Well, I don't think what they said is actually unlimited. These days they say "always-on," without actually guaranteeing any specific speeds or anything like that.
Legally they cover their ass pretty well and could serve us up with 56 kbps cable if they chose to, and it's not their fault that a sucker is born every day.
My point is that the consumers should read the fine print next time and/or vote with their dollar: if you don't like it, go buy your connection elsewhere.
In the real world nothing is free (except your mom's love for you). If you want a faster car, you pay for it more than the average guy. If you want a better girl/boy, you pay for that too. If the Govt stepped in and said that your cardealer should charge the same for a Lexus as he does for a Lada, the prices of the cars will go up, the buyers will be pissed off, and the dealer goes out of business.
All that wasteful html traffic has just caused needless upgrades.
That's exactly the reason you have affordable broadband today, dumbass. People wanted faster service, they paid for it. Modem -> ISDN -> cable You need more service, you go and pay for a more expensive option. This gives companies the money to invest in infrastructure and to provide a better service, and the prices will come down eventually by the time the Great Big Next Thing arives for you to covet (and pay for). That's what drives the innovation and that's how the Free Market works, friend.
Once you forbid the providers to price their service competitively, there will be no Next Thing. Why would they try to invent and provide something better if they get paid less for it? Sorry to break your balls here, but socialism is not always the answer.
Why is this marked "Funny" exactly? I think this problem is indeed about the few people trying to max out their "unlimited" connections, and the rest of us paying for it.
Remember that cartoon joke about Dilbert's dad spending 20 years at an all-you-can-eat buffet because he was not done yet? Who do you think was paying for it.
and force ordinary broadband consumers to subsidize the bandwidth-hogging activities of a few is how they put it. In other words, if you need to consume 160 GB/month perhaps what you need is a dedicated line, not residential cable.
Artists have been making work for centuries without often being compensated for their work and many eventually dying in abject poverty
Well, the same could be said of scientists (plus add "burned at the stake" and "tortured by the Inquisition" to the starving/dying part). Remember that less pay means much less future talent drawn to the area, and much less new work created.
if one could not make money off of art then only those really interested creating art "for the sake of art" would be doing so.
And how many would that be? How many doctors would we have if they had to starve/die to be practice medicine? How many teachers and researchers would we have in our society if they could not make a living? Why should artists be any different?
Art is harder to judge, but compare the scientific progress during 1800-2000 (when the scientists got paid) to the scientific progress during 0-1800 (when they worked for comission or starved).
If you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear.
And yes, I never lock my house or my car, and I have yet to have one thing stolen from me in all these years.
Remember, people who really want to get at your stuff will do so no matter how smart you think your security is. Locks are just for keeping honest people away.
That's the reason for encryption. Plausible deniability. I think he means bandwidth limits. Something like 10 GB/month will give enough space for most legitimate downloads (you could even disable it for most legitimate academic/business traffic) but will cut down on file sharing rather nicely.
That'd be easy to take care of: per-student bandwidth limits (say, 10 GB/month). Large enough for most legitimate purposes. Small enough to curb most serious P2P-ers
The only way to troll in a topic about trolls is by being off-topic, given that all the other bona fide trolls would not actually interject any new agenda or draw a lot of responses here.
I would have to say that under these exceptional circumstances the Troll rating for an off-topic post would be warranted.
Getting back to topic, do you have a link to that picture of an M&M candy packet being arranged to look like the tubgirl?
There aren't that many broadband ISPs you say? So your point is that (perhaps) the ISP business isn't all that lucrative?
Might this mean that *some* limits could be a good idea, and by cutting off the top 0.5% of hogs the ISP can avoid price hikes for the other 99.5% of customers?
It makes perfect sense for most of us; if you insist of doing 500+ GB/month downloads perhaps residential cable isn't for you. Try switching to the $399+ dedicated line.
How about we enforce the laws already on the books?
If you break the law by knowingly infecting someone, you become illegal and are deported. Or a three strikes policy would work as well: 1) get fitted with an electronic penis monitor 2) castration 3) freedom camp for life
You are not supposed to actually watch that video. You are supposed to just switch to the OMG WTF NUKULAR BAD groupthink.
Face it, nuclear power is Bad, so the fact that there is a video showing a bunch of kids in hazmat suits re-enacting Blair Witch in their school basement should we all the proof you need. Any grainy image of sewage pipes is a bonus.
It would be harder than you think. The beam presumably would scan the area rather quickly, so your detector would only have microseconds of exposure time (at best) to determine the source location.
Also consider that most places we'd use this tech in are backwards enough that they can't afford a 1960's tech RPGs, let alone millions of electronically aimed laser-searching cannons for every home.
God has already developed some nice genetic debug tools for us: interspecies competition, predator-prey relationships, survival of the fittest, and all that.
As a CEO, his responsibility would be to the company, and to the shareholders. As a private individual, his responsibility is to his conscience alone.
Since Microsoft ain't a charity, it would be wrong (morally, ethically, legally, and otherwise) for him to act as if it were a charity, instead of trying to make a profit for the investors.
My "Bush-bashing discourse?" Check again, dipshit -- I'm not the same guy you were blabbering to. Here is the post where you claim it is your "discourse" and I am polluting it somehow.
