Agree, but it is quite possible that the people who put out these statements don't have a clue about what is happening technically. The public policy / PR people may have never seen a router. I can imagine an engineer talking to some moron VP, trying to explain how the blocking works. After 30 minutes, the engineer gives up and lets the VP say something inaccurate just to get out of his office.
Therefore, I think it is equally likely that Comcast are ignorant pigs as they are lying pigs. Either way, if I had a choice (but I don't), I'd switch providers.
Fair enough, but I still think NASA shouldn't kluge together a Mars mission with our current technology. They need a better propulsion system, a vastly cheaper way to get materials into orbit, a reliable artificial environment system to sustain the payload, a means of protecting them from radiation, and probably more. NASA should solve these basic problems first, even if it takes a few hundred years. The Moon landings were daredevil showmanship that never lead to a practical space exploration program.
I have looked into this, but I have never found an answer.
Wouldn't the downward force applied to the system from an ascending load cause the ribbon to lag behind its earth anchor? It seems that some kind of propellant would have to be hoisted into space and then used to keep the free floating space modulule at the top from lagging behind and eventually falling out of orbit.
This demonstrates that the manned exploration part of NASA's budget is a complete waste. If it is even possible using 21st century technology, a manned mission to Mars would cost at a minimum $20B, i suspect more like $100B. For that kind of money, NASA could develop a new generation of robots that could cover more territory and last longer than any humans. If NASA is about nationalism (its original purpose), then fine, waste the money. If NASA is about science, then it should can its manned program.
Hate Bush all you want, but the real story is that this may get Joe off. His real crime wasn't insider trading, but accounting fraud. The Feds declined to indict him on that offense, going for the easier to understand insider trading (which I don't think really exists).
It's too late to indict Joe for anything new, and he may have an appealable issue. If he does no time, then the Feds have really blown it.
BTW, petty government people who retaliate on unrelated fronts for unjustifiable reasons are nothing new. Kennedy, Nixon, and Clinton all have been acused of directing the IRS to audit their enemies (probably other presidents as well).
The idea that anything cosmically interesting or unusual has happened in the 100K or so years of modern human existance is extremely unlikely. Equally unlikely is that anything interesting or unusual is about to happen.
I am sure someone can point to the court ruling that said that personal copies (for the owner's sole use) are covered by the fair use exemption. I find it impossible that she does not know that. I can only assume that she is trying to influence lawmakers by saying something that she must know is wrong.
The OP conjectures that, when the MS component is a small portion of the purchase, buyers have no problem with buying MS software. As MS components become a larger proportion of the purchase, buyers will investigate other possibilities.
I disagree. IBM gave away OS/2 in its machines to no avail, and mostly free Linux hasn't had any impact on the desktop. OS/X, however, which costs at least as much as Vista (as a hardware bundle) has made a small impact. Also, the real (inflation adjusted) price of OEM MS OSes has generally fallen, especially on a per-line of code basis.
The reason people pay for Windows, IMO, is the perceived need for Windows to run many desired programs. While Widows is an OK program (I like Vista fine), it has failed where it was forced to stand alone. For example, in web servers, the Apache / Linux combo was the most popular the last time I heard. Embedded Windows is less popular than Linux because there is no reason to pay more than $0 for an OS with no ties to the customer experience. Oracle, SAP, and IBM are offering Linux server based products because there is no need for more expensive OSes in the back room.
MS earns a super normal profit margin on its products because they are believed to be required to perform essential tasks. It's not the falling hardware prices that threaten MS, but rather the challenges at its Office and IE products that threaten Windows. Without tie-ins to unique products, Windows would fall in price to its economic value ($5?). Unless MS does something brilliant, it is in danger of having the competitive world side step its defense of Windows. MS won't be beaten by its voiceful detractors on this board, it will just become irrelevant.
In the view of the NYT, large corporations are large. Therefore, they have no interest in understanding them. They are alien and therefore evil. They are probably aligned with the Bush administration somehow. Considering that Gates is a NYT reading moderate leftist, that's a hoot. Anyway, the NYT isn't about to edit or censor an article critical of a major global corporation, which allows the Apple fanboy a sizeable platform.
