Re: Outdated scale
Your scale is missing a few important entries.
Chav - 100 points
Chav and his mates - 100 + 100 for each of his mates
No blood on the car - Triple points
33 publicly visible posts • joined 12 Jun 2007
If you buy 2mb you will only ever get 2mb on services / protocols that the ISP deem to not be bandwidth hogs. You'll never get more than YOU pay for. Your ISP might just not throttle content providers as much, making the higher quality service available to you if you're also willing to pay for it.
So if you pay for 2 mb, on services such as bittorrent, nntp (usenet), and other p2p you'll only get 2mb if your isp only have, say 10 broadband users online, more likely you'll never get 2mb because that service will fall into a lower tier and therefore priority will go to users doing other things which are not considered to be bandwidth hogs.
Typically when implementing QOS on a network you start off by prioritising mission critical services and deprioritising the least important services that hog bandwidth. So what you'll end up with is webmail, social networking and news sites being insanely fast as I imagine these are the majority websites most broadband users access regularly. Youtube and other video / high bandwidth sites will then take a back seat as no prioritisation will be applied to those services and then the you'll have the dog slow services like p2p being throttled to hell and back.
Of coarse, being a broadband user you'll already be taking a back seat to people / companies paying for dedicated bandwidth (Leased lines etc) who I imagine will be exempt from the tiered network as they are actually paying for their bandwidth.
In short, broadband will just not be the same, and we'll all go back to free 56k dial-up because there will be no point in having 50meg broadband just to read your email faster. Because lets face it, the only reason you want 50mb is so that those DVDs can download in 10 minutes rather than 400 mins on 2mb.
I don't think I need to explain the pirate flag.
<rant>It boggles my mind. As the driver of a big engined car and someone that likes to do what most would consider to be stupidly dangerous speeds I can assure you that the answer is not to slow down traffic. That just makes a bad situation already worse. Let me explain. When driving slowly because I'm stuck behind some dick head that thinks he has a right to do 50 in the right hand lane I get a) frustrated (naturally) and b) bored. Bored is the real problem because this is where my concentration on the road starts to deviate and I start looking around at other shit. I can honestly say that I've had more near accidents going slowly than I have at speed and it's because I'm not concentrating. So yeah, great idea, make all the road users bored and cause them to concentrate on everything but the road. Great plan. Not to mention how frustrated everyone will become because motorways are now even slower.
Add to that, that I already spend £280 - £300 per month on fuel of which half of that goes to the government. And now they want more? I don't see how charging us more to run our cars for longer is going to help reduce carbon emmisions. All that's going to happen is that the government is going to pocket even more money to spend on stupid shit that doesn't actually benefit our society, and because we're all on the road for longer, carbon emissions will actually go up.
Now here's the part that really pisses me off... A rail card for my journey costs £330 pounds (petrol £280 - £300). So already, driving my big ass gas guzzler is cheaper. On top of that, on a quiet Sunday morning I can get into work in 30 mins. That same journey via public transport is at it's very quickest when everything runs smoothly and people don't block up the underground platforms, 2 hours. So how about, instead of taxing 7 shades of shit out of motorists, they actually do something with the train-wreck they call public transport, because if I could travel door to door in an hour (slightly longer than it takes to drive) on public transport, I would probably opt for the public transport option, and of course assuming that it cost the same, or which it should, less than driving.
I could probably rant for another 10 pages on these issues and I haven't even touched on stupid drivers yet but I figure I'll save that for another day.</rant>
Not had a good chance to look at the site until now but I agree fully with what Double Dekkers had to say.
Fixed width is a work around not a solution to whatever problem you're experiencing with css.
The other thing that really poor is that the width is 960 pixels and you've chosen to use just 600 pixels for articles. 60 pixels are wasted on borders and padding etc, and then you have a f'kin 300 pixel wide advert!?!?
The new layout is toilet!
Lets do the maths, starting at midnight I start downloading at 20mb
10:30: I'm cut down to just 5mb which lasts for 5 hrs.
15:30: my speed returns to 20mb.
