Slashdot Mirror

Pre-2000, the US had "open access", meaning that cable owners had to sell use of their infrastructure. This made it relatively easy for startup ISPs to enter the market: every time you sign up a customer, you just need to buy time on the extra bit of cable you need to serve that person. Almost every country in the world uses this regulatory model.

Under intense pressure from lobbyists the US changed to a closed model in 2000. Now cable owners are also ISPs and have exclusive rights to the bits of wire they own. There are only a few ISPs, it's very, very expensive for anyone else to enter the market, and they can charge what they like, not only to customers, but upstream as well, as we're now seeing.

tl;dr: this is a failure of regulation.

Lessig talking about this:

http://blip.tv/lessig/america-s-broadband-policy-3505079

http://blip.tv/pauldotcom/cedric-blancher-on-wifi-security-6158722

from the fine article:

According to the complaint, Lessig showed clips of different groups of amateurs dancing to the song in Brazil, Israel, Brooklyn, Latvia, and Kenya. His point was such spontaneous outbreaks of online culture are "the latest in the time-honored 'call and response' tradition of communication."

So, he had video clips of people dancing to underscore the point of the presentation. People dancing in random parts of the world is the original content, and material (hell, the point) to his presentation. The non-profit/no-loss part is COMPLETELY relevant, as it is two of the four tests used in determining if something is fair use:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

--United States Copyright Office

finally, you could just watch the presentation and judge for yourself.

http://www.stackless.com/

They are using Python 2.7:
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/stackless-python-2.7/

Great discussion of pros and cons of Stackless:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/588958/what-are-the-drawbacks-of-stackless-python

Here's an interesting page with a few nuggets of info. In the discussion section, some people claim that the game used to crash with space battles as small as 100 ships. Clearly the game has been improved since then.
http://highscalability.com/eve-online-architecture

If you are really interested, here's a talk from PyCon 2009 that goes into some detail on what they do with Stackless. They had some problems that only showed up on the crazy load of a real system, so they had to go live with some code to test it!
http://blip.tv/pycon-us-videos-2009-2010-2011/stackless-python-in-eve-pt-2-1959372

P.S. A couple of good trailers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrrVDV_NsNo

This one bored me at first but then got much better as the music got going.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euMjOHgb9A8

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Confused Matthew that 2001 sucks balls. You look at Kubrick's entire body of work there is ONE that stands out like a sore thumb as being completely unlike the rest, like the old Sesame Street "one of these things is not like the others" and that is 2001.

With all his other works you had story, characters, plot, or sure it may be a dark or twisted story but its there, if you cut out all the "crap floating in space to music" where there is NOTHING happening but a ship going from one place to another place with little to no dialog? You'd lose a good 70%+ of the movie. I truly believe he became so enamored of the effects, which to be fair had NEVER been attempted anywhere close to that level of realism before, that he simply put everything else on the backburner and never came back to it. And the man was never a good writer to begin with, watch the afterword at the bottom of the link I posted for a piece of an interview with Steven Spielberg after Kubrick's death, where he can list point after point in favor of Kubrick as a director but when it comes to his writing his details on his praise all end and he comes up with an excuse instead.

So I'm sorry Kubrickians but there is a REASON why nobody else has made a film in the vein of 2001, because anybody else would have been called to the carpet for making a movie with no plot, narrative, story, frankly if it wasn't for the (sadly too damned short) parts with HAL there really wouldn't be any real characters at all, just bland empty vessels. It reminds me of how nobody but Terrence Malick can make a Terrence Malick movie because only Terrence Malick gets a free pass from the critics to be as pretentious as he possibly can without getting called to the carpet.

Just look at the opening of Matthew's 2010 review where he simply reads POSITIVE reviews of 2001 and shows how they are almost word for word identical to NEGATIVE reviews of other movies, Kubrick was one of the handful of artists that were/are "critic proof" but with 2001 you have something a little dark and ugly because many of those critics use it like the emperor's clothes, such as what Terry Gilliam does here, basically making it sound like those that don't love and watch 2001 from end to end (honestly I haven't met anybody who doesn't fast forward through the draggiest parts to get to HAL) are basically rabble who just "don't get it".

