My "new" (new to me) Galaxy Tab3 has a "disable background data" option (buried somewhere I've forgotten now) to stop continuous data leaks. And when you turn that option on, there is a continuous notification that background data has been disabled and "touch here to re-enable".

Thanks. I turned it off, stop telling me to turn it back on.

Because you think that non-profit schools have some special rights when it comes to "fair use" that students at commercial schools do not? And you're repeating this because you missed the fact that I wasn't specifically referring to a for-profit college use, thus it applies to non-profit just as much as for-profit? The fact is, I cannot simply duplicate college (non-profit educational use) textbooks and hand them out to my students and claim "fair use".

Another being whether the work is being used in its entirety; and/or for review or criticism. Copying an image verbatim as an illustration for a school paper fails these "fair use" criteria.

I can and I do, because it does. I've already said why. The link you provided says there are FOUR considerations, and all of them must be met. If you are copying someone else's work into your schoolwork 1) in its entirety and 2) without the purpose of review or criticism of that content, you are outside the scope of fair use. And if you did it in a paper I ever graded, you better provide a cite for the source or I'll see that as a claim that it is your work, just as copying text from Wikipedia into your paper needs a cite or it would be plagiarism.

That doesn't mean that I think there is any purpose to be gained from suing those students who do it. A use can violate "fair use" and not be worth legal action.

I don't see where I've mentioned any "throwing" of anything, only that your "educational non-profit" criterion is insufficient to determine "fair use", and I provided a trivial example to that demonstrates that fact.

I'm sorry, but you've lost me here. Where did I say ANYTHING like that? Did I say we should shut down Google (or Wikipedia, or ...) because some people violate fair use with the material they find there? Can you provide even one glimmer of a quote from me that says this?

One question: why?

If you're running devices that need a kW you're already at a reasonable size for your device, and you can build a lot of cheap, larger inverters for what it would cost to build this small one.

You could also probably build the powered devices to run off 12V for less than what this inverter would cost.

Is what is keeping AC power from the hinterlands this is intended to serve really the size of the inverter, or is it more likely the cost?

No. Fair use considerations include whether the use was for an educational purpose, but "educational purpose" is not sufficient to show fair use. I cannot copy, for example, a college textbook in its entirety and hand it out to my students because even though it is an "educational purpose", it does not meet the other criteria for fair use. Two criteria that this would fail would be the "excerpts" and "for critical review". Thus, I could copy a page of a textbook in a graphics arts class for the purpose of commenting on the formatting and layout style, but copying a book on graphics arts and using it as a text would not be "fair use".

Copying an image in its entirety for the purpose of using it as content in my own work would not be "fair use".

You were trying to drive into me your point that I hadn't said anything to the contrary about. Yes, calling people "brain-dead" because they don't accept your point is insulting and non-productive.

In response to a comment that didn't say otherwise.

You cannot drop the insulting attitude even after it is pointed out to you and you pretend that you didn't mean it in the first place.

Then you would not have agreed to a service that prohibits you from running a server, which every residential service I've seen does. However, the point remains, charging me extra for service I don't need so you can have what you claim is critical to your right to free speech doesn't seem to be fair at all.

I get the idea that you become insulting when someone doesn't value symmetric data service as much as you do. Was there another point, because if there was your insulting tone did a good job of masking it.

Yes, I know why some people would like symmetric bandwidth, and you might have noticed that I didn't say there was no value to it. If you can't grasp that not everyone values this and not everyone would find it important to pay extra for their service so you could put your opinion online, then I'd suggest you look in the mirror for the 'brain dead' one.

I'd also point out that this right here is one of those good examples of where money is required for effective free speech. You could get a dialup line, or ADSL, but you know that your voice would not be heard. It costs money for high speed internet.

-1 flamebait.

I have several Android devices. Every one of them works just fine without a connection to Google. Even for Play Books, I've pinned each of them onto the device (translation: downloaded) so there is no issue with being connected.

The only connection issue I've come across is for the "free app of the day" apps from Amazon, where many of them want to check in with Amazon for authorization every month or so. That's created a situation where I needed an app "offline" and couldn't use it. I've learned to go online and start up any app that I want to make sure will be available when I'm offline, or go without. The latter is pretty easy.

