Just curious: what data upload software do you use that doesn't provide user-controlled bandwidth settings? I honestly can't think of any other than the GDrive client...well, perhaps browsers, but in their case the throttling has to be built-in and transparent (or a function of http traffic?), because when I use GDrive through the browser interface, it behaves.

Yeah, I totally hate HDMI cables too, they suck! So what if I can get pure digital HD video and audio on the same tiny cable, as opposed to the five required for component (with stereo sound and lesser vidoe quality). I just hate having to actually look at the cable and port I'm trying to plug it into: I'd much rather just jab them together blindly until it goes in!

Same goes for DVI, S-Video and even VGA! Yeah, screw them all, I'll stick to composite, man! Fight the power!

Um, I think you missed the point. If I were running a program that was bad-mannered enough to consistently hog all of the processing power available to it, then I would be 'throttling' it...by uninstalling it. Which is what I did for Google Drive.

I will not tolerate poor manners from people or from software.

That's an interesting thought.

Actually, they pretty much do: if I ran a calculator or spreadsheet that took every CPU cycle I had even for a couple of minutes at a time, guess what I would do? That's right, uninstall the bitch and use something more resource friendly...it's not like there isn't umpteen bazillion alternatives available.

There you go. Throttled to zero, due to poor resource management on the part of the developer.

So why, then, when I am using DBox, FileZilla, uTorrent, etc, etc, etc...etc it doesn't do this?

Google Drive is the only local upload client program that I've had this problem with. It works fine if I only use it via the web interface, so is it my browser that's keeping Greedy Drive in check? If so, why can't they upgrade their client to do the same?

Having the ISP unthrottle upload bandwidth would simply shorten the length of time that GD hogs the connection, not prevent it from doing so in the first place. It's like trying to water the garden with a damn firehose...

Not sure, haven't used it :)

AxCrypt has an excellent user interface, though, and provides a self-decrypting option where you can encrypt a file, email it and the other person doesn't have to install AxCrypt to be able to decrypt it, they just need the shared secret (file or password or both). It doesn't automatically obscure the filenames, however, which it seems like encfs does (?)

I'm trying to figure out how encfs works: it's a filesystem / folder encryption program, yet the files are still individually visible to the operating system so you can back them up individually / move them around? Is that right? AxCrypt doesn't care where the encrypted file is, you can move it to a thumb drive, throw it on a cd, or throw it in DropBox...sounds like with encfs you can do the same, only it's a whole folder that you have to move all together, is that right?

But default settings is for no rate controls on the OS or router side...meaning that both the OS and the router expect applications to play nice and manage themselves, or be user-adjustable at the very least.

Can you name any other application used to upload large amounts of data that doesn't provide user-adjustable bandwidth settings? My FTP client does, my DropBox does, even my bittorrent client does...I don't know about Picasa or FB, cause I don't use them, so I'm honestly curious here...?

On the contrary, I propose that Google Drive is squarely aimed at non-technical (or barely-technical) people more than it is aimed at network admins. Much like DropBox, it's advertised as easy-to use and universal, so it's very likely that Mom and / or Pop will be using it...then calling the grandkids when they appear to be 'losing the internet' at semi-random intervals.

Have fun talking them through setting up router-level throttling from halfway across the country...

Or, you know, just send it upstairs and tell her 'this is important! don't lose it! And YES, I'll have some brownies!" :)

Truecrypt containers are nice, but the downside is that the entire container has to be re-uploaded every time something inside it is changed. Good argument for having multiple small containers, but then it's a bit of a shell game figuring out where your data is...

If you're looking for file-by-file encryption, try AxCrypt. It can bulk encrypt / decrypt files, apply strong encryption, and securely shreds the temporaries once you close up a file you opened for whatever reason. And it's also open source ;)

Pretty close.

Still, even at the price points I linked to it's still under a two-year payback window, and that includes setting the backup up as Raid 5 so you have some basic redundancy...

It doesn't help with the 'but what if the house burns down' argument, though. Unless you set it up at a friends house and use FTP, I suppose.

Ah, if only...

Unfortunately, the biggest problem with Google Drive is that they don't provide any upload throttling at all.

So...post a folder of pictures to your drive account, then go do something else for a couple of hours, because your internet is useless until Google's done hogging all of your bandwidth...funny, DropBox had this figured out right from the start, yet after over two years of customer complaints, Google still hasn't figured out how to implement this.

Try removing 37% of the supply, and see what that does to the demand pricing. Bet'cha it does a heck of a lot more than double it...it's not like it's a luxury good that people can do without, anymore. It's light, cooking and for some, heat for their families. Imagine trying to retrofit a wood stove into every low-income apartment in the US. Then imagine the emissions from all those low-efficiency stoves...

Of course, one potential positive could be that we'd have fewer annoying blinky billboards around...*sigh*, probably wishful thinking, that...

Yep, pretty much.

They always forget the time required to get up to speed on the project / standards, and any extra training time...heck, it works when I put it into Microsoft Project, therefore it should work in real life!

*headdesk*

Sorry, I meant 'theoretical' as in brand new stations or new capacity at existing stations, which you would need to address if you are looking to shut down existing coal sites. Of course, if your currently built capacity is already sufficient to forego the generation from the coal plants, then there's no barriers...other than, as you say, cold cold winter nights where the gas supply can't keep up with the domestic load, much less industrial.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for switching to natural gas generation in favor of coal generation, but people should realize that there is a whole lot of infrastructure required to make that happen. It's not 'just' bigger, stronger pipes (although that's certainly a huge component...and not a simple process to install), it's also upstream compression, alternate supply routing (probably with additional compression), cathodic protection to keep the pipes from corroding, and in some areas it's additional specialized instrumentation required such as moisture, heating value and H2S analysis.

In comparison, coal can be trucked to site, burned and produce steam generation with minimal fuss. It's not hard to see how coal got it's stranglehold...