I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me or to somebody else, because what you are saying is pretty much what I had said... that any so-called limits that might exist arise as a consequence of a limitation of the technology, and since there is no pre-defined notion of just how fast that technology can become, it can still be considered unlimited in that sense.

It has to be as durable as the bone it is fitted into. Titanium is used in prosthetics because it is the most biocompatible metal, not so much for it's hardness.

Can you call it truly wrong when the 'old timers' in the trade do the same?

The front side bus duck comes in handy when the driver gets hurt and misses work.

It's a regular template among the privatization crowd. Government only had to accomplish X but screwed up here, here, and here. Privatize and that won't happen. Barely hidden assumptions include: private operations never screw up, private operations never cheat.

good comment but i have a bit more detail. if you use wifi on your smartphone then it uses about 200mb a month for light in car use (not as driver though)
verizon and walmart have a 20 year contract for pay as you go, unlimited data for their straighttalk wireless users.
the 'average' smartphone user uses 1 gb per month based on verizons numbers.
verizon is crying crocodile tears here, cause 'poor folk' can afford unlimited wireless and can and will stream music and videos if they don't cost them money and the buffering isn't too bad, especially if they are paying $45 a month for unlimited everything from walmart, without a contract (if you use a used phone, or buy a pay as you go phone)
verizon rampantly spies on users and when making a slow lane for torrenters they realized legal streaming customers were using their expensive hardware for old contracts of unlimited data that are no longer offered to new customers.
despite the fact there is dark fiber and dark spectrum. why can one apartment building have wifi from every user and has only a small spectrum of broadcast yet cell carriers are supposedly restrained by their data networks capabilities? hah, this plan to only throttle when a tower is over-saturated is a bait and switch scam, they will take down towers and claim their networks are over-saturated and throttle the networks so no one can use it so they can put cheaper gear in their towers. i just spent $100 on a wireless router and it's radio is almost double the signal of the old $40 walmart router. fwiw it's a 1750ac router. and fwiw the same router sells for $180 at walmart, but i bought it online. anyways better gear costs more and thus this is just verizon lying about why they want permission to throttle wireless signals they want to use cheaper hardware and take down towers. the sad part though is that a modern communication satellite can transmit over 1,000 channels of 1080i sized channels of broadcast, as long as it doesn't have to process the signals onboard. i've heard as high as 5000 channels and that is from a hundred some odd miles above the sky... wireless signals have way more bandwidth it is just that terrestrial based com signals are all processed so it can be spied on, and processing that is not as cheap as unprocessed (in the sky) data.

Especially while ISPs have no-server policies and provide connections that aren't suitable to servers.

Verizon is paid for carrying the data, by it's customers. Nobody will pay them anything is they only connect their own customers together (see how that worked out for Prodigy).

Unless you know of some reason why bytes from Netflix cost more to carry than bytes from (for example) Hulu, then the rest of the world is pretty much in agreement, they shouldn't charge more.

It doesn't make any difference, since the nuclear launch code is all zeros anyway. Store it on a piece of paper, or whatever. Make sure you remember how many zeros, of course.

Except that you are referring to classic multiple star systems that have a dynamic hierarchy of a binary tree. I don't recall what was the specific description of the arrangement of stars in Asimov's story, but it may have been different than that, either in explicit description or the by implications of the conditions on the planet's surface.

I'm curious to know why Greenpeace would put up with a high level exec commuting that distance regularly. The guy should move to live closer to work, is how I would think the rank-and-file greenpeace activists would think it. Why do they need to employ a CEO who clearly thinks of himself as a jet-setter?

You're confusing transit where balance is a reasonable requirement and delivery where it is not at all reasonable.

If the idea of "unlimited" bothers you, then think of an unlimited plan as being capped at whatever the technology currently being used would allow you to download 24/7 at whatever speed the network can support, for the entire billing cycle. As technology improves, that limit goes up... without any predefined limit.

Which is, of course, what "unlimited" means. So in reality, the term is quite accurate. The fact that a person can't physically download an infinite amount of content in a finite period because network speeds are finite is entirely irrelevant.

Neither is downloading an unlimited amount in a finite period at any finite speed, no matter how fast. The point of an unlimited bandwidth plan is so that one does not experience any unexpected fees for excessive usage, regardless of how much they actually end up using the service. If Verizon doesn't have the infratstructure to support its subscribers having such plans, then they shouldn't be offering them.

The fact that they literally can't download an infinite quantity of content in a month is irrelevant.

If you're just adverse to the notion of "unlimited bandwidth" you can think of unlimited bandwidth plan, as actually a cap at whatever the theoretical maximum could be if they were downloading 24/7 at full speed for the entire billing cycle, the maximums of which are dictated by the physical hardware and technology... which is only limited by what we can do today, but if the technology improves, the cap goes up with it, with no defined upper bound. And that's the "unlimited" that is being referred to.

Except Verizon accidentally admitted that it's not Netflix doing the damage.

No credibility whatsoever. I've caught them in outright lies far too often.