A stupid easement is why my front yard, which used to beautiful, now has an ugly Comcast box sitting in it. Put the box on public property (like next to the sidewalk), not my front yard. Stupid politician-bribing megacorporation.
I've heard financial employees admit, straight-up, they just blindly followed the computer. But now that they've sat down and done the calculations by hand, they can see the computer's advice was wrong.
It's the GIGO principle. Also a little too much "computers are trustworthy" and "I should believe the computer" flaw inherent in many human beings - the same flaw that led us to think computerizing voting machines would magically remove corruption on election day.
6000 miles is what is recommended in the manual (some newer cars say 7500), unless you do lots of short trips where the engine does not get hot (like a grandma going shopping). Don't buy into JiffyLube's propaganda which only exists to make your poorer and them richer.
I've switched to synthetic and now I go 20,000 miles. My car is now approaching 240,000 miles so that interval has not hurt it one bit.
>>Just because a unit can scratch discs if you toss it around does not mean you need to sue them.
I agree but if the unit scratches discs when it's sitting perfectly still, then something is wrong and Microsoft needs to replace the faulty units. Or else the U.S. CPA needs to step-in and open a class-action lawsuit to benefit the customers.
I'm sure Microsoft knew the Xbox scratched discs, even when not moved, but they are keeping silent about it because they don't want to spend 1 or 2 million dollars replacing customers' units.
It was the same deal with Toyota. They *knew* their engines ran too hot, thus turning oil to sludge, but they chose to blame the customers for "not doing proper oil maintenance" in order to avoid spending money in free engine replacements.
There you go. That's an engineering flaw not user mistake, and just as the U.S. CPA forced Toyota to replace engines (or get sued), they should force Microsoft to admit there's a problem and replace Xbox 360s with better drive units.
When I lived in the country, the last mile literally did belong to me (well, actually my parents). The phone company was required by PA law to provide electricity to the curb, but the final mile into our home was paid by my parents. So yes a similar solution could work for internet.
>>>the cable and DSL provider both decide to charge $100/month, what options do you have?
Cellular/wireless for ~$50 a month. Satellite for ~$25 a month. Dialup for ~$7 a month.
I still use dialup when traveling, and it's not as bad as everyone claims - I even download TV shows over the 50k connection. You have freedom, liberty, and the right to make choices. You just need to take action and exercise that choice.
Yes but none of what you say is true. Look how many different "paths" exist to my house. 9 total:
(1) Dialup (2) Comcast cable (3) Suburban cable (they were first, Comcast arrived later and ran in parallel) (4) Dish (5) DirecTV (6) HughesNet (7) WildBlue (8) DSL (9) Verizon FiOS
>>>In my area, a little unincorporated town near here couldn't get AT&T (then Bellsouth) to wire their area for broadband, and couldn't interest a cable company either.
Cool. I have no objections to that so long as the government isn't the only provider, and later private companies can "move in" to provide competitive service.
>>>Not everyone has all of those options or even most of them.
Then frakin' MOVE. You don't have to live out in the middle of Wyoming or Montana. I listed the top states below - move to one of them where you will have tons of different companies serving your home, like I have serving mine. ----- Or stay where you are in no man's land. But remember, that's YOUR choice.
>>>ticket sales alone to riders could possibly rise above the point where its feasible for those riders to cover.
Then let them get cars like the rest of us, so they can drive rather than ride. Or move to within walking distance of their jobs. Or telecommute.
I don't get to buy a Lexus, and then demand my neighbors pay 10% of it. Neither should you get to ride a train and demand I fund 10% of your ride. In either case it would be theft of others' property.
An old, old saying but many of the "newbies" who have adopted computers since the Dot-Com genesis haven't learned the lesson yet. You can't just blindly believe the computer's projections - you need to doublecheck what data was fed to it & if it was valid.
Most financial planners did not do that, and they bet their millions on faulty data or assumptions.
If you want to build a Town-owned service in Nashua NH, go ahead. I just don't want to pay for it - and I fear that I probably will somehow (like U.S. Congressional grants taken from my and other neighbors' wallets). Build your Nashua internet, but pay for it out of the monthly bills, not through taxation.
It's bad enough that $1 of every tank of gasoline goes to fund subways/metros. That shouldn't be allowed; let the riders directly pay the cost through the ticket sales, not force carowners to subsidize them.
I disagree that a government monopoly is better than private monopoly.
With a private monopoly you can simply stop paying the bill (for example: cancel phone service, or stop using Windows). You don't have that option with a government monopoly which, even if you choose not to participate, keeps sucking money out of your wallet via taxation.
That's true. We could have the government owned Trabant company make a comeback and compete against Ford, Daimler, Toyota, Hyundai, BMW, Volkswagen, and so on.
But why? We already have plenty of choices; we don't need to add a government company to the mix.
Well that's fine. You do sound more open-minded than most "government is the only answer" persons. In the case of the internet though, I simply don't see why it's necessary. It has multiple ways of reaching you:
There are almost as many internet companies as car companies. It's competitive. There's no need to have an "Uncle Sam Internet" just as there's no nee to have an "Uncle Sam Car Company".