So I really don't get how a director becomes "critic proof" but I think that is the case with 2001, what would be considered a negative in any other film, dragging scenes, no real narrative, bland characters, scenes continuing well past any need for them to, is somehow a positive when it comes to 2001. No film before or since that I know of has been given such a huge get out of jail free card and the fact that it is so beloved to this day really baffles the hell out of me.

Money is a symptom, not the disease

You've got that backwards. Money is the disease. Political corruption is the symptom. Have a look at Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessig some time. Or just watch this quick overview video: http://blip.tv/lessig/republic-lost-my-favorite-version-5697728

Unlimited donations from large donors erodes the democratic process. Campaign finance reform should be our top priority. Once we fix that, it makes fixing all our other problems so much easier.

Then you should be impressed. If you seriously are a developer who writes printer software for HP you are bad and you should feel bad.

Eliminating any kind of political campaign contribution not made by a natural individual, with a limit (say $100). This might iluminate the issue a little

You don't get to call counterpoints irrelevant just because they don't agree with your world view.

- it's not a counterpoint, is you completely lacking understanding of the original point.

Can you show where the bill dictates that a plan that covers all possible conditions may not exceed a certain price regardless of the patient's health history?

- that is rudimentary, my retarded non-friend, the insurance cannot exceed cost of medical care itself, because then it would only mean that it's cheaper to pay out of pocket and why would you want insurance if it's cheaper to pay out of pocket.

Also if a person cannot afford insurance, he will be subsidised by gov't (so taxes), that is what ACA provides for.

There is a word 'AFFORDABLE' in this Act, isn't there?

Here is Obama: we will start by reducing premiums to 2500 dollars per family per year.

There you go making things up, yet again. People have had the ability to drop their insurance for years yet almost nobody has. Why would they go through the trouble of doing it now? Oh yeah, they wouldn't.

- you are such a total nincompoop, it is embarrassing that you share genes with the rest of the human population.

People didn't drop insurance BEFORE ACA because to get back would be expensive and maybe impossible if they developed health conditions, and now without having to worry about pre-existing health conditions anybody in USA will have the entitlement and the insurance will have the obligation that anybody must be able to buy a plan, regardless of what the condition is.

THIS IS WHY the people will have insurance only for the period of time that it takes them to treat their condition, have a surgery, whatever. If the condition goes away and they don't need treatment, then they don't need to pay for the insurance plan, and the next time the situation is exactly the same.

Now, SANE and INTELLIGENT people will do that, idiots like you, well, who knows how you don't drown yourself in a toilet every morning.

Lessig gives some examples on this talk: http://blip.tv/lessig/republic-lost-my-favorite-version-5697728 I'm not sure they represent regulation that can be reduced, but they DO illustrate how corporate money influence the agenda. Just my 2 cents

Multitasking is different under Unity. Here's a short video demoing one way to get things done.

Powerusers tend to be more keyboard than mouse centric simply because it's often the quickest way to accomplish something. Using Unity from the keyboard is actually a pretty good experience and once you develop the muscle memory, you start to miss the Unity features when using other desktops (and who doesn't have to use more than one desktop these days?).

The yield of a process, which seems to be the percentages you are quoting, isn't directly related to the ability to rework hand-drawn rubylith masks. In fact, the 6502 worked with the very first tape-out (virtually unheard of).

Jack Tramiel was a typical narcissistic domineering businessman, who had a typewriter and then calculator business that bought it's way into computers with the acquisition of MOS, mainly to ensure their calculator chip supply. The amazing success of the 6502 and the Commodore computers can be attributed to the brilliance of a very small group of genius engineers at MOS, led by Chuck Peddle. There will not likely be a time again where we will know the developers of a CPU by name, a CPU that sold hundreds of millions and who's architecture is still in use.

