|
Should those who slurp WiFi be jailed? | by Illiad | 2007-10-08 11:34:07 |
|
Yes. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-10-08 11:41:32 |
|
Only if it's volume-based | by subbywan | 2007-10-08 11:46:52 |
| Not with the general cries for a "computer |
by CynicalRyan |
2007-10-08 11:49:45 |
literacy" test, especially on this board.
This here discussion seems to be of the "It benefits me, if I need it, so it should be ok"-kind.
Besides, even if it is a fixed-rate connection, the 54Mbps get divided between all clients. So you are reducing the average throughput, too. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Oh yes. Definitely | by subbywan | 2007-10-08 11:58:08 |
|
Yes it does excuse them. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-10-08 12:00:35 |
|
Nope. | by subbywan | 2007-10-08 12:10:50 |
|
No, it's not. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-10-08 12:18:10 |
|
perhaps that's a german thing :P | by subbywan | 2007-10-08 12:25:52 |
|
I wish.. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-10-08 13:30:14 |
|
Then there's no excuse not to expect the customer | by subbywan | 2007-10-08 13:34:41 |
|
They'll call teh support hotline. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-10-08 13:45:53 |
|
It's not an obvious problem. | by subbywan | 2007-10-08 13:50:03 |
|
It is an obvious problem. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-10-08 13:54:20 |
|
it *is* a best practice to secure your router. | by subbywan | 2007-10-08 13:57:53 |
|
It is a best practice in corporate environments. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-10-08 14:02:51 |
|
As are corporate ones. | by subbywan | 2007-10-08 14:06:18 |
|
We are arguing past each other, methinks. (n/t) | by CynicalRyan | 2007-10-08 15:10:47 |
|
yep. You need to see my point, dammit, | by subbywan | 2007-10-08 15:16:06 |
|
Only if you do it first. :D (n/t) | by CynicalRyan | 2007-10-08 16:11:06 |
|
Already have! | by subbywan | 2007-10-08 16:15:11 |
|
You? Three laughs to that! | by CynicalRyan | 2007-10-08 16:28:59 |
|
Umm...That game analogy analogy doesn't work. | by ToLazyToThink | 2007-10-08 16:56:24 |