Ten years later, when I graduated from high school in 1992, my high school required that we take a computer literacy class. That sounds pretty good, until you realize that the computer lab was a room full of Apple ][s.
They actually had two IBM PCs and one Mac in back where only the "advanced" students worked.
First, the Usenet sysadmin's are not denying you the service you are paying for. They're not seeing a dime of your money. @Home is denying you the service by not complying with the standards set in order to be a part of that community.
Second, the whole idea of "I have an undeniable right to access the internet/usenet/whatever" is largely a fictitious belief. Most of the internet (including usenet) is hosted on privately owned servers. That means that they can cut off whoever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want. There are a lot of reasons this does not happen, but that doesn't mean that you have any recourse if they decide they don't want you to access their servers. As an @Home customer, you have a right to access @Home's networks and are allowed to access any network that is connected to @Home. If @Home does something stupid and the rest of the net cuts them off, it's not the nets' fault it's @Home's fault.
To use the spewing garbage analogy, it as if saying that you are living in an apartment building that is spewing garbage, which results in the city cutting off the utilities going into that apartment. It's not the city's fault that the building is spewing garbage, it's the fault of the owners of the building.
I agree. People doing stupid things is the truly frightening aspect of Y2K.
Consider: If 50% of a bank's customers withdraw 50% of their funds, how stable is that bank going to be? I think we're more likely to see banks fail due to massive withdrawals rather than computer glitches.
On the other hand, if the banks fail, will the currency actually be worth anything?
Slashdot Mirror
My Timex Expedition Datalink is correct, but it does store the year.
You want to be truly scared?
Ten years later, when I graduated from high school in 1992, my high school required that we take a computer literacy class. That sounds pretty good, until you realize that the computer lab was a room full of Apple ][s.
They actually had two IBM PCs and one Mac in back where only the "advanced" students worked.
That's ludicrous.
First, the Usenet sysadmin's are not denying you the service you are paying for. They're not seeing a dime of your money. @Home is denying you the service by not complying with the standards set in order to be a part of that community.
Second, the whole idea of "I have an undeniable right to access the internet/usenet/whatever" is largely a fictitious belief. Most of the internet (including usenet) is hosted on privately owned servers. That means that they can cut off whoever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want. There are a lot of reasons this does not happen, but that doesn't mean that you have any recourse if they decide they don't want you to access their servers. As an @Home customer, you have a right to access @Home's networks and are allowed to access any network that is connected to @Home. If @Home does something stupid and the rest of the net cuts them off, it's not the nets' fault it's @Home's fault.
To use the spewing garbage analogy, it as if saying that you are living in an apartment building that is spewing garbage, which results in the city cutting off the utilities going into that apartment. It's not the city's fault that the building is spewing garbage, it's the fault of the owners of the building.
Doesn't it seem strange that the author of the MetaMute article's e-mail address is at Electronic Arts?
Consider: If 50% of a bank's customers withdraw 50% of their funds, how stable is that bank going to be? I think we're more likely to see banks fail due to massive withdrawals rather than computer glitches.
On the other hand, if the banks fail, will the currency actually be worth anything?