If the bottom line of the 6502 was affected by mask design, it is that they had the finest designers at MOS. The quote below is from the book ("On the Edge: the Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore"

Pavinen and Holt handed off the completed mask to the MOS technicians, who began fabricating the first run of chips. Bil Herd summarizes the situation. “No chip worked the first time,” he states emphatically. “No chip. It took seven or nine revs [revisions], or if someone was real good they would get it in five or six.” ...

Implausibly, the engineers detected no errors in Mensch’s layout. “He built seven different chips without ever having an error,” says Peddle with disbelief in his voice. “Almost all done by hand. When I tell people that, they don’t believe me, but it’s true. This guy is a unique person. He is the best layout guy in world.”

If you have hours to watch it, here's an informal interview with Chuck Peddle from a year and a half ago, where he goes into depth about the design of the 6502 and the Commodore computers, working Jack and Microsoft, and all sorts of topics, in the kind of interview you never thought you would see from the central figure in all of CBM:

Part 1: http://blip.tv/file/4055830
Part 2: http://blip.tv/file/4084084
Part 3: http://blip.tv/file/4084124

The yield of a process, which seems to be the percentages you are quoting, isn't directly related to the ability to rework hand-drawn rubylith masks. In fact, the 6502 worked with the very first tape-out (virtually unheard of).

Jack Tramiel was a typical narcissistic domineering businessman, who had a typewriter and then calculator business that bought it's way into computers with the acquisition of MOS, mainly to ensure their calculator chip supply. The amazing success of the 6502 and the Commodore computers can be attributed to the brilliance of a very small group of genius engineers at MOS, led by Chuck Peddle. There will not likely be a time again where we will know the developers of a CPU by name, a CPU that sold hundreds of millions and who's architecture is still in use.

If the bottom line of the 6502 was affected by mask design, it is that they had the finest designers at MOS. The quote below is from the book ("On the Edge: the Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore"

Pavinen and Holt handed off the completed mask to the MOS technicians, who began fabricating the first run of chips. Bil Herd summarizes the situation. “No chip worked the first time,” he states emphatically. “No chip. It took seven or nine revs [revisions], or if someone was real good they would get it in five or six.” ...

Implausibly, the engineers detected no errors in Mensch’s layout. “He built seven different chips without ever having an error,” says Peddle with disbelief in his voice. “Almost all done by hand. When I tell people that, they don’t believe me, but it’s true. This guy is a unique person. He is the best layout guy in world.”

If you have hours to watch it, here's an informal interview with Chuck Peddle from a year and a half ago, where he goes into depth about the design of the 6502 and the Commodore computers, working Jack and Microsoft, and all sorts of topics, in the kind of interview you never thought you would see from the central figure in all of CBM:

Part 1: http://blip.tv/file/4055830
Part 2: http://blip.tv/file/4084084
Part 3: http://blip.tv/file/4084124

The yield of a process, which seems to be the percentages you are quoting, isn't directly related to the ability to rework hand-drawn rubylith masks. In fact, the 6502 worked with the very first tape-out (virtually unheard of).

Jack Tramiel was a typical narcissistic domineering businessman, who had a typewriter and then calculator business that bought it's way into computers with the acquisition of MOS, mainly to ensure their calculator chip supply. The amazing success of the 6502 and the Commodore computers can be attributed to the brilliance of a very small group of genius engineers at MOS, led by Chuck Peddle. There will not likely be a time again where we will know the developers of a CPU by name, a CPU that sold hundreds of millions and who's architecture is still in use.

If the bottom line of the 6502 was affected by mask design, it is that they had the finest designers at MOS. The quote below is from the book ("On the Edge: the Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore"

Pavinen and Holt handed off the completed mask to the MOS technicians, who began fabricating the first run of chips. Bil Herd summarizes the situation. “No chip worked the first time,” he states emphatically. “No chip. It took seven or nine revs [revisions], or if someone was real good they would get it in five or six.” ...

