quality of service.
ISP's are targetting users who are significantly above the average. Of course, however, the average is made up of highs and lows. ISP's are now trying to cut away the highs. If they succeed, then the middle becomes the new high, just waiting for the next onslaught. From the perspective of money-grubbing, backwards-looking ISP's the problem is the power user who wants too much bandwidth. In the big picture, however, the REAL problem is the low bandwidth user, who refuses to use their fair share and encourages ISP's to pursue these regressive policies.
Just try to picture what would happen if everyone became so paranoid and timid that they drastically reduced their bandwidth usage: the AVERAGE goes down, and then people who were previously average end up above average. The ISP's wallet gets fattened by the cost reductions, but their appetite just goes up. The executives feel the need to continue their "growth" to satisfy the owners. The next round of victims gets targetted by the ISP. Revenue growth ends up being sought through the ultimately destructive strategy of a gradual reduction of "costs" which are in fact hardware investments, without which the next generation of bandwidth and applications could never arrive.
Therefore, if AT ALL possible, always try to use AT LEAST as much bandwidth as the average user, if not slightly more. They can't terminate 50% of users, or even 40% of users. In fact, you could probably be in the top 10% without getting complaints. Let's be conservative though, and choose to use only enough bandwidth to be in the 75% (i.e. top 25%) Imagine if everyone did this. If everyone tried to do this, the average bandwidth usage would gradually increase, making it harder for the ISP to extort and terrorize power users. If the upward drift happens gradually, technology would hopefully keep up, and we would gradually get faster and faster bandwidth. Isn't that what progress should be?
If, instead, people reacted by cutting down on bandwidth and uploads, then the average might DECREASE. Then, the ISP could boot off the biggest users, reduce their infrastructure investment, hoping instead to make money off of the low-power users. After the pool of clueless low-power users is fully tapped, and with no infrastructure investment, the only further avenue for squeezing out more profits would be to reduce expenses even further by setting off another round of kicking off intensive users. With each successive wave of account terminations, the average usage would decrease, thereby decreasing the expense per revenue stream. There is a clear financial incentive for this scenario, which would ultimately lead to stagnation.
So, IF YOU ARE USING LESS THAN THE AVERAGE BANDWIDTH, then THIS IS YOUR FAULT.
It may sound like I'm joking, but I'm dead serious.
If you are using less than the average bandwidth, you are actually doing everyone a huge disfavour. Instead, you should be everyone a huge favour (including the industry, and hardware makers) by using MORE bandwidth. Share some torrents. Seed some even. Let it run for a few days a month. Try to be at least in the 60% percentile in terms bandwidth use.
In the long run, everyone will benefit.
Encourage technological progress! Use more bandwidth! (That is, you're not already in the top 5%. If you are already in the top 5%, then maybe cut down a bit, or just be careful and hold steady. Some day, if everyone else is as altruistic as you are (i.e. download and upload as much stuff)
My guess is the remaining 10%? What do I win?
Actually, it probably IS copyright that Mike Rowe
is being sued under, and here's why. Under
Canadian trademark law, a person is allowed to
use his or her own name. Smart & Biggar
are, I am sure, aware of this. That is probably
why they are trying to sue for copyright infringement.
The fact that they are making such a stretch
just shows how weak they feel their case would be
in an action for trademark infringement. So
it could be Mike Rowe stands a good chance after all.
So he just lies about it to get laid? How sad
Damn typos: I said "wear user".... i meant "weak user"
Sorry.
Anyway, since I'm posting again I might as well add that corporate executives, and corporations, respond to market signals, and sometimes in perverse and destructive ways. It might sound weird that I'm advocating the heavy usage of a resource by people who might not otherwise need it. However, the reality is that if these low-power users increase, the "savings" don't get passed on to other needy high-power users, but instead increase the profits. This could set off a highly undesirable direction in shareholder expectations and set off management in a dangerous direction of "growth" through cost reduction. Such a path would choke off investment in higher bandwidth for the future. On the other hand, if these lower-power users become higher power, they will prevent or dissuade the company leadership from embarking on an immediately profitable but ultimately self-destructive project of "(revenue) growth by (technological) stagnation".
If the users don't allow the executives to achieve growth by stagnation, then the board cannot do anything about it. It's not the CEO's fault if the users want what they pay for. The CEO keeps his job. The stock holders give up their hopes for immediate profits through cost reduction. In the end, though, the CEOs need to find something to do to justify their existence and promise a path to increased revenue. And only if this path to increased revenue involves technological progress, will we see technological progress.
The parent is right that the average is made up of highs and lows. And ISP's are now trying to cut away the highs. If they succeed, then the middle becomes the new high, just waiting for the next pogrom. From the perspective of money-grubbing, backwards-looking ISP's the problem is the power user. The REAL problem however, is the lows. The real problem is, in fact, not the power user, but the "wear user".