Labeling my comment as flamebait simply because you disagree, does not change my valid opinion - we should have Internet Choice, not Internet no-choice.
Nice try though to suppress free speech. Hister would be proud.
(Uh oh; Godwin; well we never agreed on rec.arts.startrek anyway. He liked Kirk; I preferred Picard.)
>>>Government owned local data infrastructure is actually a pretty good idea.
I'm sorry: What? I was always under the impression that "monopolies are bad", at least that's what we learned in 10th grade social studies, and yet here you are saying a monopoly is a good idea. I have to disagree. The U.S. Mail monopoly is a bad idea, and so too is a U.S. Data monopoly.
What we need are MORE choices at the home, not whittled down to just one.
What I prefer is that we have a monopoly where there's no choice (water/sewer), and competition where it's possible (phone, electric, natural gas, cable, internet, hospitals, ambulances). It's not a black-and-white world. We don't have to be all all government monopoly or all competition - we can have a mix.
>>>GP's point is that in many rural areas, commercial data providers simply aren't willing to come into the town and install data infrastructure.
Then pass a law that obligates Comcast to run cable internet, Verizon to run DSL, Dish Satellite to provide satellite internet, Sprint to provide cellular internet, to any customer who asks for it. We have similar laws for electricity and phone, so why not internet.
>>>The last mile is going to be a monopoly, whether it be water, sewer, cable, electricity, phone, or fiber.
Actually I have choice for my electricity and my phone and my natural gas. Likewise the internet is NOT a monopoly where I live. In my home I have multiple options: (1) Dialup (2) Comcast cable (3) Suburban cable (they were first, Comcast arrived later and ran in parallel) (4) Dish (5) DirecTV (6) HughesNet (7) WildBlue (8) DSL (9) Verizon FiOS
Please stop saying internet is a monopoly, when evidence clearly shows it is not. I am Pro-Choice, and having many choices is better than having just one government monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny but unfortunately for you my downloads of Doctor Who and Stargate look just as good as any VHS tape. (in color)
I get my TV out of the air - no wires or pipes or digging needed.
Why can't we do the same with internet?
A stupid easement is why my front yard, which used to beautiful, now has an ugly Comcast box sitting in it. Put the box on public property (like next to the sidewalk), not my front yard. Stupid politician-bribing megacorporation.
I've heard financial employees admit, straight-up, they just blindly followed the computer. But now that they've sat down and done the calculations by hand, they can see the computer's advice was wrong.
It's the GIGO principle. Also a little too much "computers are trustworthy" and "I should believe the computer" flaw inherent in many human beings - the same flaw that led us to think computerizing voting machines would magically remove corruption on election day.
6000 miles is what is recommended in the manual (some newer cars say 7500), unless you do lots of short trips where the engine does not get hot (like a grandma going shopping). Don't buy into JiffyLube's propaganda which only exists to make your poorer and them richer.
I've switched to synthetic and now I go 20,000 miles. My car is now approaching 240,000 miles so that interval has not hurt it one bit.
>>Just because a unit can scratch discs if you toss it around does not mean you need to sue them.
I agree but if the unit scratches discs when it's sitting perfectly still, then something is wrong and Microsoft needs to replace the faulty units. Or else the U.S. CPA needs to step-in and open a class-action lawsuit to benefit the customers.
I'm sure Microsoft knew the Xbox scratched discs, even when not moved, but they are keeping silent about it because they don't want to spend 1 or 2 million dollars replacing customers' units.
It was the same deal with Toyota. They *knew* their engines ran too hot, thus turning oil to sludge, but they chose to blame the customers for "not doing proper oil maintenance" in order to avoid spending money in free engine replacements.
>>>I don't move mine and my discs are scratched.
There you go. That's an engineering flaw not user mistake, and just as the U.S. CPA forced Toyota to replace engines (or get sued), they should force Microsoft to admit there's a problem and replace Xbox 360s with better drive units.
When I lived in the country, the last mile literally did belong to me (well, actually my parents). The phone company was required by PA law to provide electricity to the curb, but the final mile into our home was paid by my parents. So yes a similar solution could work for internet.
>>>the cable and DSL provider both decide to charge $100/month, what options do you have?
Cellular/wireless for ~$50 a month.
Satellite for ~$25 a month.
Dialup for ~$7 a month.
I still use dialup when traveling, and it's not as bad as everyone claims - I even download TV shows over the 50k connection. You have freedom, liberty, and the right to make choices. You just need to take action and exercise that choice.
Yes but none of what you say is true. Look how many different "paths" exist to my house. 9 total:
(1) Dialup
(2) Comcast cable
(3) Suburban cable (they were first, Comcast arrived later and ran in parallel)
(4) Dish
(5) DirecTV
(6) HughesNet
(7) WildBlue
(8) DSL
(9) Verizon FiOS
>>>In my area, a little unincorporated town near here couldn't get AT&T (then Bellsouth) to wire their area for broadband, and couldn't interest a cable company either.