Implausibly, the engineers detected no errors in Mensch’s layout. “He built seven different chips without ever having an error,” says Peddle with disbelief in his voice. “Almost all done by hand. When I tell people that, they don’t believe me, but it’s true. This guy is a unique person. He is the best layout guy in world.”

If you have hours to watch it, here's an informal interview with Chuck Peddle from a year and a half ago, where he goes into depth about the design of the 6502 and the Commodore computers, working Jack and Microsoft, and all sorts of topics, in the kind of interview you never thought you would see from the central figure in all of CBM:

Part 1: http://blip.tv/file/4055830
Part 2: http://blip.tv/file/4084084
Part 3: http://blip.tv/file/4084124

Here's a once widely used machine few have seen or heard. This is a Teletype Model 14 printer designed in 1924 and built in 1929. This was the technology used for telegrams from 1925 to 1959. Every Western Union office had a few of these. After cleaning, oiling, a new case, and some minor repairs, this 80-year old machine works reliably. We usually have it connected to a news RSS feed, or get messages via SMS through an SMS gateway.

We'll have this, and some of our other gear, at the Clockwork Alchemy Steampunk Convention.

Aye!

Then, in case one needs to know about male geeks being rude (maybe without wanting to, actually), read this:

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/22786_To_My_Someday_Daughter.html

That's a pretty long read, though. Maybe just watch "How to not be a Dick", by Matthew Garreth at Lugradio live 2008:

http://blip.tv/flamekebab/lrluk-2008-the-gong-a-thong-lightbulb-talk-extravaganza-matthew-garrett-1109597

Clojure has excellent language design and parallelism and the team recently released ClojureScript. A video introduction can be found here.

Heh, reminds me of the ending of Sales Guy vs Web Dude

Nevertheless, due to the GIL only one thread can run at once. Yes, I/O bound tasks can benefit from threads, but this is more for architecture reasons than anything else; a thread not running due to the GIL is functionally the same as a thread not running because it's waiting for I/O. You can throw all the cores in the world at it, but they won't speed anything up and can actually slow it down. If you try to take full advantage of said cores for a CPU-bound task, which is what the GP was complaining about and where multi-core processors shine, neither CPython nor Stackless python will help with that (assuming all threads are in the same process). IronPython has this problem as well, but Jython lacks the GIL - it may be worth investigating if one was trying to do heavy-duty CPU-bound processing in Python.

Thanks for the Link. Very interesting.

So somebody that has not even heard of the root window is trying to tell us all what X can or can't do and getting it wrong?

I'm pretty sure Keith Packard, as a lead of X.org, has heard of the root window.

Here is the video I was referring to: X and the future of Linux Graphics.

The X.Org folks are already working on moving in the same direction as Wayland, however. Keith Packard talks about it here:
X and the future of Linux Graphics

GTK 3.2+ has remote capibility, by translating to HTML interfaces.

Also the X sever has already been gutted quite a bit, Especially since it was modularized. For instance compositing managers have taken over windows management. Mode setting has being added to the kernel, memory management by separate things like G.E.M. Eventually X may just be used for legacy toolkits and remote windowing. If Wayland can properly support input mapping and swapping to/from X, I don't see why the remote capability through X could not be kept or even improved, A variation of X that only needed to know how to interpret the final Wayland outputs rather than having hundreds of device input drivers could make it pretty lean.

An interest presentation http://blip.tv/linuxconfau/x-and-the-future-of-linux-graphics-4711540

So somebody that has not even heard of the root window is trying to tell us all what X can or can't do and getting it wrong?

I'm pretty sure Keith Packard, as a lead of X.org, has heard of the root window.

Here is the video I was referring to: X and the future of Linux Graphics.

People watch people play Starcraft? Oh this is just a Korean thing...they have weird fascinations with games that other cultures don't.

Nope, not just a Korean thing (Although moreso a Korean thing). Starcraft 2 actually has a pretty big following of people watching it (For a video game). There's a North American pro league, a good number of English-language casters on youtube who get over 100K viewers per game they cast (like Husky), and people like Day[9] who get a huge following casting games and talking about strategy.