Just try to picture what would happen if everyone became so paranoid and timid that they drastically reduced their bandwidth usage: the AVERAGE goes down, and then people who were previously average end up above average. The ISP's wallet gets fattened by the cost reductions, but their appetite just goes up. The executives feel the need to continue their "growth" to satisfy the owners. The next round of victims gets targetted by the ISP. Revenue growth ends up being sought through the ultimately destructive strategy of a gradual reduction of "costs" which are in fact hardware investments, without which the next generation of bandwidth and applications could never arrive.
Therefore, if AT ALL possible, always try to use AT LEAST as much bandwidth as the average user, if not slightly more. They can't terminate 50% of users, or even 40% of users. In fact, you could probably be in the top 10% without getting complaints. Let's be conservative though, and choose to use only enough bandwidth to be in the 75% (i.e. top 25%) Imagine if everyone did this. If everyone tried to do this, the average bandwidth usage would gradually increase, making it harder for the ISP to extort and terrorize power users. If the upward drift happens gradually, technology would hopefully keep up, and we would gradually get faster and faster bandwidth. Isn't that what progress should be?
If, instead, people reacted by cutting down on bandwidth and uploads, then the average might DECREASE. Then, the ISP could boot off the biggest users, reduce their infrastructure investment, hoping instead to make money off of the low-power users. After the pool of clueless low-power users is fully tapped, and with no infrastructure investment, the only further avenue for squeezing out more profits would be to reduce expenses even further by setting off another round of kicking off intensive users. With each successive wave of account terminations, the average usage would decrease, thereby decreasing the expense per revenue stream. There is a clear financial incentive for this scenario, which would ultimately lead to stagnation.
So, IF YOU ARE USING LESS THAN THE AVERAGE BANDWIDTH, then THIS IS YOUR FAULT.
It may sound like I'm joking, but I'm dead serious.
If you are using less than the average bandwidth, you are actually doing everyone a huge disfavour. Instead, you should be everyone a huge favour (including the industry, and hardware makers) by using MORE bandwidth. Share some torrents. Seed some even. Let it run for a few days a month. Try to be at least in the 60% percentile in terms bandwidth use.
In the long run, everyone will benefit.
Encourage technological progress! Use more bandwidth! (That is, you're not already in the top 5%. If you are already in the top 5%, then maybe cut down a bit, or just be careful and hold steady. Some day, if everyone else is as altruistic as you are (i.e. download and upload as much stuff) the average will move up, and you will no longer be the top 5%, at which point you could increase your usage accordingly.
Set up a torrent seed on your grandma's computer, sharing a distro or something. Limit her upload to 5k. Let it run. She'll be doing her part to help make the world a better place.
It's easy to be an altruist. Get kazaa. Or edonkey. Or go to suprnova. Share some linux distros. It's fun, and it will make you feel warm fuzzies inside knowing you're helping the internet grow.
YEs, but as I pointed out in another thread here, if everyone is so paranoid and timid that they drastically reduce their bandwidth usage, then the AVERAGE does down, and then people who were previously average end up above average and targetted by the ISP. Therefore, if at all possible, always try to use AT LEAST as much bandwidth as the average user, if not slightly more. They can't cut off 50% of users, or even 40% of users. In fact, you could probably be in the top 10% without getting complaints. Let's be conservative though, and choose to use only enough bandwidth to be in the 75% (i.e. top 25%) Imagine if everyone did this. If everyone tried to do this, the average bandwidth usage would gradually increase, making it harder for the ISP to extort and terrorize power users. If the upward drift happens gradually, technology would hopefully keep up, and we would gradually get faster and faster bandwidth. Isn't that what progress should be?
If, instead, people reacted by cutting down on bandwidth and uploads, then the average might DECREASE. Then, the ISP could boot off the biggest users, reduce their infrastructure investment, hoping instead to make money off of the low-power users. After the pool of clueless low-power users is fully tapped, and with no infrastructure investment, the only further avenue for squeezing out more profits would be to reduce expenses even further by setting off another round of kicking off intensive users. With each successive wave of account terminations, the average usage would decrease, thereby decreasing the expense per revenue stream. There is a clear financial incentive for this scenario, which would ultimately lead to stagnation.
So, IF YOU ARE USING LESS THAN THE AVERAGE BANDWIDTH, then THIS IS YOUR FAULT.
It may sound like I'm joking, but I'm dead serious.
If you are using less than the average bandwidth, you are actually doing everyone a huge disfavour. Instead, you should be everyone a huge favour (including the industry, and hardware makers) by using MORE bandwidth. Share some torrents. Seed some even. Let it run for a few days a month. Try to be at least in the 60% percentile in terms bandwidth use.
In the long run, everyone will benefit.