Cool. I have no objections to that so long as the government isn't the only provider, and later private companies can "move in" to provide competitive service.
>>>Not everyone has all of those options or even most of them.
Then frakin' MOVE. You don't have to live out in the middle of Wyoming or Montana. I listed the top states below - move to one of them where you will have tons of different companies serving your home, like I have serving mine. ----- Or stay where you are in no man's land. But remember, that's YOUR choice.
>>>ticket sales alone to riders could possibly rise above the point where its feasible for those riders to cover.
Then let them get cars like the rest of us, so they can drive rather than ride. Or move to within walking distance of their jobs. Or telecommute.
I don't get to buy a Lexus, and then demand my neighbors pay 10% of it. Neither should you get to ride a train and demand I fund 10% of your ride. In either case it would be theft of others' property.
An old, old saying but many of the "newbies" who have adopted computers since the Dot-Com genesis haven't learned the lesson yet. You can't just blindly believe the computer's projections - you need to doublecheck what data was fed to it & if it was valid.
Most financial planners did not do that, and they bet their millions on faulty data or assumptions.
If you want to build a Town-owned service in Nashua NH, go ahead. I just don't want to pay for it - and I fear that I probably will somehow (like U.S. Congressional grants taken from my and other neighbors' wallets). Build your Nashua internet, but pay for it out of the monthly bills, not through taxation.
It's bad enough that $1 of every tank of gasoline goes to fund subways/metros. That shouldn't be allowed; let the riders directly pay the cost through the ticket sales, not force carowners to subsidize them.
>>>>>There is only one definition of Democracy. Demos-kratos. The People - rule.
> Of which there are many implementations, of which a constitutional republic happens to be one.
Not according to political science theory. A democracy and a republic are very different forms of government.
I disagree that a government monopoly is better than private monopoly.
With a private monopoly you can simply stop paying the bill (for example: cancel phone service, or stop using Windows). You don't have that option with a government monopoly which, even if you choose not to participate, keeps sucking money out of your wallet via taxation.
>>>You didn't have a very good social studies curriculum then
Well of course not. Schools are a government monopoly, and monopolies have no incentive to provide better service. ;-)
That's true. We could have the government owned Trabant company make a comeback and compete against Ford, Daimler, Toyota, Hyundai, BMW, Volkswagen, and so on.
But why? We already have plenty of choices; we don't need to add a government company to the mix.
Well that's fine. You do sound more open-minded than most "government is the only answer" persons. In the case of the internet though, I simply don't see why it's necessary. It has multiple ways of reaching you:
- cable
- phone/DSL
- fiber
- satellite
- cellular/wireless
- whitespace (coming soon)
There are almost as many internet companies as car companies. It's competitive. There's no need to have an "Uncle Sam Internet" just as there's no nee to have an "Uncle Sam Car Company".
by theaveng (1243528) - (Score:0, Flamebait)
Labeling my comment as flamebait simply because you disagree, does not change my valid opinion - we should have Internet Choice, not Internet no-choice.
Nice try though to suppress free speech. Hister would be proud.
(Uh oh; Godwin; well we never agreed on rec.arts.startrek anyway. He liked Kirk; I preferred Picard.)
>>>Government owned local data infrastructure is actually a pretty good idea.
I'm sorry: What? I was always under the impression that "monopolies are bad", at least that's what we learned in 10th grade social studies, and yet here you are saying a monopoly is a good idea. I have to disagree. The U.S. Mail monopoly is a bad idea, and so too is a U.S. Data monopoly.
What we need are MORE choices at the home, not whittled down to just one.
>>>Or maybe you prefer
What I prefer is that we have a monopoly where there's no choice (water/sewer), and competition where it's possible (phone, electric, natural gas, cable, internet, hospitals, ambulances). It's not a black-and-white world. We don't have to be all all government monopoly or all competition - we can have a mix.
>>>GP's point is that in many rural areas, commercial data providers simply aren't willing to come into the town and install data infrastructure.
Then pass a law that obligates Comcast to run cable internet, Verizon to run DSL, Dish Satellite to provide satellite internet, Sprint to provide cellular internet, to any customer who asks for it. We have similar laws for electricity and phone, so why not internet.
>>>The last mile is going to be a monopoly, whether it be water, sewer, cable, electricity, phone, or fiber.
Actually I have choice for my electricity and my phone and my natural gas. Likewise the internet is NOT a monopoly where I live. In my home I have multiple options:
(1) Dialup
(2) Comcast cable
(3) Suburban cable (they were first, Comcast arrived later and ran in parallel)
(4) Dish
(5) DirecTV
(6) HughesNet
(7) WildBlue
(8) DSL
(9) Verizon FiOS
Please stop saying internet is a monopoly, when evidence clearly shows it is not. I am Pro-Choice, and having many choices is better than having just one government monopoly.