Sure, it's small compared to mainstream things like real sports, but it's gotten surprisingly big.

What is this trying to emulate? A telnet BBS that had a few unix-like commands? I would at least hope for a shell account on some big old university iron running usenet and talk with the clocks set back to 1983 as the real experience. Remember that this era was pre-PC, with no access outside the uni or a connected company.

BBS's, that's nostalgia. Making a phone call to a computer system in someone's basement that if you were lucky had more than one phone line or modem so you could interact with random user #2. Basically you would play a single player "door" game that might have stats for other players, or leave messages that someone else could log in and read. I knew two BBS ops, one ran PC in 1991 and the other C128 in 1989. Yawn.

The real good times was services like Quantumlink (actual video of the service from 1989) and Compuserve, where you actually interacted with a larger community. A lot of time spent on something that was nothing of significance, but was something new. Kind of like Slashdot.

There is no effective Chess equivalent to a Zerg rush. (Thing's like the Fool's Mate don't count, they require active participation of both players.)

It's been a while since I played chess, as it was mainly in middle school and high school. However, I'm pretty sure that there IS an analogue to chess's complexity in an RTS. Let's talk more about Starcraft 2. Some tactics work well against poor players (like me), but skilled players know that there are a variety of openings, all of which you need to be able to defend against. There are several mid-game branchings of technology trees (magine if you didn't know whether your opponent was developing Bishops or Knights until they engaged you) which you can recognize based on timings of events in the game (buildings seen, units seen, etc). On top of that, some maps favor different tactics.

If you've never watch Day9's video blog on Starcraft 2 strategy (especially his videos on learning the timings of tech trees and what your opponent is working on), it's fascinating. It may change your mind about the relative complexity of chess versus SC2. SC2 has branching choices for what your opponent might do, combined with fog of war, resource management, and the very real problem of maintaining battlefield awareness (which I am terrible at) enough to recognize what your opponent is doing before he rolls into your base with something you're ill-prepared to defend against.

Day[9] Daily #132, Back to Basics: http://day9tv.blip.tv/file/3732340/
He rambles a bit at the start about Random Crap, but talks a lot about the fundamentals of the game, and such. (I wanted to find the video he did during the Starcraft 2 beta about recognizing your opponent's tech tree decisions based on the time at which you see certain telltale units, but I can't find it. If another poster knows what I'm referring to, can you link it?)

Telautographs were used well into the 1970s. You write or draw at one end, and the pen at the other end follows. That's all they do. Railroads used to use them for train orders, which had to be signed. They have zero relationship with the iPad. (The Newton, which had pen input, maybe.)

Early telautographs suffered from the usual problem of pre-vacuum tube electrical devices - they needed signal amplification. That was really hard to do before tubes, let alone transistors. There's a long history of early amplifying devices, all of them awful. Grey's patent shows one mechanical approach. Later (tube) versions used analog audio tones, so they could transmit over phone lines.

I've been looking for one. I sometimes restore antique Teletype equipment, especially pre-1930 machines.

A major problem I see is that they didn't include innovations from other games that make the RTS genre more accessible.

For example, both the original Dawn of War and Supreme Commander allow you to right click a unit in a unit-producing structure to set it into an efficient but automatic build queue - it only starts building a new unit once the current one is complete.

Starcraft II doesn't have this feature, so players have to memorize the build time of every unit for their race, and remember to manually go back and rebuild units every time they're done.

Queuing up units in SC II ties up resources and causes you to fall behind an opponent who memorizes unit build timings. Failing to memorize the build timings and remember to repetitively build units during play results in a smaller army than an opponent who memorizes unit build timings.

This is overall known as "macro" in SCII. It's very important; important enough that if you just master macro, you can get into platinum or the top end of gold league.

There's no strategy involved in macro. It's just a matter of perfectly memorizing and executing very repetitive actions while under stress. I think the motivation behind this is so that players only get to really see and enjoy strategy in diamond league, since at that point everyone's macro is roughly equal enough that their micro (control of units in battle) and their overall strategy are the deciding factors in the match, not macro.

Day9, a former SC1 champion and current commentator has commented in multiple videos on the importance of macro over everything else in even high level matches, and even dedicated an entire instructional video to macro and how to "really" play SCII (using minimap only to move the main screen, etc). He's doing a major service for the SC2 community with his instructional videos. They are absolutely wonderful. But at the same time they're an unintentional indictment on the game for its unnecessary barriers to entry.

A major problem I see is that they didn't include innovations from other games that make the RTS genre more accessible.

For example, both the original Dawn of War and Supreme Commander allow you to right click a unit in a unit-producing structure to set it into an efficient but automatic build queue - it only starts building a new unit once the current one is complete.

Starcraft II doesn't have this feature, so players have to memorize the build time of every unit for their race, and remember to manually go back and rebuild units every time they're done.

Queuing up units in SC II ties up resources and causes you to fall behind an opponent who memorizes unit build timings. Failing to memorize the build timings and remember to repetitively build units during play results in a smaller army than an opponent who memorizes unit build timings.

This is overall known as "macro" in SCII. It's very important; important enough that if you just master macro, you can get into platinum or the top end of gold league.

There's no strategy involved in macro. It's just a matter of perfectly memorizing and executing very repetitive actions while under stress. I think the motivation behind this is so that players only get to really see and enjoy strategy in diamond league, since at that point everyone's macro is roughly equal enough that their micro (control of units in battle) and their overall strategy are the deciding factors in the match, not macro.

Day9, a former SC1 champion and current commentator has commented in multiple videos on the importance of macro over everything else in even high level matches, and even dedicated an entire instructional video to macro and how to "really" play SCII (using minimap only to move the main screen, etc). He's doing a major service for the SC2 community with his instructional videos. They are absolutely wonderful. But at the same time they're an unintentional indictment on the game for its unnecessary barriers to entry.

A Gentoo contributer summed it up really well in this presentation. The title alone justifies watching at least a few minutes.

I ran across this looking for info on the book.

http://blip.tv/file/4058583/

It's just a tasteful, nude background on his desktop. Nothing that should warrant a removal by YouTube, but it's their prudish prerogative.

For those of us who are adults and capable of seeing a female breast without going nuts, here's an alternate link to the video:

http://blip.tv/file/4790125

Alternative URL from the original Google groups post:http://blip.tv/file/4790125

Here's the video. There is "sexual" content in that his background isn't SFW. You have been warned if you really care about it.

http://blip.tv/file/4790125 [NSFW]

http://blip.tv/file/4790125

Screw that flash laden b/s.

Point your download accelerators at these links, and watch them in a proper video player.

Vint Cerf Keynote

X and the Future of Linux Graphics

(right click, save as...)

Screw that flash laden b/s.

Point your download accelerators at these links, and watch them in a proper video player.

Vint Cerf Keynote

X and the Future of Linux Graphics

(right click, save as...)

See http://blip.tv/file/4535436

These guys are hard core and fighting the good fight. Their struggle against corporate greed should be our struggle.

Because most people building websites are techies their idea of something new and exciting is completely different to the everyday person.

I recently attended a lecture by Toby Moore on the cool curve, it helps explain why things like twitter get popular.

http://blip.tv/play/lG2B1fgbAg

This has been posted before and apologies for the tentacle porn thread hijack, but this is well worth the watch in any broadband policy discussion.

It's not really the case on whether there is a system out there already, chances are there are plenty that could be likely candidates to explode in popularity; all it takes is the bandwagon to start.

I recently attended a quite interesting lecture by Toby Moore that talked about the 'Cool Curve', which essentially says that things just usually have to be there at the right time; there were plenty of better services than Twitter before Twitter existed, but people's comfort moved up a little bit which moved twitter into the cool curve.

