Thanks for your vote of confidence. I am sorry to have used the word "venom" – I think I was suffering from an acute communication blockage at the time.
Now that we've resolved our differences, I am going to respond to the telecommunications infrastructure topic here, because when the conversation moves further down the thread, it gets narrower and makes me claustrophobic. For continuity's sake, elsewhere in this thread, you wrote:
...What do you think the basic telecom problem is here? What do you think the government could do to fix it? What do you think the government could do to get private people to fix it, if anything? After all, the power of WiFi comes from the ease of anyone deploying it, without FCC license or spending significant money. — by Doc Ruby (173196) in comment #34446662
First off: the symptom of the problem that I see is that companies like AT&T and Verizon and Comcast are charging far too much for bandwidth and data, and they penalize heavy users at a time when the standard for "heavy" is gradually moving closer and closer to "normal". There are two possible explanations that immediately present themselves. Either
the telecommunications infrastructure is not growing at a rate fast enough to meet demand, and the higher prices are to discourage heavy use, or
They just want more money, and they are getting it because the market is able to support it.
Both are certainly an issue to at least a small extent. The latter issue has more to do with human nature than technology, and I don't have any good ideas on solving it.:c/
I would like to see the cost of broadband come down, and also I think that truly unlimited connections should be available (in terms of data, not speed). I am no expert in telecommunications, but what I think is necessary is that the infrastructure (cables, antennae, and so on) needs to be updated. I do not have a phone with AT&T, myself, but I have heard that their network is struggling as more smart phones are added to their customer base. I haven't heard anything about improving the network; the only solution I have heard is that they are no longer offering "unlimited" data contracts. This strikes me as a poor service to their customers.
My wife and I live outside a small town, and the only broadband company that serves our neighborhood is asking for $40+ for mediocre cable broadband. We feel that it is a poor value, and so we have actually opted to go with dial-up for email and light browsing, going to places like work, school or McDonald's when we need a faster connection.
Since private companies do not seem to be budging on this issue, I think that the government may need to step in and prod them. Maybe this legislation is a step in the right direction; I don't really know what is appropriate, there.
I would like to think that smaller companies could rise up and solve telecommunications problems in ways that are more helpful to local areas. I think that municipal Internet access is an interesting idea, but I feel the need to look at some case studies to see how well these things work. I hope to get more involved with this once I'm done with school.
There are my initial thoughts. How would you answer the questions you posed?
Whew! I am glad we have found common ground, because I am interested in discussing the telecom problem, too! I was afraid we would remain at cross purposes and never get around to it.;c)
I feel that I am far too timid in participating in debate; I would like to become more active in such discussions, and Slashdot has helped me become braver in this. I think it is because I am able to choose who I argue with, but more so because I can take the time to ponder what I say. I often fear that if I engage in verbal debate, I will not be able to form my arguments fast enough. It is something I want to work on.
Now, then. Telecom troubles. I will need to sleep on this, because (i) I am sick and need my rest and (ii) it is after midnight, here in Europe, where I am currently studying abroad. So I will bring some thoughts tomorrow. Watch this space.:c)
Hmm. Lots going on here. I think that a disconnect on the discussion's framework is probably at the core. Let's see if we can reign things in.
My original reading of the ACs post was of senators as lusers, wielding legislation as a sword to solve mundane technical problems. ("When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.") I thought it to be facetious, and crafted a reply in kind. This may have been foolish, but I did not think it out of place in a Slashdot thread. To be honest, your original reply caught me off-guard; I did not expect it to be taken seriously. It was not intended to represent my feelings on these issues, and while it may have been anti-government, I hope that I am not so.
So, I'll admit that it was not legitimate. Many of my arguments above were trying to show that I meant it facetiously, but I can see that I did not explain myself very well. I wrote a comment that was unsupportable because I felt that the one I was replying to was also unsupportable. I will own that Slashdot would be a more useful place without meaningless straw-man stereotypes, and I will think twice about posting such things again.
Before I say anything further, can you tell me: Were there statements in my subsequent comments that you found to be anti-government, or was it just that initial remark?