The reason cable is treated differently from other services like AT&T or DirecTV is that the FCC has a history of defining regulatory realms based on technology type instead of fundamental service provided. For example, to the consumer, DSL and Cable Modem are the same thing, but provided differently. To the FCC, they are regulated entirely differently with DSL carrying a much higher burden. At the state level, many DSL providers have been coerced into expanding their service areas, but notthe cable companies. Indeed, when the FCC considers what constitutes competition, it doesn't even acknowlege that DSL and cable modems are competitors.
Back to TV, the FCC is so stuck in its old regulatory model for cable that it can't see that it is giving cable's competitors an advantage.
Aside from interoperability standards, I think the US would be better off without the FCC at all.
Anyone who doesn't hate MS is Fanboy? I hate to use such a worn out phrase, but you are the Kool-Aid drinker for your knee jerk hatred of MS and Gates.
I am quite sure that Ellison, Jobs, and McNeally all pursued the same strategies as did Gates. For that matter, IBM, DEC, Wang, Sperry, and Burroughs also all pursued closed systems strategies. Gates was simply a sharper competitor (also IBM gave him an empire on a plate because they were beyond stupid).
All you MS haters just can't stand that MS's popularity runs contrary to your exquisite sensibilities. Apple made crappy products for about a decade, and that is not Gates's fault.
Not that it mattered, but I used to be a Mac user, and a Unix admin.
I know everyone hates MS, but they bought a competing browser to launch IE. Adopting another company's good ideas (Netscape or Xerox) is not stealing, it's a main engine of innovation and increased value for the consumer.
If the Daily Kos is protected speech, then Rush Limbaugh is protected speech (and I think both should be). What about Bill Moyers? He largely advocates liberal causes on TV.
Now, what if I bought a billboard that said "Vote Libertarian," which is what the back of my iPod says? What is the difference except that the Daily Kos buys electrons to send its message and I buy ink molecules? The intent is the same.
Now, what is the real difference if a friend and I pool our money together to buy the billboard? That is the exercise of my right to free association and assembly. That is prohibited by this horrible law.
The whole McCain Feingold law is a slippery slope to collectivism (same as Stalinism, Nazism, Democrats, Republicans at different temperatures). McCain is especially an enemy of the Constitution, and it is a shame the Supreme Court didn't throw out the whole mess. Indeed, McCain Feingold is a brassy effort to silence the critics of incumbent candidates.
I know the majority of people dislike Karl Rove, but let me assure you, the Government was doing stupid things long before he came along, and that will never change.
DSL is an interesting technology in that it works at all. For the 80 or so years before someone discovered that DSL could work, telcos made a variety of design choices that were incompatible with DSL (line taps, coils, analog repeaters). In fact, unless you live very close to a central office, the best way to get good DSL is to run fiber to a neighborhood cross connect box (or better still to your block's pedestal.
ILECs are required to open this improvement to DSL CLECs, but may not be required to install such improvements just for a CLEC. Also, some states mandate the removal of line taps, coils, and analog repeaters, and some don't. In any event, most states do not require an ILEC to guarantee the line's quality for DSL purposes, which means that the most common fix when a CLEC DSL goes down is to swap lines until a better one is found. Not surprisingly, the ILEC doesn't care much since it isn't making any appreciable money on the deal.
Cable companies aren't required to open their networks, but if they did, I strongly suspect they would allow the same troubles for their competitors. If you want good broadband, go with the facility owner, IMO.
The best route to better and cheaper broadband is improved G3, WiMax, and power line based competition.
