Could someone be hacking into our internet?

esuhl

debitcardmayhem wrote: »

For information the data you supplied had 4 observations and your summation was only for three. This does not compute, you will be assimilated, however as it is not friday we will move on and carry out our checks for spelling, but be warned we will be back and you will be assimilated.

Arghhh! Thank goodness for the impeccable logic of computers. Their problems start as soon as we humans try to ascribe meaning to their pure virgin data. I shall have myself shot and replaced with a Hudson 10...

DVardysShadow

esuhl wrote: »

"Transmission" is the transmission of data. Both locally stored data and transmitted data can be measured in whatever appropriate units you like - bits, bytes, nibbles... It is, however, more common to measure network speeds in (multiples of) bits per second, and to measure disk space in (multiples of) bytes.



Not true: data are abstractions devoid of inherent meaning. A measurement combined with meaning would be called "information". For example: 2, 19, 12 and 87 are data; "the speed of the last three moving vehicles I observed were travelling at 2km/h, 19km/h, 12km/h and 87km/h" is information.

Highlighted, the essential point. Which was the point I was making. Why get picky about the rest of it?

mamazaac

fenlander_uk wrote: »

It was always going to be the kid wot done it.:laugh:

Yes, but the point is it wasn't something he did sneakily - I gave him permission! What I took exception to were the implications that he was doing something he shouldn't be behind my back.

esuhl

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Highlighted, the essential point. Which was the point I was making. Why get picky about the rest of it?

Because that's not at all what you said. You said that bits are "not a measure of data" - wrong! You said that data are "measured in bytes" - not necessarily!

Confusing people with mis-information isn't going to help. Why get picky about being corrected?

Esoog

mamazaac wrote: »

Thanks to networx think have found out what is causing the problem. In my son's IT lesson at school they had been teaching them to build games using a program we can't get at home. My son had found a website - sploder.com - which would allow you to build your own games and, as I thought it would support what he was learning at school and norton safe web said it was ok, I didn't think there would be a problem. Found out yesterday though, bandwidth usage when using this site is mega high, so seems that was the culprit.

Thanks for all the helpful answers given above.:)

I refer you to my post!

DVardysShadow

esuhl wrote: »

Because that's not at all what you said. You said that bits are "not a measure of data" - wrong! You said that data are "measured in bytes" - not necessarily!

Confusing people with mis-information isn't going to help. Why get picky about being corrected?

I don't think I have been corrected. I have only had a picky intervention from you, which I don't agree with.

esuhl

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I don't think I have been corrected. I have only had a picky intervention from you, which I don't agree with.

Oh, well. Look up the terms in a dictionary if you don't agree with me - that'll clear up the confusion.

mamazaac

Esoog wrote: »

I refer you to my post!

And I refer you to comments in my posts:-

#15

"If it is down to him, think is more likely that he is using some software or an application that neither of us realised would do that"

#27

"at least not because he's doing something secretly"

#54.

"the point is it wasn't something he did sneakily - I gave him permission!"

I am getting a bit fed up with the one or two unhelpful posters who just seem to want to imply that my son has been sneaking around behind my back. Rare as it is, I am lucky that my eldest son has, so far, always been honest with me (although couldn't say the same about my youngest!). Yes he has his faults, but dishonesty is not one of them. This is not me being a mum who thinks her 'little angels' can do no wrong because he does, of course, "do wrong" sometimes, but my eyes are open to what faults both my sons do and don't have.

Again, I would like to give my thanks and appreciation to all the helpful comments - thanks to them I have sorted this out.

Esoog

mamazaac wrote: »

And I refer you to comments in my posts:-

#15

"If it is down to him, think is more likely that he is using some software or an application that neither of us realised would do that"

#27

"at least not because he's doing something secretly"

#54.

"the point is it wasn't something he did sneakily - I gave him permission!"

I am getting a bit fed up with the one or two unhelpful posters who just seem to want to imply that my son has been sneaking around behind my back. Rare as it is, I am lucky that my eldest son has, so far, always been honest with me (although couldn't say the same about my youngest!). Yes he has his faults, but dishonesty is not one of them. This is not me being a mum who thinks her 'little angels' can do no wrong because he does, of course, "do wrong" sometimes, but my eyes are open to what faults both my sons do and don't have.

Again, I would like to give my thanks and appreciation to all the helpful comments - thanks to them I have sorted this out.

But er, I was still right? It was still down to him like I said. I haven't implied anything, why are you spoiling for a fight silly billy?

mamazaac

Esoog wrote: »

But er, I was still right? It was still down to him like I said. I haven't implied anything, why are you spoiling for a fight silly billy?

Yes, in essence you were right, but it was the implication of why it was down to him that I took exception to. To explain, this is the comment I was referring to:-

"Been there many times myself when I a teenager using the internet at home hehe."

implying that because you were doing stuff you shouldn't have been, he was too.

Don't want a fight, just a mother defending her offspring - natural reaction.