What bullshit antitax rant are you talking about? I pay the taxes that I owe, and have no problem with that. Whether or not you actually lose the property, you will be punished for evading property taxes. Yes, these taxes go towards the services that they provide for living in the jurisdiction, but they are directly tied to property ownership, not residency. You still pay property tax on land you own, even if you never live or work there. This is why it seems reasonable to think of it, in one possible perspective, as rent on the property. You can't necessarily be evicted, but you can be fined or imprisoned.
I agree, though, that this doesn't really mean that you don't own the land. I was distracted by a new vocabulary word.
You really need to redirect your venom at the AC which started this thread, not me. They are the one who said that this should not be mandated in legislation. If "public servants need a wireless network to do their job", then this is a dubious application of legislation – but it seems to be about more than that.
If, indeed, the proposed bill is about solving telecommunications problems for all Americans, then I am 100% for it. The telecommunications infrastructure in the United States badly needs to be improved, and the private companies currently responsible are not investing in this. Therefore, the government needs to get the ball rolling. As popular as it is to promote net neutrality these days, ensuring that common carriers are impartial is of limited use if they cannot actually cope with the traffic.
I will concede that senators are much more powerful than you and I. Legislation has its place, and I am for it in this forward-looking situation. You did not ask if I thought the legislation was a bad idea; you asked about non-legislative ways to get things done. I obliged you. I never said that they would be as effective as legislation. I only suggested that Congress might not be the most natural place for these policies to be established. If one is a member of congress, however, choosing the most natural place to set policy may not be so important as getting the policy in place. I am okay with that.
I did not agree with the AC. My original comment was neither "right" nor "wrong": It was hyperbole.
Come, now. I was aiming for funny, not insightful. But since you ask..
Senators are US citizens, just like most people living in the USA. Introducing legislation is one of the special powers that they have as members of the legislative branch of the government, and as such it is more effective for them than for the rest of us. But do you really believe that legislation is the only tool US citizens (legislators or not) have for getting things done? You must feel pretty powerless.:c(
They could talk to the people in charge of technical infrastructure in federal buildings. Communicate with people in the FCC and Presidential cabinet. I don't know who would be in charge of the oversight and implementation of the installations that they are trying to introduce with this bill, but it seems to me that Congress is probably not the closest Womb of Policy for this particular issue. I have no doubt that if I felt strongly about increasing wireless coverage, I could find out who the important people are, and get in touch. As senators, Snowe and Warner have more ready knowledge of these hierarchies, and the station and name recognition to have their voices heard.
That said, the article indicates (in the fourth paragraph) that they are not only interested in Wi-Fi coverage in Federal buildings, but "preventing dropped calls that occur indoors and in rural areas due to poor cell phone coverage, while also hopefully boosting wireless network capacity". This sounds much more comprehensive than the summary, which indicates that they are simply focusing on federal buildings. That is a scenario where legislation may be warranted.
My comment, however, was simply playing off the parent, who was basically asking, "Do we really need a law on the books so that members of Congress don't get dropped calls in the Capitol Building?" If that is all this bill is about, then it seems like these senators would be better-served by walking down the hall and knocking on the door of their helpdesk. Maybe they've already tried that, and now are going over the head of an ornery sysadmin.
The only issue is that I'm not sure how you go about getting the EeePC distro of Xandros without buying an EeePC (the regular Xandros distro is quite different and doesn't have the customised interface).
I have been dying to know this, myself. My Eee PC came with Windows XP, and I would like to think that Asus's flavor of Xandros would play better with my hardware than Ubuntu does.
Item (2), above, says that notice is provided once seizure takes place. If I walk out of the house in my bathrobe while they are loading the car on a wrecker, I would expect some explaination. But if they already have a warrant, I would not expect to be able to talk them out of it. (Perhaps I am wrong? I am no expert on rights in these scenarios.) But if I slept through the whole thing, or was not home, I don't know what would happen. Would they knock on the door? Leave a note? Call me and maybe leave a voicemail? Wait for me to call in and report* the car stolen?