So far, you have added nothing to the discussion save a bunch of random "dipshit," "fuck you," and "asshole" salutations. Nothing even remotely relevant to the topic at hand: voting procedures and the lack of meaningful alternatives.
You might try to actually reading a thread next time instead of hitting Reply just because I am on your Foes list. Have a nice day.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I don't think what they said is actually unlimited. These days they say "always-on," without actually guaranteeing any specific speeds or anything like that.
Legally they cover their ass pretty well and could serve us up with 56 kbps cable if they chose to, and it's not their fault that a sucker is born every day.
My point is that the consumers should read the fine print next time and/or vote with their dollar: if you don't like it, go buy your connection elsewhere.
You need more service, you go and pay for a more expensive option. This gives companies the money to invest in infrastructure and to provide a better service, and the prices will come down eventually by the time the Great Big Next Thing arives for you to covet (and pay for). That's what drives the innovation and that's how the Free Market works, friend.
Once you forbid the providers to price their service competitively, there will be no Next Thing. Why would they try to invent and provide something better if they get paid less for it? Sorry to break your balls here, but socialism is not always the answer.
Remember that cartoon joke about Dilbert's dad spending 20 years at an all-you-can-eat buffet because he was not done yet? Who do you think was paying for it. and force ordinary broadband consumers to subsidize the bandwidth-hogging activities of a few is how they put it. In other words, if you need to consume 160 GB/month perhaps what you need is a dedicated line, not residential cable.
Art is harder to judge, but compare the scientific progress during 1800-2000 (when the scientists got paid) to the scientific progress during 0-1800 (when they worked for comission or starved).
If you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear.
And yes, I never lock my house or my car, and I have yet to have one thing stolen from me in all these years.
Remember, people who really want to get at your stuff will do so no matter how smart you think your security is. Locks are just for keeping honest people away.
That's the reason for encryption. Plausible deniability. I think he means bandwidth limits. Something like 10 GB/month will give enough space for most legitimate downloads (you could even disable it for most legitimate academic/business traffic) but will cut down on file sharing rather nicely.
Look into packeteer/packet shaper. From what I hear it's absolutely the best at shaping p2p traffic.
Does that mean they force users to seed the update files while they play?
I can't imagine a lot of gamers are happy being forced to give up their bandwidth just like that.
That'd be easy to take care of: per-student bandwidth limits (say, 10 GB/month). Large enough for most legitimate purposes. Small enough to curb most serious P2P-ers
The only way to troll in a topic about trolls is by being off-topic, given that all the other bona fide trolls would not actually interject any new agenda or draw a lot of responses here.
I would have to say that under these exceptional circumstances the Troll rating for an off-topic post would be warranted.
Getting back to topic, do you have a link to that picture of an M&M candy packet being arranged to look like the tubgirl?
What kind of sniffer? NSA?
*reaches for the hat.
There aren't that many broadband ISPs you say? So your point is that (perhaps) the ISP business isn't all that lucrative?
Might this mean that *some* limits could be a good idea, and by cutting off the top 0.5% of hogs the ISP can avoid price hikes for the other 99.5% of customers?
It makes perfect sense for most of us; if you insist of doing 500+ GB/month downloads perhaps residential cable isn't for you. Try switching to the $399+ dedicated line.
Maybe English is his fifth language or something.
It's rather silly to dismiss an otherwise valid point because of poor grammar.
How about we enforce the laws already on the books?
If you break the law by knowingly infecting someone, you become illegal and are deported. Or a three strikes policy would work as well: 1) get fitted with an electronic penis monitor 2) castration 3) freedom camp for life
You are not supposed to actually watch that video. You are supposed to just switch to the OMG WTF NUKULAR BAD groupthink.
Face it, nuclear power is Bad, so the fact that there is a video showing a bunch of kids in hazmat suits re-enacting Blair Witch in their school basement should we all the proof you need. Any grainy image of sewage pipes is a bonus.
It would be harder than you think. The beam presumably would scan the area rather quickly, so your detector would only have microseconds of exposure time (at best) to determine the source location.
Also consider that most places we'd use this tech in are backwards enough that they can't afford a 1960's tech RPGs, let alone millions of electronically aimed laser-searching cannons for every home.
A 17 gigabyte tar file with nothing but goatse?
One problem though: it's not worth 1 million.
She's also probably the only person in your house able to do load the dishwasher and have sex at the same time. But don't just take my word for it!
They are gonna debug themselves.
God has already developed some nice genetic debug tools for us: interspecies competition, predator-prey relationships, survival of the fittest, and all that.
As a CEO, his responsibility would be to the company, and to the shareholders. As a private individual, his responsibility is to his conscience alone.
Since Microsoft ain't a charity, it would be wrong (morally, ethically, legally, and otherwise) for him to act as if it were a charity, instead of trying to make a profit for the investors.
So far, you have added nothing to the discussion save a bunch of random "dipshit," "fuck you," and "asshole" salutations. Nothing even remotely relevant to the topic at hand: voting procedures and the lack of meaningful alternatives.
You might try to actually reading a thread next time instead of hitting Reply just because I am on your Foes list. Have a nice day.
Are you sure you got your timeline right?
The Soviet Union fell apart in August 1991. Bill Clinton took office in Jan 1992, four months later.
Even a quick look at the numbers suggests that Clinton cut more: Bush (HW) cut 200,000 troops in four years. Clinton cut 500,000+ in eight.