So, "does everything it can to keep you tethered to Google" really means "doesn't do very much", and Amazon is by far a worse offender in that area than Google.

Of course such a free market is a myth, and nobody who understands what "free market" means would think so. "Every need"? Of course not. "Every need that can be financially supported".

"Free market" first requires a market. Mass markets/low cost cannot be supported in infinite variety. "Every need" is a niche market served by smaller companies who focus on that, and charge significantly more. That's why there are buses and cabs; doormen and concierges; delivery boys and butlers; waiters and maitre'd.

If you want to buy the lowest level phone and expect the "free market" to cater your every whim, well, that's not going to happen. Most people understand that higher levels of product cost more and updates may actually cost money.

But what I was replying to was, specifically, his claim that "and consumers will reward the company by paying additional dollars for the improvement", which is patently absurd in this context. He is the proof of that absurdity -- he deliberately bought the cheapest phone he could and is complaining because it doesn't meet his "every need". As a consumer, he chose NOT to reward a competitor who met his needs, because his immediate and pressing need was "doesn't cost more than I want to pay".

Citation required.

I made the mistake of reading through this, mostly because I was at work, eating lunch, and bored. Then I got to this gem:

More specifically, in a theoretical free market, any product improvement that costs only a small amount compared to the benefit it brings to consumers, should be implemented (and consumers will reward the company by paying additional dollars for the improvement, in proportion to the benefit it brings them).

Why yes, Bennett, so many people would be happy to pay for an update to the spelling correction software in their phone. The phone manufacturer would make a nice amount of money from all the "additional dollars" that such updates would bring in. And just as soon as a phone manufacturer followed your "free market" advice and tried charging for a bug-fix update, people like you would be screaming how this company should fix it for free because it was a bug and you've already paid for working software.

You have no clue at all, do you?

"Fair" is a very subjective word. Who says it is fair to have everyone paying for service that they wont' use? Most people don't need the same upstream speed as they need down. Not even those who are using Netflix or downloading large Linux distributions need the same up as down. Only those sending out large amounts of data will see any difference, and that's only if the transmission is monitored in real-time and not just a background task.

As someone else pointed out, this change will make very little difference in the load imbalance at the peering points since most people aren't hitting an upload limit to start with.

FTFY. It is important that I contact her, but she never leaves a number. Press 3 to tell them they've reached a valid number and try again. And they've started using forged numbers for caller id that are just a few digits off my own number.

You're the one who thinks he should get all his money back because they didn't spend it on you, not me. Who's the stupid one?

I'm just pointing out that "it can't be stealing if they take it from me and give it to other people" isn't a very smart statement. Or, I guess, "how can it be stealing if it went to the citizens"? Or whatever.

No, taxation is more like you give me $69,900 and I give you and all your neighbors each a pile of gravel in your driveways. You don't get to tell me what I spend your money on, and I don't care that you would have bought a Tesla. I don't even care if you don't want what you get in return. Some of your neighbors needed a pile of gravel, so that's what I spent your money on.

Unfortunately, they didn't make enough money this year to pay taxes, so there is nothing from them to spend on stuff you want.

But I'll take your answer as yes, you'd call the cops because I was, indeed, stealing from you, despite the final destination of what I took from you.

Let's see. A car analogy might help. I see you've just parked your new Tesla in front of your house. I come by and help myself to it. I drive it downtown and see a fellow with a "will work for food" sign and he says his wife and three kids are living on the street. I give him the car.

Do you say "ok, you gave it to someone who needed a car, so it wasn't stealing from me"?

How about if I just steal the money you were going to use to buy your Tesla in the first place, and then spend it all in the local grocery store for beer and cheese doodles. A LOT of beer and cheese doodles. That money went to employ a lot of beer and cheese doodle manufacturers, and was also paid out to local people at the store as salary. That money didn't go anyplace to support jobs that you wanted to support.

Do you say "ok, you spent it someplace where it paid for jobs, so it wasn't stealing...?"

You know, it isn't always just about you. When people say things that other people find offensive and rude, and most adults have decided isn't appropriate for polite society, other people find that rude and offensive behavior creates an unpleasant work environment. Especially when they cannot simply walk away from you or ignore you because their desk is next to yours.