Encourage technological progress! Use more bandwidth! (That is, you're not already in the top 5%. If you are already in the top 5%, then maybe cut down a bit, or just be careful and hold steady. Some day, if everyone else is as altruistic as you are (i.e. download and upload as much stuff) the average will move up, and you will no longer be the top 5%, at which point you could increase your usage accordingly.
It's easy to be an altruist. Get kazaa. Or edonkey. Or go to suprnova. Share some linux distros. It's fun, and it will make you feel warm fuzzies inside knowing you're helping the internet grow.
I am not kidding. If you are using substantially less than the average, you are also part of this problem (though your ISP may love you). At least try to increase your usage to closer to average, or even slightly above average. If everyone did that, then the average would move up, and everyone wins.
Acceptable bandwidth usage is like hugz and luv: the more you use, the more everyone has.
or e-bullocks
Either your skills are so indispensible that people are willing to hire you regardless, or else you somehow distance yourself from responsibility for the actions of your past associations.
would you pay for the real estate costs? The store could probably be rented out otherwise as apartments
That's assuming the 3 people are not downloading from each other as well (maybe they're seeds or something) If you have 3 BT users, each uploading at 26 kb/s, then the total available UL bandwidth is 78kb/s, split among the three. If the other two users are seeds, then yes, you get 78 kb/s dl. If all three are downloading at the same rate, everyone only gets 26 kb/s.
What every single discussion of this issue has neglected to consider is that it is possible for you to borrow your friend's CD without having physically having it in your possession. For instance you could get his permission to use his CD, and then send someone to go pick it up for you. Or, you could borrow his CD AND his computer and then use his computer and broadband connection to send the contents of the CD to yourself. Thus, you are copying something for yourself. Who is uploading? Is it you or your friend? Stripped of all the legal construction, really it is the computer that is uploading, under instructions of a program, most likely written by a 3rd party, and in response to a query or request from you, the downloader. In order to assign blame and responsibility, however, the law has to attribute the actions of the computer to someone. The question then becomes: who is in charge of the computer as it uploads a packet?
Arguments could be made that, unless you have complete control over a computer, you are not really borrowing it. On the other hand, one could also argue that you are borrowing timeslices on his computer and that the uploaded packets are occurring during the timeslices in which you have control of his CPU.
A P2P user could argue that, were it not for commands sent by the downloader, the P2P program would not have sent any packets upstream. Thus, the downloader is instructing and, in effect, controlling the computer insofar as it is uploading a file.
To stretch things a bit, you could make an analogy with CDs. If you take the position that a person is responsible for everything done by an object that they own, then by lending your CD to someone else, you would be equally guilty of "copying", for the following reason: when your friend puts the CD into a player, a laser strikes the surface of the CD. The CD causes the light to be reflected in a certain way such that the light contains a copy of the data on the CD. So the CD is engaged in copying. Since you are the owner of the CD, you are guilty of copying. That's a bit of a strawman, but that's essentially the position we want to attack.
We want to say that a computer that is owned by you and is used to send a file to another computer does not necessarily make you guilty of copying if the computer is being borrowed by the person to whom the data is being sent.
I've thought about this issue, since I've seen this coming to Canada for some time. It seems to me one good way of making sure the private copying provisions of the Canadian Copyright Act do apply to P2P is by making sure that your p2p software "lends" a portion of your harddrive to the other user.
The case against p2p in Canada is based on the premise that private copying provision only applies to a person making a copy for their own use. A person cannot make a copy for someone else. The questions becomes: how do you characterize a stream of data coming off harddrive A and onto harddrive B? Is person A "copying" the data? It is taken as given that the private copying provision DOES apply to a person borrowing a CD from a friend and copying it. But how about if the person B borrows a harddrive from a friend A and copies THAT? Now what if person B borrows person A's computer, without necessarily moving it physically. This is done with colocs, so it's nothing new. What if person B borrows person A's computer for a few computing cycles at a time, with only certain permissions?
Then, if person B is the one borrowing and using computer A at the instant that it is transmitting data, the scenario falls squarely within what the private copying provision is intended to include.
You haven't tried Pysol have you... or are you being facetious?
Are you saying Simpsons is racist? Because Simpsons happens to be my favorite show. So watch it, buster
He was making illegal copies of Jews? Wouldn't that bring their numbers up?? WWHD, indeed?
I don't know about Dell, as I've never had to deal with their customer support. Whenever I've called American Express, however, I've found that the many customer support people who had very slight Indian accents were extremely curteous and helpful. On the other hand, I've spoken to some women with Southern accents who were real bitches. I'm just saying you can't generalize.
The guy wasn't even asking for 200 dollars as far as I could tell. The better analogy for what he did is walking up to someone and threatening to punch their face IF THEY DON'T STOP KEYING YOUR CAR.
Ok fine. Make that: British brains, American muscle and Russian lives.
Who'd win a cage fight between bonzi buddy and gator?
How about "adware;)" with the quotes