scott wrote:
>> (If the limit is in the T&C, then that's the limit they have to 
>> follow. If the T&C are more vague, they can cap you to whatever suits 
>> their pockets...)
> 
> For my mobile broadband, the usage is capped at 5GB per month, but after 
> that the speed is simply limited to 64kb/s.  Seems pretty sensible to me 
> as there are no hidden charges and no sudden loss of connection.

If all the ISPs say in the T&C what they're actually going to do, you 
can shop around and find the one that's acceptable to you. I don't see 
anything wrong with that.

I think that having a "hidden" cap that they don't warn you about to be 
a rather unfair concept.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >  You demonstrate perfectly the kind of mentality. Limiting freedom of
> > speech is completely "acceptable" when the subject in question is taboo
> > enough.

> You *really* believe you have complete freedom of speech?  What gives you 
> the right to expect that?  The general public expect that if you lie to an 
> official, or tell others to commit crimes, or speak in a way that damages 
> anyone else mentally, you should be suitably punished.  I'd hate to live 
> somewhere where those sorts of acts went unpunished.

  You don't get the point. The point is that freedom of speech is more
limited now than it was eg. 20 years ago. And it's getting more and more
limited as time passes.

  And we are not talking about lying and deceiving. We are talking about
*expressing your opinion*, which is a rather different thing. Today
expressing certain types of opinions is so taboo that even law enforcement
is trying to stop these thought crimes.

> >  People are already being fined in many western countries for expressing
> > their opinion *without* causing any trouble.

> Care to give any examples?

  A Finnish person posted an article in his blog citing, among other things,
official crime statistics performed by certain groups of people and using
words which some people consider derogatory (although whether they really
are or not is completely subjective and there's no official stance). He
was sued and fined, and forced to take the article off his blog.

  (Having read the trial logs, the trial was more or less a farce. The
judge was astonishingly biased and basically ignored everything the defence
attorney and the suspect told.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> And you really think it's a coincidence that bitTorrent was released at 
> almost exactly the same time Napster was closed down?

Napster closed down: July 2001.

BitTorrent paper released: April 2001.

First BT implementation released: 2 July 2001.

So you're seriously suggesting that somebody did all that R&D just to 
illegally copy stuff?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Hey, you can even cause massive disruption by protesting against your
> government, yet they do nothing, no fine, no arrests, no attempt to even
> stop the disruption.  *That's* ludicrous IMO.

	Not in the US. If your protests indeed disrupt the government, or
traffic, or so many other things, you get in trouble.
	
-- 
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>> Some ISPs started blocking it or throttling speed by detecting the
>> protocol.
> 
> Now, see, if I paid money to access the Internet, and then my ISP tried
> to prevent me accessing the Internet, I'd be... quite upset.

	Except that the TOS generally allows them to do it.

-- 
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

>> Now, see, if I paid money to access the Internet, and then my ISP tried
>> to prevent me accessing the Internet, I'd be... quite upset.
> 
> 	Except that the TOS generally allows them to do it.

Well then if the TOS says "you cannot use protocol X", you go find a 
different ISP.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:


> So you're seriously suggesting that somebody did all that R&D just to 
> illegally copy stuff?

Sure, if it means they can get loads of free music and movies. Human 
nature 101.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	Not in the US. If your protests indeed disrupt the government, or
> traffic, or so many other things, you get in trouble.

The protests are supposed to disrupt the government. It's *supposed* to 
be OK, as long as it's peaceful.

Disrupting traffic gets you in trouble for disrupting traffic, not for 
protesting.

Unfortunately, I think a great number of on-the-street level cops are 
taking their clues from the high administrations and simply ignoring the 
law and misusing their privileges.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>> It's a damned PROTOCOL. It can't be
>>> illegal on its own. It's how you use it.
>> Hehe you could say the same with guns.  Actually no, a much higher
>> proportion of people use guns for legal activity :-)
> 
> Hmm not really... Guns were *made for* killing.

And killing is very often legal.  We call it hunting.  Or being a soldier.

And, indeed, most of the guns not used for hunting or soldiering aren't 
made for killing, but for intimidating.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Well then if the TOS says "you cannot use protocol X", you go find a 
> different ISP.

Unfortunately, choice is rather limited in most places, due to 
government interference.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message