7 posts • joined Wednesday 4th June 2008 23:46 GMT
Re: Two points
I agree, the 457 visa is heavily abused in IT.
When I was at IBM they wouldn't even bother to look locally for skilled people, they would just bring in whole teams of people from India on 457 visas..
It seems to be a deliberate attempt to drop the bottom out of the IT market in Australia because despite the shortages of skilled IT people here, the rates offered have been dropping steadily. At the moment it seems to be a race to the bottom.
Re: Let's here it for Engineers
I agree with this sentiment with the following critical addition - the engineer has to have at least a passing understanding of business requirements and realities.
So it's just the same as the Samsung 3D TV crap?
Sorry, but if we were all willing to wear glasses, we could have been watching 3D telly for years on our normal TV sets.
What makes these nobbies think that saying it's a special TV and charging us for expensive glasses is going to make us all rush out and buy one?
Unless it works without glasses they can shove this technology up their arse because I'm not buying into the false hype!!
(And yes I've tried it in the store and I still think it's crap)
Yep this was my experience with the Iolo tools too. My system has never fully recovered.
Personally I've used a few of these Registry / Tune up tools (both free and commercial) and none have ever made a blind bit of difference.
do you need to opt out from every userid on every PC on your connection... you actually need to do it with every browser you use also...
For example if you have multiple browsers installed (eg IE, firefox, safari, opera, chrome), you need to Opt out using each of the installed browsers (browsers don't share their cookies).
Maybe this opens a legal counter attack... if their information doesn't specifically state that you need to opt-out with each browser you use, Opt out using IE and then sue them when they monitor you when you use firefox (after all they didn't say you would need to opt out with firefox too, and you have explicitly asked them not to monitor you as evidenced by the cookie in IE).
> True ... there are perfectly legal uses for getting a big file more quickly than 3Mbps will allow
You show a complete lack of understanding of how torrents work - or indeed how networks work... it doesn't allow you to download at a rate faster than your broadband connection allows. If you have a 3Mbps connection, you can't download any faster than 3Mbps (in fact given latency, protocol overheads and general ADSL or Cable line quality you probably won't even get close to 3Mbps) and if you have paid for a 3Mbps connection then why can't you use as much of the 3Mbps as is possible.
I haven't used torrents much (not at all in the last 12mths at least and when I did I used the throttling option - you're not the only one Jim), but at least I understand know torrents work (for example if there are not many seeders then without using the throttle option the download speed is more likely to be around 3-14Kbps).
If the ISP is selling 3Mbps connections but their backbone can't support the number of 3Mbps connections they have provisioned, then the only people who have cause for complaint are the customers. The ISP have no right to turn around and complain that the customers are using an application that uses the full bandwidth they paid for.
I think the central issue of this net neutrality argument comes down to this:
- the ISP is selling a pipe and should have no say in what protocols / applications their customers use to shunt data through the pipe (in either direction)
If I don't want to use VOIP, email, youtube etc, but I do want to download gobs of stuff (using whatever protocol I choose), then that is my choice... I've paid for the bandwidth, and I expect to be able to choose how to use it.
I don't think anyone is against the ISP using QOS to "prioritise" certain types of traffic like VOIP that need as near to realtime as is possible, but after that, we don't want the ISP saying how we can use the bandwidth we pay for. And we don't want the ISP holding content providers to ransom either - essentially trying to charge both ends of the pipe.
While I'm sure charging both ends looks an attractive proposition to ISP's it basically amounts to extortion (we don't care that you already paid your ISP for your bandwidth, unless you agree to pay us too, we will make sure our customers can't access you properly).