Government hack #1: "I would sure like to create a new program to help the (insert constituency of choice here). My pollsters show I am weak with (insert demographic that thinks constituency is being mistreated)" Government hack #2: "That sounds fine, but how would you like to pay for it?" GH1: "I don't know, how about reducing one of the programs that doesn't do much good for those (insert constituency not represented by GH1)." GH2: "Stop right there, that underperforming program was part of my platform for change in 1978." GH1: "Well, what should I do?" GH2: "Well, some of my telecom lobbyists are concerned that unlicensed spectrum will compete with the spectrum they paid too much for the 1990's. Why don't we pay for your new program by taxing the unlicensed spectrum users. That way, you get your program and I can protect my telecom supporters. After all, nobody knows who the unlicensed spectrum users are right now or which party they lean towards." GH1: "Huh?" GH2: "Just vote for it and everything will be OK." GH1: "Thanks, GH2, this should get me another 2 years of pubic sector bliss." GH2: Thanks, GH1, same here. All we had to do was raise taxes and stiffle an emerging market."
The political norm throughout history is a dictatorship. We live in a comparably new and rare environment of rule of law, and here and now are the best place and time in history by almost every metric. IMO, that is not a coincidence. Even in today's world, nearly half of people are not what I would describe as free (China, Middle East, most of Africa). One reason why privacy and our liberties matter is because our privacy and rights of free association and speech are weapons to keep government power in check. As the great F.A. Hayek pointed out, the path from a liberal society to Hitler or Stalin can be amazingly quick.
The US Federal Government has proven that it will use tools designed to catch gangsters to prosecute abortion protestors (RICO) and tools designed to catch terrorists to catch drug dealers (Patriot Act). Governments will always use every tool available to them to expand their power and to pursue their agenda. This is why someone might think he has nothing to hide, but a future government might decide otherwise.
The only answer is to be vigilant against government power grabs even if they seem reasonable at the time.
This is a good reminder that people from all times and all places were just as smart and innovative as we are today. They had the same drives as all people. The difference between Hero and the Woz is the Woz drew from a more robust technological base. That is why investigation into basic sciences such as materials, chemistry, and physics is important. It lays the groundwork for future technologies.
Ron Paul is the best candidate for the internet and free commerce in general, precisely because he doesn't have a strong grasp on the technical issues. That shouldn't be the Government's job anyway.
When people like Jobs, Ellison, and McNealy begged the Government to stop big, bad Microsoft, they opened Pandora's Box of government interference. Sure, it slowed down their competitor, but once the Government gets into your business, it never leaves. Even OSHA wanted to regulate home tech workers a few years back. The Government now wants to tax everything related to the internet and shut down all sorts of content that is offensive or could possibly lower media company profits.
Ron Paul is a strict Federalist and would have let Apple, Oracle, Sun, and Microsoft duke it out in the market. The internet was just fine before the Government discovered it was a great source of revenue and a playground to make demagogic political hay about morals and child safety. Thanks to the Government regulation from the DMCA, the internet is to blame for nobody wanting to buy CDs anymore (as opposed to the prevalence of crap in the stores). It used to be that people like Tipper Gore beat up record companies for making kids turn bad. Now the bogie man is the internet. Too bad I was just about the only one to vote for Ron Paul when he ran as a Libertarian and things could have been different.
Slashdot Mirror
Therefore, I think it is equally likely that Comcast are ignorant pigs as they are lying pigs. Either way, if I had a choice (but I don't), I'd switch providers.
Fair enough, but I still think NASA shouldn't kluge together a Mars mission with our current technology. They need a better propulsion system, a vastly cheaper way to get materials into orbit, a reliable artificial environment system to sustain the payload, a means of protecting them from radiation, and probably more. NASA should solve these basic problems first, even if it takes a few hundred years. The Moon landings were daredevil showmanship that never lead to a practical space exploration program.
Wouldn't the downward force applied to the system from an ascending load cause the ribbon to lag behind its earth anchor? It seems that some kind of propellant would have to be hoisted into space and then used to keep the free floating space modulule at the top from lagging behind and eventually falling out of orbit.
This demonstrates that the manned exploration part of NASA's budget is a complete waste. If it is even possible using 21st century technology, a manned mission to Mars would cost at a minimum $20B, i suspect more like $100B. For that kind of money, NASA could develop a new generation of robots that could cover more territory and last longer than any humans. If NASA is about nationalism (its original purpose), then fine, waste the money. If NASA is about science, then it should can its manned program.
