Really? I thought they would say to call the manufacturer for warranty service. Have you actually tried this?
Really? I thought they would say to call the manufacturer for warranty service. Have you actually tried this?
I think you're wrong in several ways.
1. Analogy to water or electricity is flawed. Water and electricity are limited resources--but data is neverending. The only limit here is bandwidth--the size of the pipes--while water and electricity have both bandwidth and resource limits. ISPs love it when people compare to water or electricity, because it supports their non-competitive, greedy practices.
2. "People need to consider if data caps or faster speeds are more important to them." This is a false dichotomy. Past a certain point, more speed is irrelevant, but when you hit the data cap, your speed drops to zero (or your bill goes up in a way that is biased unfairly toward the ISP).
3. "With fibre that increases to 1Gbps and 324TB/month." You're arguing from the presupposition that users will max out their connection 24/7. That is silly.
4. "Data caps provide a way for ISPs to invest in upgrading speeds and deliver those speeds to everyone while recouping the costs from those who make the most use of the network by downloading more." No, that is what they want you to think (or are you one of them?). Data caps unfairly punish customers who use their connection. A customer who uses 10% of his data cap pays x, but a customer who uses 101% of his data cap pays 1.2x. The 90% of unused bandwidth more than makes up for the extra 1% used by the other customer. On top of that, the extra 32% of bandwidth paid for by the customer, who used 101% and was forced to buy an entire 33% more, goes unused and doesn't roll over to the next month--the customer pays for data he doesn't even use (or even get to use, depending on how late in the cycle the overage occurred). Bottom line: it's all gravy for the ISP. Customers who barely use it cost them very little, and customers who barely exceed the cap pay for service they end up not using. When there's little to no competition in a market, the ISP can set the caps and overages to whatever they want, and the customer has two choices: awful service at awful rates, or no service at all. For me, after 4 years, AT&T decreased my service by instituting caps and overages, and increased the monthly fees. I have no feasible alternative.
5. "This leads to the situation where a person cannot video conference with family once a month because they cannot justify the higher speeds just for 30 minutes. This is much more socially unjust than someone having to wait until next month to download a file." What a farce! Socially unjust?! Your contrived scenario is internally flawed, as well: what if the file the "someone" has to wait a month(!) to download is media from a family member overseas? a recorded video, photos...? Who made you judge of what is more justly important to random people?
6. "Some ISPs with quotas also permit customers to buy extra quota during a month." Yeah, my ISP (AT&T) is kind enough to "permit" me to buy an extra 50 GB of data automatically by charging me an extra 33% whether I use 100 MB or 50 GB of that extra 50 GB. But, of course, if I subscribe to their (more expensive) uVerse package and use them for TV (which I don't even want), I get an extra 100 GB of data cap while paying less for the Internet access--but much more overall. How generous of them!
7. "For me personally, I would much prefer 1Gbps with 100GB quota, than 12Mbps with no quota." That's a terrible example. What can you NOT do with a 12 Mbps download rate? You can watch any online streaming video you want, do any video conferencing, download any files quickly enough... But having a 1 Gbps connection will not make a 3 Mbps Netflix stream look any better, and it won't make your Skype calls any better, but having a 100 GB cap most definitely will bite you over and over again if you actually do any of the things you mentioned.
In conclusion, you're deluded or lying, a fool or a shill.
"Idiotic" is an adjective. "Idiotically" is an adverb.
Haha, oops. I thought you were talking about "green technology."
You are presupposing that there even is a Green Revolution. If there is, we're in the middle of it, and can't objectively judge. You may discover in the future that there wasn't a significant Green Revolution.
Computer technology itself is, at the moment, undergoing iterative changes. The effect that it's having upon societies, cultures, and everyday lives is only beginning. As the ubiquity of interconnected computers increases, and as data storage increases, the everyday lives of people in first-world nations will likely look very different in 20+ years.
Who creates the algorithms? Who programs the algorithms? Who updates all the algorithms when a shortcoming is found? Who dies when a bad guy remotely alters an algorithm, causing misdiagnoses and mistreatments? Who comforts the patient with a confident, reassuring manner--the computer programmer? the algorithm designer? the computer manufacturer?
No, human doctors aren't perfect--but neither is any machine created by a human. The machine can only "think", diagnose, or treat as far as its programmers programmed it. I'll take a human, thanks.
