>implying slashdot is a futaba board

I don't think you grasped the theme here.

Nice Reddit referral in the article link there. Is this where we get our news?

Very informative, thank you. If you weren't responding to a post I'd already made in this thread, I'd mod you up.

Not sure I see the usefulness. Do you have to look at the right side of the screen to move right? Seems like that would obscure your ability to observe and react to things on-screen. Article doesn't seem to want to load, unfortunately. Is this innovative because of the eye-movement tracking? I thought that was already possible for years now. Seems like a weird thing to track to control a videogame character. Work on that brainwave reader instead.

Now if they could -intercept- your eye movement signals before it actually reached your eyes, I could see applications in FPS games...Imagine staring statically at a screen that moved and turned based on where you WANTED to move your eyes, without your eyes actually moving.

The fact that it would cost more does not relate to the fact that it's advertised the way it is.

I'm well-aware of the business model in use, but it doesn't change any of the facts.

I'd frankly rather accept that I'm not going to have 100% of my advertised bandwidth 100% of the time than have arbitrary caps imposed, which is exactly what download caps are: arbitrary. What they're trying to accomplish is prevent the small percentage of heavy users from being able to use the service heavily for as much of the time. But what it accomplishes is preventing heavy users from being able to use the service at all once they hit the cap. That's stupid. What would be more appropriate would be traffic shaping to prioritize VoIP and latency-dependent packets while simultaneously acknowledging that during peak hours, performance may be reduced. Everyone could be happy that way.

It's also an example of overselling. If all your customers can't utilize what they're paying for simultaneously, you've oversold your capacity. It's the ISPs fault, not the customers.

If you think stupid Portal jokes that everyone was sick of within 2 weeks of that game being released (as in, almost 3 years ago) count as "content," I have some unfortunate news for you.

Hold your breath.

Except there's no reason to charge more for more downloaded, because it doesn't cost more to provide it. What costs more money is additional bandwidth, which is entirely different from $X/byte. It's more like $X/byte per second.

That's why caps are horseshit.

I fail to see how he successfully made that point at all, but thank you for riding this conversation to push your agenda.

What point are you trying to make here?

People aren't generally practicing irresponsible browsing and e-mail habits on a server. I hope.

I do know. A lot is. This is Slashdot. I'll continue to get modded down for pointing it out, too.

That's a bit of a stretch. This last generation could have not existed, but most of the consoles before that were glorious in their own rights.