I hated Joe before hating Joe was cool.
It's too late to indict Joe for anything new, and he may have an appealable issue. If he does no time, then the Feds have really blown it.
BTW, petty government people who retaliate on unrelated fronts for unjustifiable reasons are nothing new. Kennedy, Nixon, and Clinton all have been acused of directing the IRS to audit their enemies (probably other presidents as well).
The idea that anything cosmically interesting or unusual has happened in the 100K or so years of modern human existance is extremely unlikely. Equally unlikely is that anything interesting or unusual is about to happen.
I am sure someone can point to the court ruling that said that personal copies (for the owner's sole use) are covered by the fair use exemption. I find it impossible that she does not know that. I can only assume that she is trying to influence lawmakers by saying something that she must know is wrong.
I disagree. IBM gave away OS/2 in its machines to no avail, and mostly free Linux hasn't had any impact on the desktop. OS/X, however, which costs at least as much as Vista (as a hardware bundle) has made a small impact. Also, the real (inflation adjusted) price of OEM MS OSes has generally fallen, especially on a per-line of code basis.
The reason people pay for Windows, IMO, is the perceived need for Windows to run many desired programs. While Widows is an OK program (I like Vista fine), it has failed where it was forced to stand alone. For example, in web servers, the Apache / Linux combo was the most popular the last time I heard. Embedded Windows is less popular than Linux because there is no reason to pay more than $0 for an OS with no ties to the customer experience. Oracle, SAP, and IBM are offering Linux server based products because there is no need for more expensive OSes in the back room.
MS earns a super normal profit margin on its products because they are believed to be required to perform essential tasks. It's not the falling hardware prices that threaten MS, but rather the challenges at its Office and IE products that threaten Windows. Without tie-ins to unique products, Windows would fall in price to its economic value ($5?). Unless MS does something brilliant, it is in danger of having the competitive world side step its defense of Windows. MS won't be beaten by its voiceful detractors on this board, it will just become irrelevant.
Shut up? How liberal of you. I said "moderate left."
In the view of the NYT, large corporations are large. Therefore, they have no interest in understanding them. They are alien and therefore evil. They are probably aligned with the Bush administration somehow. Considering that Gates is a NYT reading moderate leftist, that's a hoot. Anyway, the NYT isn't about to edit or censor an article critical of a major global corporation, which allows the Apple fanboy a sizeable platform.
Back to TV, the FCC is so stuck in its old regulatory model for cable that it can't see that it is giving cable's competitors an advantage.
Aside from interoperability standards, I think the US would be better off without the FCC at all.
I am quite sure that Ellison, Jobs, and McNeally all pursued the same strategies as did Gates. For that matter, IBM, DEC, Wang, Sperry, and Burroughs also all pursued closed systems strategies. Gates was simply a sharper competitor (also IBM gave him an empire on a plate because they were beyond stupid).
All you MS haters just can't stand that MS's popularity runs contrary to your exquisite sensibilities. Apple made crappy products for about a decade, and that is not Gates's fault.
Not that it mattered, but I used to be a Mac user, and a Unix admin.
If you don't want what MS is selling, just don't buy it. MS is hardly a monopoly for the individual user anymore.
I know everyone hates MS, but they bought a competing browser to launch IE. Adopting another company's good ideas (Netscape or Xerox) is not stealing, it's a main engine of innovation and increased value for the consumer.
Now, what if I bought a billboard that said "Vote Libertarian," which is what the back of my iPod says? What is the difference except that the Daily Kos buys electrons to send its message and I buy ink molecules? The intent is the same.
Now, what is the real difference if a friend and I pool our money together to buy the billboard? That is the exercise of my right to free association and assembly. That is prohibited by this horrible law.
