or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by EWTHeckman

Wow. Look at all the people who think it's fine to completely destroy someone's life simply for disagreeing with them, even when that disagreement is based on something which is explicitly protected by the First Amendment.   So much for "tolerance".
Does it finally support CalDAV and CardDAV so that it can sync calendars and contacts with iOS devices?
 So instead of going back and dealing with the specific arguments, you just keep the ad hominem fallacy going. Here's a hint: demonizing the "other side" is not a valid argument.
They ADMITTED it! http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/read-the-inspector-general-report-on-the-irs-scandal/ As for the arguments, go back and read for comprehension.
Who pays for the cables, equipment, and manpower to install and maintain them necessary to carry that 50GB? Do they simply appear out of thin air? Do you think you paid the entire cost for that with your monthly bill? Do you suppose the cost to carry 50 petabytes is linear? Do you think video data should be transmitted at exactly the same speed as file downloads when both are running simultaneously? (Look up QoS—quality of service—in networking.) Do you contend there...
"I suspect that most of the opposition here is related to that last guy (or possibly, financial relationships to the folks in the middle paragraph)." This statement disallows principled objections leaving only "incapable of thinking," and "financial relationships" = paid shill. You absolutely said that. Now own it.
A paid shill incapable of thinking for myself.
And yet, not a single person has responded to my real arguments. Other real arguments made by others here have been equally ignored or gainsaid. (For example, the government's proven use of the IRS to suppress political enemies, NSA spying, etc.) Reverting to name calling indicates that there is no counter-argument.
 I think somebody here doesn't understand that name calling (ad hominem attack) is known to be an invalid substitute for an actual argument. Or would you prefer that I answer in kind?
 Have any companies actually done this? Any ISP that does so deserves to be sued for anti-competitive behavior. (There should already be laws which apply.) I know companies have limited how much Netflix traffic they'll carry. But every ISP has a maximum amount of bandwidth available unless they spend money to build more. So who gives them the money they need to build that additional bandwidth? Why not the biggest user of that bandwidth?
New Posts  All Forums: