After getting tired of working for someone else, read I was laid off, I decided to go into business for myself creating and selling databases. I currently have one which is a fairly all encompasing solution for university police departments and another for hair salons on the drawing board. All I need to sell and support them is the ability to travel to various universities and a cell phone and email so they can get in touch with me for sales and support questions.
This sounds like an almost ideal solution for you, moving from place to place would constantly change your sales area as basically anything within easy driving distance is fair game. You can support you existing customers from anywhere you can get email and obviously a web site for your product doesn't care where you are located, just update the contact info as necessary.
I think the biggest problem here that most people are missing is that Above.net is not your standard ISP. They are what is commonly referred to as a Tier 1 ISP.
When I connect to the Internet as Joe User I have no voice whatsoever as to what path my packets take. I may buy my connectivity from Local.net who in turn buys it from NSP.net who in turn peers with Tier1.net who then peers with Above.net. If it were simply a case whereby I could change my ISP to voice my diapproval with their policies that would be one thing, but as it is I have no way to opt out of using Above.net's pipes.
As a Tier 1 provider it is generally assumed that it is their duty to provide nothing more than an open pipe, anyone with a networking background knows you never apply filters at the core level, that should be handled at the access level. By the very practices of the networking industry in general Above.net is committing several transgressions.
In all honesty they can't afford to commit too many more of these blockings without risking their peering partners dumping them in favor of someone who doesn't apply filters. As a NOC Manager myself I would be horrified to find out I was directly peering with someone who doesn't understand the basics of network topology.
I urge anyone working for the major ISP's to drop Above.net as a peering provider in favor of someone a little more user friendly.
I know that here in Texas jiggling the door handle would fall under the classification of criminal mischeif at night which does justify the use of deadly force. Now whether or not your conscience could handle shooting little Jimmy from next door who just wanted to know if you saw his puppy is a whole other question. The fact is you wouldn't be gonig to jail.
Sure they could be positioning themselves, but my VC statement was a guess.
I want to know if they are actively persuing profit as we speak, or if they are simply trying to scrape together enough money to pay for their legal bills and hardware. They could very easily rake in the cash by including banner ads in their client, setting certain songs to rate higher in search returns in exchange for advertising cash from the bands, etc. Is any of this happening right now though is my question.
They are performing a free service, but they are also making every attempt to make money off that service
I may have missed something here, but how is Napster trying to make money? VC possibly but considering the size of their legal bill it's certainly understandable. I don't even see any banner ads on their site.
Please consider this an honest inquery and not a flame as this may just change my opinion of them.
Earbuds people, they're called earbuds. Whenever I talk on my cell it's usually sitting on my hip and the only thing near my head is a tiny speaker/mic combo that sits in my ear. Possible radiation to my brain, nil. Possible radiation for my future generations, that's another story (and probably the least of their worries).
Now do I do this because I fear the cell phone will fry my brain? Hell no, for the same reason I don't worry about spending all day staring into a monitor or freak out if there are power lines near my house. It's a crock, unfortunately not everyone out there was a physics major in college and most people will unquestioningly believe anything someone in a lab coat tells them.
It's a sad commentary on modern society that the vast majority of people have lost the ability to think for themselves. Alas, my.sig is as true today as it was when Heinlein first said it.
work with me here people...there is a distinct difference between "Clinton frowns on anonymity" and "A commission requested by Clinton frowns on anonymity"
Is it just me or is the sensationalism on slashdot recently getting to be a bit much?
An obvious extrapolation of this law is in effect in Texas. We have laws here that clearly define "deadly weapons" as any object capable of killing a person when used in that manner.
Thus not only guns and knives, but bricks, TV's, buckets of water, or pieces of rope, can all be considered deadly weapons. The only reason for this law's existance is to justify use of deadly force when necessary. Let's face it, no cop is going to bust someone for posession of a 2x4 while they're building a dog house.
I would tend to avoid the use of pro/anti-life for the reason that the primary question being debated here is not whether or not to have an abortion, but rather if they should be legal thus offering the choice.
This would put the people who believe that abortion is wrong for them, but regardless of their opinions, others should have the ability to make their own decisions in a very tough spot. To me it all comes down to the difficulty in defining this middle group that makes me lean towards pro/anti-choice.
If however you can come up with a group of people who believe both that abortion is wrong and should be outlawed, yet would have one themselves, well.......
I know this is off topic, but this is one of those things that bothers me.
It shouldn't be pro-choice and pro-life, but rather pro-choice and anti-choice.
The obvious problem here is that nobody wants to be considered anti-choice, yet where does that leave the many people who believe that it's a woman's right to choose, yet would never dream of having an abortion themselves? They seem to be both pro-choice and pro-life.
I have many friends who fit this description and classify themselves as pro-choice only to be berated as murderers by the pro-lifers.
I know changing group labels isn't a solution, but we have no hope of solving this issue if we don't even know whose side people are on.
I have an acount with a free ISP here in the states called netzero. Pretty handy when you're out of town and don't feel like paying serious long distance charges. Check out their local access numbers at access numbers. Sure they throw up a banner ad on your screen, but for what you get it's not a bad trade off.
"we're talking about a tiny, tiny amount of plastic...a few grams of plastic and less than a gram of aluminium, plus the cardboard and plastic sleeve they sold it to you in"
This is a good point, but when's the last time you can remember the vast majority of Americans looking at something rationally. As a nation, we are far too eager to latch on to whatever BadThing(tm) the media feels like doling out on the evening news and protesting it untill we're blue in the face.
However we will just as quickly drop a cause as we picked it up as soon as ABC/CBS/NBS/TLA stop telling us about it. When's the last time you heard anything about high-tension power lines? Anyone who ever studied basic E&M knows that they don't produce enough of an EMF to reach ground level, yet for a couple of years they were practically the end of civilization, right up until the media moved on to something new.
Americans have the nasty habit of becoming very angry and very vocal at the drop of a hat, and I believe if anything will kill disposable DVD's, this will.
Slashdot Mirror
After getting tired of working for someone else, read I was laid off, I decided to go into business for myself creating and selling databases. I currently have one which is a fairly all encompasing solution for university police departments and another for hair salons on the drawing board. All I need to sell and support them is the ability to travel to various universities and a cell phone and email so they can get in touch with me for sales and support questions.
This sounds like an almost ideal solution for you, moving from place to place would constantly change your sales area as basically anything within easy driving distance is fair game. You can support you existing customers from anywhere you can get email and obviously a web site for your product doesn't care where you are located, just update the contact info as necessary.
I think the biggest problem here that most people are missing is that Above.net is not your standard ISP. They are what is commonly referred to as a Tier 1 ISP.
When I connect to the Internet as Joe User I have no voice whatsoever as to what path my packets take. I may buy my connectivity from Local.net who in turn buys it from NSP.net who in turn peers with Tier1.net who then peers with Above.net. If it were simply a case whereby I could change my ISP to voice my diapproval with their policies that would be one thing, but as it is I have no way to opt out of using Above.net's pipes.
As a Tier 1 provider it is generally assumed that it is their duty to provide nothing more than an open pipe, anyone with a networking background knows you never apply filters at the core level, that should be handled at the access level. By the very practices of the networking industry in general Above.net is committing several transgressions.
In all honesty they can't afford to commit too many more of these blockings without risking their peering partners dumping them in favor of someone who doesn't apply filters. As a NOC Manager myself I would be horrified to find out I was directly peering with someone who doesn't understand the basics of network topology.
I urge anyone working for the major ISP's to drop Above.net as a peering provider in favor of someone a little more user friendly.
That depends on where you live.
I know that here in Texas jiggling the door handle would fall under the classification of criminal mischeif at night which does justify the use of deadly force. Now whether or not your conscience could handle shooting little Jimmy from next door who just wanted to know if you saw his puppy is a whole other question. The fact is you wouldn't be gonig to jail.
Sure they could be positioning themselves, but my VC statement was a guess.
I want to know if they are actively persuing profit as we speak, or if they are simply trying to scrape together enough money to pay for their legal bills and hardware. They could very easily rake in the cash by including banner ads in their client, setting certain songs to rate higher in search returns in exchange for advertising cash from the bands, etc. Is any of this happening right now though is my question.
They are performing a free service, but they are also making every attempt to make money off that service
I may have missed something here, but how is Napster trying to make money? VC possibly but considering the size of their legal bill it's certainly understandable. I don't even see any banner ads on their site.
Please consider this an honest inquery and not a flame as this may just change my opinion of them.
because it's nice to finally have someone say "go for it"
Earbuds people, they're called earbuds. Whenever I talk on my cell it's usually sitting on my hip and the only thing near my head is a tiny speaker/mic combo that sits in my ear. Possible radiation to my brain, nil. Possible radiation for my future generations, that's another story (and probably the least of their worries).
.sig is as true today as it was when Heinlein first said it.
Now do I do this because I fear the cell phone will fry my brain? Hell no, for the same reason I don't worry about spending all day staring into a monitor or freak out if there are power lines near my house. It's a crock, unfortunately not everyone out there was a physics major in college and most people will unquestioningly believe anything someone in a lab coat tells them.
It's a sad commentary on modern society that the vast majority of people have lost the ability to think for themselves. Alas, my
Apple (1984): an 128k mac saying "hello"
Dodge (90's): a Neon saying "hi"
and the Pentium isn't different, its special.....
Gee, could this anonymous coward be Mr. Fries or one of his associates?
By the way, there is a distinct difference between created and modified dates, remember that next time.
work with me here people...there is a distinct difference between "Clinton frowns on anonymity" and "A commission requested by Clinton frowns on anonymity"
Is it just me or is the sensationalism on slashdot recently getting to be a bit much?
My personal favorite line:
Altogether, nine separate groups within Microsoft Research contributed more than 15 innovations to Windows 2000
WOW!!! Can you believe that!!! In a mere three years they managed to come up with 15 innovations. Those guys gefinitely earned their 7 figures.
An obvious extrapolation of this law is in effect in Texas. We have laws here that clearly define "deadly weapons" as any object capable of killing a person when used in that manner.
Thus not only guns and knives, but bricks, TV's, buckets of water, or pieces of rope, can all be considered deadly weapons. The only reason for this law's existance is to justify use of deadly force when necessary. Let's face it, no cop is going to bust someone for posession of a 2x4 while they're building a dog house.
Being an avid drinker of guiness, I'm pretty sure those nine pounds didn's go far
...damn shrinking pants...
I would tend to avoid the use of pro/anti-life for the reason that the primary question being debated here is not whether or not to have an abortion, but rather if they should be legal thus offering the choice.
This would put the people who believe that abortion is wrong for them, but regardless of their opinions, others should have the ability to make their own decisions in a very tough spot. To me it all comes down to the difficulty in defining this middle group that makes me lean towards pro/anti-choice.
If however you can come up with a group of people who believe both that abortion is wrong and should be outlawed, yet would have one themselves, well.......
I know this is off topic, but this is one of those things that bothers me.
It shouldn't be pro-choice and pro-life, but rather pro-choice and anti-choice.
The obvious problem here is that nobody wants to be considered anti-choice, yet where does that leave the many people who believe that it's a woman's right to choose, yet would never dream of having an abortion themselves? They seem to be both pro-choice and pro-life.
I have many friends who fit this description and classify themselves as pro-choice only to be berated as murderers by the pro-lifers.
I know changing group labels isn't a solution, but we have no hope of solving this issue if we don't even know whose side people are on.
I have an acount with a free ISP here in the states called netzero. Pretty handy when you're out of town and don't feel like paying serious long distance charges. Check out their local access numbers at access numbers. Sure they throw up a banner ad on your screen, but for what you get it's not a bad trade off.
This is a good point, but when's the last time you can remember the vast majority of Americans looking at something rationally. As a nation, we are far too eager to latch on to whatever BadThing(tm) the media feels like doling out on the evening news and protesting it untill we're blue in the face.
However we will just as quickly drop a cause as we picked it up as soon as ABC/CBS/NBS/TLA stop telling us about it. When's the last time you heard anything about high-tension power lines? Anyone who ever studied basic E&M knows that they don't produce enough of an EMF to reach ground level, yet for a couple of years they were practically the end of civilization, right up until the media moved on to something new.
Americans have the nasty habit of becoming very angry and very vocal at the drop of a hat, and I believe if anything will kill disposable DVD's, this will.
Jeff
Hey...and maybe the government can use the money to give tax breaks to companies that keep thousands of IT people employed by producing bad software