The whole McCain Feingold law is a slippery slope to collectivism (same as Stalinism, Nazism, Democrats, Republicans at different temperatures). McCain is especially an enemy of the Constitution, and it is a shame the Supreme Court didn't throw out the whole mess. Indeed, McCain Feingold is a brassy effort to silence the critics of incumbent candidates.
I know the majority of people dislike Karl Rove, but let me assure you, the Government was doing stupid things long before he came along, and that will never change.
Yes, I am aware that G4 ruined Screen Savers. On the other hand, they saved us from Martin Sargent (just kidding, unscrewed was funny sometimes).
ILECs are required to open this improvement to DSL CLECs, but may not be required to install such improvements just for a CLEC. Also, some states mandate the removal of line taps, coils, and analog repeaters, and some don't. In any event, most states do not require an ILEC to guarantee the line's quality for DSL purposes, which means that the most common fix when a CLEC DSL goes down is to swap lines until a better one is found. Not surprisingly, the ILEC doesn't care much since it isn't making any appreciable money on the deal.
Cable companies aren't required to open their networks, but if they did, I strongly suspect they would allow the same troubles for their competitors. If you want good broadband, go with the facility owner, IMO.
The best route to better and cheaper broadband is improved G3, WiMax, and power line based competition.
I forgot about Leo. Wow, that show imploded.
Oops, sorry. I was trying to make it read like a script. Guitar Hero is neat (but I have a real one at home).
Government hack #1: "I would sure like to create a new program to help the (insert constituency of choice here). My pollsters show I am weak with (insert demographic that thinks constituency is being mistreated)"
Government hack #2: "That sounds fine, but how would you like to pay for it?"
GH1: "I don't know, how about reducing one of the programs that doesn't do much good for those (insert constituency not represented by GH1)."
GH2: "Stop right there, that underperforming program was part of my platform for change in 1978."
GH1: "Well, what should I do?"
GH2: "Well, some of my telecom lobbyists are concerned that unlicensed spectrum will compete with the spectrum they paid too much for the 1990's. Why don't we pay for your new program by taxing the unlicensed spectrum users. That way, you get your program and I can protect my telecom supporters. After all, nobody knows who the unlicensed spectrum users are right now or which party they lean towards."
GH1: "Huh?"
GH2: "Just vote for it and everything will be OK."
GH1: "Thanks, GH2, this should get me another 2 years of pubic sector bliss."
GH2: Thanks, GH1, same here. All we had to do was raise taxes and stiffle an emerging market."
The US Federal Government has proven that it will use tools designed to catch gangsters to prosecute abortion protestors (RICO) and tools designed to catch terrorists to catch drug dealers (Patriot Act). Governments will always use every tool available to them to expand their power and to pursue their agenda. This is why someone might think he has nothing to hide, but a future government might decide otherwise.
The only answer is to be vigilant against government power grabs even if they seem reasonable at the time.
This is a good reminder that people from all times and all places were just as smart and innovative as we are today. They had the same drives as all people. The difference between Hero and the Woz is the Woz drew from a more robust technological base. That is why investigation into basic sciences such as materials, chemistry, and physics is important. It lays the groundwork for future technologies.
When people like Jobs, Ellison, and McNealy begged the Government to stop big, bad Microsoft, they opened Pandora's Box of government interference. Sure, it slowed down their competitor, but once the Government gets into your business, it never leaves. Even OSHA wanted to regulate home tech workers a few years back. The Government now wants to tax everything related to the internet and shut down all sorts of content that is offensive or could possibly lower media company profits.
Ron Paul is a strict Federalist and would have let Apple, Oracle, Sun, and Microsoft duke it out in the market. The internet was just fine before the Government discovered it was a great source of revenue and a playground to make demagogic political hay about morals and child safety. Thanks to the Government regulation from the DMCA, the internet is to blame for nobody wanting to buy CDs anymore (as opposed to the prevalence of crap in the stores). It used to be that people like Tipper Gore beat up record companies for making kids turn bad. Now the bogie man is the internet. Too bad I was just about the only one to vote for Ron Paul when he ran as a Libertarian and things could have been different.