Are limited plans or quasi-unlimited plans for data a better idea?

Last year, AT&T killed their unlimited data plans, just before the release of the iPhone 4. Now, it is becoming clear that Verizon is going to kill their unlimited data plans prior to the release of the next iPhone. As a power-user of my iPhone and iPad, this has caused me considerable upset. While I am grandfathered into the unlimited plans on AT&T (for now), no other users like me can ever get this kind of plan and if I ever want to interrupt my service for any reason (i.e. hospital stay, financial hardship) there is no way for me to get it back. It seems like a use of the duopoly power that AT&T and Verizon hold over the American cellular market.

But as I fumed and thought about this, I realized that I was only looking at this at a very shallow level. The fact is no one ever offered truly unlimited plans. Like your home internet, every "unlimited" plan has a limit after which the company will throttle your traffic or cut you off entirely. Under the "unlimited" monicker, they simply won't tell you what that limit is. Instead, one day after a bout of downloading (hopefully) legal video, you'll find your internet connection cut with a message to "contact us immediately". The saving grace of the "unlimited" plan is the cap is usually flexible, so if they have a (for instance) unspoken 4 GB cap and you hit 5 GB one month and 2 GB the next, most companies are forgiving. Whereas under a "limited" plan, as soon as you hit your cap you are either cut off or double-charged.

So, I ask Mod-Bloggers, which do you prefer and why? An "unlimited" plan which is really just "limited but we won't tell you how" or a limited plan where at least you can plan your usage? Do you prefer a false sense of security or honesty? Comment here or vote in the poll to the right.

(And no, it isn't fair to answer "I don't have a data plan, so there!" Because it is likely you at least have a dial-up or broadband internet service that got you to Mod-Blog. Same issue.)

As True Today, As When it was Drawn

True for politicians everywhere. (from Speed Bump)

What can Atheists and Christians agree on?

The last time I genuinely had a "debate" with an atheist was in high school. Back then, I had not really learned tact and made some obvious errors in approach and tone... and frankly made somewhat of a fool of myself. Since then, I had tried to be more respectful of the atheists I have met, and for the most part have been surprised how few REAL atheists there are out there. Most so-called atheists are actually agnostics who admit there COULD be a God, but are turned off by either organized religion or overbearing Christians.

But since 9/11/01, there has been a mini-movement of aggressive atheists looking to "convert" as many believers as possible to the ranks of the anti-God. I have found these folks mostly on chatrooms online, and not in person. But it is only a matter of time before each of us finds these folks. And this article, written by a former atheist who has returned to religion, makes the argument that atheists and theists have a good basis for discussion, and that there are simple rules to keep any discussion civil and instructive. If we could apply such simple rules to political discourse as well, we'd all be better off.

Fair warning: The author displays a number of images from the web which illustrate offensive religious people and offensive atheists. DO NOT click through if you will be upset by such images.