Does anyone have a version of this article with an even smaller font size? Maybe something that requires a microscope to read? Size 8 font isn't blinding enough.
> What's being tested is not 'how did your previous employer value you?', it's 'how good at negotiating were you when you started your last job?'
and "how little can we get away with paying you?"
I worked for a medium sized private software company and managements goal was to hire people as cheaply as possible, no exceptions regardless of experience or education. They routinely offered developers 30k to start, many were highly offended and some just laughed at it, but they would always get a few developers who were down and out to accept. Yes turnover was high and most people didn't last longer than a year or two, but they viewed developers as disposable assets due to the local economic climate. This was in a medium sized US city with high unemployment and few tech opportunities, managements attitude was ruthlessly honest "we're the only ones hiring in the area, what other choice do they have?"
I would pay for this. While Rails development stuff is useful, I feel like there are a _lot_ of resources out there for it on the web. This isn't so true for Mac development in particular, at least to my knowledge.
This is outrageous and it's a harbinger of things to come for all internet communications, goodbye net neutrality you will pay to use data how you want.
Let's geek out though, does anyone know HOW they are determining who is tethering? Is it just excess data use that is flagging your account? Are they watching packets? If you use a VPN would they not be able to detect tethering use?
Of course it's a net neutrality issue. AT&T wants to charge more for data from a tethered computer than it does for a non-tethered computer. Bits are bits: that's the point of net neutrality. If you pretend that "all bits are created equal, but some are more equal than others" (apologies to Orwell), then you're not net-neutral.
No, net neutrality is about not discriminating based on who you are communicating with or the meaning of the bits. For example, if AT&T had a deal to promote Bing, and as part of that blocked or limited traffic to Google, that would be a net neutrality violation (discrimination based on remote endpoint). Or if they detected and throttled VOIP traffic, that too would be a net neutrality violation (discrimination based on the meaning of the bits).
They are discriminating against people who hook up unauthorized computers to their network. That's outside the scope of net neutrality.
AIUI, Net Neutrality can be defined as treating every endpoint the same. My connection to Google, Yahoo and Bing should be exactly the same, as what you said. But does it really matter which device I connect to Google, Yahoo or Bing with? No. My phone is still an endpoint on the internet, as the only difference between a starting point and an ending point is the direction.
You might have a point arguing that bad network users (spammers, zombies and over-consumers) should be discriminated against, but that is not a neutrality rule, since those users did something to degrade the performance of others. Blindly saying that an iPhone is not allowed on my network is exactly the same as saying no one is allowed to connect to Facebook on my network.
In this case though, and especially the Reddit thread early this morning that seemed to spark this debate, users were showing consumption habits of 150GB+ per month on their 3G connection. I have no problem enforcing some restraining rules against them (like throttling over a certain number). But claiming that every packet coming from my laptop tethered to my phone should be charged at a 15% premium compared to the ones that come from my phone directly is ridiculous and is a violation of net neutrality.