Toby Moore on the Cool Curve

The fast and coordinated clicking stuff is only the first part of learning SC (II). Strategy comes after that.

To (not literally) quote Sean 'day[9]' Plott: If you are interested in american football and want to play various tactics on the playfield, you first need to train your body. I.E. if you are a scrawny guy, with no muscles and stamina whatsoever, you can think about football tactics all you want, but you simply won't be able to execute them for lack of the basic requirements.

Same goes for SC (II) and every (balanced) RTS in general. The *real* strategy part only comes into play, after the player mastered the basic mechanics of gameplay.

Both Republics and Democrats have been pushing this shit. Who the hell is standing against it?

Lawrence Lessig

Watch these videos to understand his take on the problem and the first step toward a solution.

Institutional Corruption - v3 50min 50sec

Good Soul "corruption" 4min 12sec

Both Republics and Democrats have been pushing this shit. Who the hell is standing against it?

Lawrence Lessig

Watch these videos to understand his take on the problem and the first step toward a solution.

Institutional Corruption - v3 50min 50sec

Good Soul "corruption" 4min 12sec

Finland has half the population density of the US and far faster, cheaper broadband. NYC has huge population density, but very slow, very expensive broadband.

The key factor is competition: US infrastructure owners are allowed to block competitors from using their bits of wire. This creates an almost insurmountable barrier to entry on the market and effectively establishes local monopolies. Consumers have little or no choice, usually.

Everywhere else in the world has a regulatory framework that enforces open access: owners of infrastructure have to sell access to their cabling to all comers at non-discriminatory rates. As a result setting up an ISP is cheap and easy, there is enormous competition, and consumers get fast broadband for chickenfeed.

Here's a lecture by Lessig on the subject:

http://lessig.blip.tv/file/3485790

Not only that, but whatever crappy player they're using doesn't seem to want to let you seek. No matter where you move the marker, the whole presentation just starts over from the beginning -- complete with the audience jabbering right over the speaker.

Go to the source http://telexlr8.blip.tv/file/4083093/ open the Files and Links box in the right column and download the original .mp4 video file.

See Lawrence Lessig on why we failed in broadband compared to other highly developed nations:
http://lessig.blip.tv/file/3485790/

It's not that we over or under-regulated, it's that we got the regulation wrong.

more links. these sightings are pacing up. this is exactly why, u.s., previously very secretive and heavy handed in these matters, is easing up the blockade of information on these subjects. cnn has covered a panel that was comprised of former high level govt officials talking about ufo interactions for the first time, and noted that 'this is no panel of kooks - serious business'. and hawking came out, leave aside denying ufo interaction possibility, tried to scare people off contact. expect to see much more on these, since ufos are also becoming more liberal with exposing themselves :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvFTpAIwAWs

above is long beach, ca police FLIR (forward looking infrared) recording a ufo which was being chased by a police chopper at the time. later police dept reported that the object seemed under intelligent control and chase lasted a few minutes. this is a recent case.

http://blip.tv/file/3522986

above is a much more liberal occurrence. a shot in length, made in geelong australia recently.

if you want more, keep following http://www.ufo-blogger.com/ . Its the most solid source on footages. They send all footate to numerous experts around the world to check for validity. you will find which of the videos were deemed real, which were deemed fake in the postings of the videos themselves.

EXACTLY!

Lawrence Lessig explains it nicely in this video and at this website: Fix Congress First.

After campaigning for a year for Universal, Single Payer health care, the voters elected Obama in a landslide.

It took Corporate lobbyists less than a year to buy out ALL of his fellow democrats. They already own the Republicans. Thus, the votes of millions of Americans are nullified by the corruption of a handful of politicians who took bribes (a.k.a. "Campaign Contributions", which they can convert to personal funds when they retire) and made the wants of a few owners outweigh the hopes of MILLIONS of voters. Both the corporate owners and the politicians have excellent health care plans. The people get the toxins the pharmaceuticals manufacture for profit, not for safety or efficacy.

...in this presentation.