16:30: I'm cut down to 5mb again.
21:30: I get 20mb.
14 hours at 20mb
10 hours at 5mb
So they're claiming that for 10 hours of any day, I'll only receive 5mb (if I use the service, which is after all why I subscribe to it). So what I'm really paying for is about 13mb service which they're advertising as a 20mb service that they can't support. I'll only ever get 68.75% of the bandwidth they've sold me.
"3 diffrent computers running 3 separate control systems, from different vendors. The idea was they "voted" on what action to take, and the majority won (no idea if the 2-1 votes were logged or investigated)."
So what happens if one system fails, and the remaining 2 decide to vote against each other?
Providing links to pirated content is very different to hosting pirated content. Following this logic, google, yahoo, microsoft and probably every other search engine out there is guilty of piracy on a scale thousands of times bigger.
eg. type "ed2k simpsons" into google and count the number of ed2k links that get returned to download the simpsons film or even tv episodes.
Layer7 is an example of how P2P would be blocked. It looks for patterns in traffic rather than just blocking ports. http://l7-filter.sourceforge.net/
This of course will just lead to encrypted P2P networks so that ISPs are unable to control content. We should be using encrypted P2P already in my opinion and there are some encrypted networks out there, they're just not popular or fast enough. GigaNews already offer encryption to their news servers. A wise move if you ask me.
(We need an anti RIAA thumbnail)
<quote>Neil Berkett was deployed to tell several newspapers about his plan to steady the listing cable firm</quote>
Get rid of throttling?
We can only hope!
50mb. Assuming that the 50mb throttling point will be 7GB, it should still take only 15 minutes to have my connection reduced down to dialup.
If only there was another "telewest/blueyonder" out there.
If you want your web site, or any internet connected service to be secure, then it is your job to secure it. You think that by licensing security professionals you're going to magically stop people from hacking into your site. HAH! Mate, are you living in a dream world? If I were to lookup yesterdays ssh attempts I can almost guarantee that 90% of them originated out of 3rd world countries.
Also, do you think that by making security software licensable you're going to stop people from using those tools? Hands up how many people here have ever run an unlicensed version on windows?
You're right, I don't particularly like your Christian point of view. I don't particularly like any religion, group or organisation which tries to indoctrinate the rest of the community / country / world.
You're missing the point. It's got nothing to do with the fact that 99% of the male population masturbates. The point is, if you block porn, then why not block everything else YOU deem unacceptable. Why not sniff everyone's email, block all P2P services, IPs in Eastern Europe, in fact, why not just have a white list of sites and IP addresses that you feel would not taint your child’s mind and then force that same white list on everyone else.
This is also not just MY opinion. The above policy on porn is not going to affect me as I don't live in Australia and even if I did, I wouldn't be too concerned for myself. I could already bypass that stuff at 16 and I only got my first computer when I was 19.
Something fundamentalists seem to be unable to comprehend is that what's true for them, is not necessarily true for everyone else.
If you really want to protect YOUR children, then buy a book and learn how to set up content filtering at home. Leave the rest of the world out of it!
So you have children and for that reason alone my internet experience should be restricted to what you think is acceptable for your kids?
On top of that, it would be like trying to keep an angry mob at bay. If your kids really want to see porn they'll find it.
Extremist tunnel-vision christians are trying to ruin it for everyone yet again!
As a consumer I want high quality, DRM-free, digital downloads of any artist I can think of.
The only way to get what I want is to buy a hard copy and then to rip it. The next best option is AllofMP3, P2P and newsgroups. Following those options is leeching off my mates and then and only then maybe, itunes or whatever other commercial crime syndicate I can find on the web that offers "legal" downloads.
There is a demand for high quality drm-free music. Why is no one supplying to the demand?
What used to be the best ISP (the old Telewest) in the country is slowly becoming just like all the other ISPs out there. Crap! First bandwidth throttling and now premium rate call centres. I wonder if they'll charge me for all the time I spend on hold, the next time my line goes down, while I wait for some clown to answer and then not understand when I tell him that I don't use windows and that it's not my computer that needs rebooting.