Check the ToS. It explicitly states that the service is subject to undisclosed data usage restrictions.
Actually what you quoted IS from the ToS. That's precisely what makes the service explicitly NOT an unlimited service.
The only person claiming this plan is unlimited is the author of the story.
While sometimes the marketing people fuck up, Verizon does not label their plans as being unlimited that I can tell: http://www22.verizon.com/home/fios-fastest-internet/fastest-internet-plans/
Verizon doesn't call their plans unlimited.
No mention of any unlimited plans.
Please provide a link to or scan of Verizon's marketing materials describing any of their FiOS internet plans as having unlimited data usage.
No, they don't.
Go find the word 'unlimited' on that page.
In the ToS, they specifically mention that excessive use is a reason to boot you off.
I'd like for someone to point to marketing or promo material from Verizon calling this plan an 'unlimited' plan. While it's possible the marketing guys screwed it up, it's more likely that this plan was never labeled an 'unlimited' plan at all. For some reason when ISPs crack down on excessive use, there are always hordes of people who claimed they purchased an 'unlimited' plan when the evidence says otherwise.
Companies like AOL got in trouble because they went from only having time-metered dialup plans to having so-called unlimited plans where you could stay dialed in as long as you'd like. A lot of people took them up on this and left themselves dialed in for weeks at a time. AOL took it upon themselves to make exceptions to this (as it impacted service for other users - no free lines for customers to dial in to!) but never put in any fine print in. AOL got sued and lost over this, and subsequently they started changing the wording of their marketing materials and putting in fine print.
Now days nobody expects broadband to have the same types of limits so the ISPs simply just don't bother with the 'unlimited' verbage. They prefer to use terms like 'always on' and such, which means something entirely different.
Umm, if you're not being open with your partner about your STD as far as I'm concerned you're a criminal and a scumbag.
Android phones are unencrypted by default. This is definitely an area that iOS is far superior in. Recent versions of Android include encryption but it has to be enabled as a separate option. It will also only encrypt your internal storage, though vendor-forks of Android such as Samsung will do both internal and external (not an issue if you don't use SD cards). Additionally, the encryption is one-way and irreversible (though, again, this is something Samsung has improved in their fork).
Perhaps the most annoying thing about Samsung's encryption is that they force you to choose a very secure password, which is reasonable for powering on the phone, but they also force this password to be your phone's screen unlock code as well, which is extremely annoying especially if you're working with an enterprise device that has a security profile that forces the phone to lock after a few minutes.
The reasonable thing here would be to have an screen unlock PIN consisting of 4-10 digits that wipes the phone after a few incorrect tries and a much stronger phone decryption code that has to be entered when the phone is powered on. This can actually be accomplished by rooting the phone and hacking some scripts but it puts you in the position of putting an unsupported modification onto your phone just to make it usable. None of this is a problem if you're a hacker, of course.
Because of the fragmented nature of Android, Google is not in a position to provide LE assistance for every device and carrier fork of Android.
This post shouldn't have been modded down. It is a valid argument. There are tons of business apps out there that won't run on Linux. Just because Linux has an OSS equivalent of something doesn't mean it is also equivalent in quality, support, or familiarity to the users who already have years of training invested in a particular tool.
There are some offices where Linux, one of the free office suites, and some of the various free apps out there would be adequate for the required workflow, and we do hear about those companies and governments when they switch to Linux.
However, to blindly proclaim that Linux is a drop-in replacement for Windows that will start saving you money immediately is quite ridiculous. If this was *really* the case then businesses would already be doing it en masse.
They caught the guy who sent them so I'm not sure why Tor needs to be blocked.
(A Xen hypervisor, rather)
RHEV uses KVM. With that said, I believe (haven't checked recently though) that Red Hat still supports running RHEL as a guest inside of a KVM hypervisor.