roughly .0002 trillion dollars

Let's not kid ourselves; escaping the confines of nations and laws is the only purpose here.

Your math is fine, but your logic is rancid and awful, though quite typical for Slashdot anarcho-nerds. The fact that you felt the need to express the figure in kB instead of kb, while also trying to make a rather fanciful comparison to "modems"â"which of course could not pull anywhere near the same amount of dataâ"and the even sillier fact that you contemplate literal 24/7 throughput for a *mobile* device whose usage by an ordinary device-addicted person would arguably max out at *8* hours a day of non-stop usage, should have been a sign that you were trying to understate the quantity by orders of magnitude. Back on Planet Earth, 100GB/month is a lot to be pulling over a FIBER connection to a desktop PC, and, by way if example, reflects far more HD Netflix bingeing than any sane and gainfully employed person could muster in a single month. Pushing further into the realm of thinking like an adult, it's simply not "false advertising" to presuppose ordinary human norms of product use or resource consumption when describing a product or service offering to the public. The advertisement is quite reasonably geared to the public in general, not to some pushy jerk playing semantic games. To repeat, 100 GB a month is a massive shitpile of data that is utterly unreasonable to expect from a flat-rate subscription that is priced for normal adult humans with jobs. You *should* feel like a freeloading dick if you even come close to that on a regular basisâ"but Verizon isn't even kicking out people who simply happen to break that number on occasion. As the article makes clear, they're talking about people who use "far in excess" of that amount, on an ongoing basis. The price tag for a plan that is actually keyed to the data throughput in question, $450, should give you an idea of the relative costs to the network infrastructure of letting a single person pull that many bits. TL;DR, after promptly shutting your whiney face hole, go to any restaurant advertising "all you can eat" and try to eat 100 pounds of lobster. Or chicken breasts. Or, hell, even *potatoes*. And then come back here to make another post about how The Man keeps beating you down, and you're going to file a lawsuit for unfair commercial practices, and so on and so forth.

aha!

first mover penalty

hush if you think otherwise!

You can't "steal information"!!!!!!!!! omg gov't oppresshun.

Like, YESTERDAY, amirite?

My paranoid instinct whispered to me that their real business model involved casing targets for cybercrime gangs and perhaps even selling backdoor access. Probably far-fetched nonsense but there are plenty of antivirus vendors that don't send up this many creepy red flags and thus I steer clear (and am paranoid).

Since the BBFC is in control of the determination as to whether the required watching was actually performed by anybody, I'm gonna guess that (1) at best, somebody put it in the machine and pressed play, checked the check box on the form and moved on to other things, or (2) at worst they just checked the box on the form and moved on to other things.

they do

...and I said nothing because I had no financial stake in the commercial sale of video games..."

typical leftist BS; there are endless free games to play, just not the brand-new ones that people just finished spending money to make. This is the same old "I want it therefore I deserve it" logic.

was the first thing I thought. Sadly doesn't sound like that :(

Not in the way you think, friend. Anyhoo, good luck with your future efforts at reasoning.