I had two junior high teachers named Marilyn in the same school.
Are you kidding? It makes no sense whatsoever for an ISP to terminate a customer's account because he hit their arbitrary bandwidth limit! At worst they should disable his account until the next billing period. A better option would be to charge an overage fee, like any other ISP with half a brain. A better option still would be to throttle the connection until the next billing period. We're talking about computers here. There's absolutely no reason their system can't automatically handle this in a reasonable way.
Imagine if the water department told you that you could only use 500 gallons a month, and if you went over it once, they'd shut off your water supply forever. Imagine if the electric company told you that you had to monitor your own meter, and that if you used over 200 KWh in a month, they'd never sell you electricity again. And of course, imagine that in both cases, the meters had functions that could automatically throttle or disable the pipe if the limit was reached, and reset when the next billing period started. But they refused to use those functions and instead lay in waiting for the opportunity to close your account forever, like guerilla tour guides waiting in the jungle to ambush the paying customers they just led in.
This is like giving the customer a rope, already tied into a noose, placing it over his neck, tying the other end to the ceiling, and then telling him, "Here's the rope you ordered. But don't walk too far away from this spot or you'll hang yourself. And if you do that, we'll shoot you."
What we're seeing here is why ISPs need regulation. Where monopolies or duopolies exist, customers are no longer valuable to companies. These companies would rather throw away customers than invest in their capacity, because that would reduce quarterly profits.
QoS only works for outbound traffic. The router can't control what comes in. A bunch of downloads can still saturate your connection, and UDP protocols like uTP can't even be throttled by holding ACKs, since there are none.
Does it make you feel better about yourself to denigrate an entire nation of people?
Logically, believers do not claim that God's existence can be scientifically proven. Therefore a demand that it must be scientifically proven is a false dilemma. It's practically a religion unto itself: scientism.
Logically, there are questions which science cannot answer, and theories which science cannot prove. Therefore, just because science cannot prove something does not mean it is untrue. Truth is truth, regardless of what method one may use to discover it. Truth existed before science was even conceived of.
Calling someone or something you disagree with "crazy" is an ad hominem, a logical fallacy. Please study logic.
So, you claim that organized efforts to ensure that religious dogma stays out of science classes, or to find ways to avoid the demonization that atheism receives in many communities and societies around the world, would constitute "ritual and tradition for nothing"?
Atheism can be very much like a religion for some people. The same can be said about science, humanism, etc. Getting together to discuss how to further its views and undermine those of its opponents is just what a lot of religious groups do. It's like atheistic evangelism.
Sure, there are some atheists who are content to just hold their views without trying to convert people to atheism or actively oppose religious groups. But there are also some who do those things.
In a sense, there is no human who is not religious. One either worships (i.e. serves) God or oneself. Atheism is just another god, another idol.
Your ignorance (or dishonesty) is showing.
Christianity does not command any of those things. Nor did Jesus, nor any of the other NT writers. And even in the OT, it's quite clear that God favored mercy over sacrifice.
You're guilty here of the same mistake that many Christians make when they want to justify a view they hold strongly: prooftexting. You fail to take into account the whole Bible, or even to attempt an actual exegesis of the texts you are referring to.
You said two things that are true: doing the things you mentioned would indeed be intolerable, and all Christians (indeed, all humans) are hypocrites, in one way or another, at one time or another.
The problem is that you set up a field of strawmen and knocked them over, claiming that you knocked over Christianity with them.
Bah. Software engineering just plain stinks most of the time. PC software is unreliable and slow, and it bloats faster than hardware advances, so computers today don't really let people get things done any faster (excluding, of course, things like media encoding).
There's hardly any feeling of ownership in software made by big companies or groups, so there's little incentive to take pride in one's work, so programmers are lazy, and probably under pressure from bean counters and unreasonable managers and customers.
Our computers ought to be doing so much more for us than they are, but the software just stinks. Even the "amazing" Apple devices stink half the time. iPads and iPhones have apps that crash regularly (usually because of OOM), and apps take way too long to load, and even the stinking camera will sit there for 5-10 seconds before and between taking pictures. Nobody cares except the people who want to throw the device against a wall because it didn't used to be slow but now it is, all because of shoddy software engineering. No matter how fast the hardware or how much memory, the software will always bloat it to the extent that the effective or apparent speed remains the same.
What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expect generally happens. -- Bengamin Disraeli