In any case, I doubt that the requirements for contact during notice of seizure are as stringent as the requirements for, say, serving notice of court summons. Or maybe they are. But I agree: people should be informed either during such seizures or ASAP after the operation is finished.** The fact that the domain owner got his information from the registrar and not the authorities may say more about his diligent interest in the site's uptime than about the government's promptness in giving notice about these things. Perhaps there is a letter in the mail right now, sent by registered post.
However, as nice as it might be to have prior notice that the cops are going to come take my belongings, I don't expect them to set an appointment. If they think I am engaging in illegal activity, there is a long tradition in law enforcement of doing such things with no prior notice to those affected. Such notice would give criminals time to destroy evidence, leave town, stock up on ammo, or wire the car-to-be-confiscated with explosives. While I might not like the idea that my car can be seized without notice, the fact is that many, many seizures are performed in situations where real crimes have occurred, and giving notice does nothing but escalate the risk to law enforcement officers by an order of magnitude.
* "If he doesn't call the police, he must have something to hide!"
** Maybe the operation is not finished. There may be more that ICE is up to, and they might not give notice to domain owners until everything has been accomplished.
I am pretty sure that siezure does not equate to the mentioned transferrence of title. If I am behind the wheel in a hit-and-run, the police may take my car in as evidence, but I don't actually lose ownership of the car until after my day in court. That does not mean that they can't take the vehicle without notice, with a warrant, before the trial has begun. But, if I am convicted of the crime, the vehicle is forfeit. Otherwise, it should be returned to me.
One of these days, he will show up in court to testify with his photographic evidence, and the defense will have a photo of him taking a photo. The verdict? Both of them get their licenses revoked.
But if the FCC figures out a way to make it work, we will have the opposite problem: texting 911 does work, and people don't know it.
Until seeing this news item, I could not have said for certain that 911 dispatchers could not deal with text messages. I see no reason that they shouldn't, provided that they are able to add enough information to the protocols. Dispatchers are already able to deal with text-based communication for the deaf; why should text messages be so very different?
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like a waste of a good keyboard key spot, they should invent something more useful for that location...
They have done so. It is being used for the search function. They have mapped it to Google's strongest suit.
Or maybe the next addition to the Google Apps family will be Google IDE, for programming in the cloud.
The reason Starbucks and Caribou were mentioned is that they both provide free Wi-Fi for customers at all locations. McDonalds is one that could be added to the list.
Thanks for your vote of confidence. I am sorry to have used the word "venom" – I think I was suffering from an acute communication blockage at the time.
Now that we've resolved our differences, I am going to respond to the telecommunications infrastructure topic here, because when the conversation moves further down the thread, it gets narrower and makes me claustrophobic. For continuity's sake, elsewhere in this thread, you wrote:
...What do you think the basic telecom problem is here? What do you think the government could do to fix it? What do you think the government could do to get private people to fix it, if anything? After all, the power of WiFi comes from the ease of anyone deploying it, without FCC license or spending significant money. — by Doc Ruby (173196) in comment #34446662
First off: the symptom of the problem that I see is that companies like AT&T and Verizon and Comcast are charging far too much for bandwidth and data, and they penalize heavy users at a time when the standard for "heavy" is gradually moving closer and closer to "normal". There are two possible explanations that immediately present themselves. Either
Both are certainly an issue to at least a small extent. The latter issue has more to do with human nature than technology, and I don't have any good ideas on solving it. :c/
I would like to see the cost of broadband come down, and also I think that truly unlimited connections should be available (in terms of data, not speed). I am no expert in telecommunications, but what I think is necessary is that the infrastructure (cables, antennae, and so on) needs to be updated. I do not have a phone with AT&T, myself, but I have heard that their network is struggling as more smart phones are added to their customer base. I haven't heard anything about improving the network; the only solution I have heard is that they are no longer offering "unlimited" data contracts. This strikes me as a poor service to their customers.
My wife and I live outside a small town, and the only broadband company that serves our neighborhood is asking for $40+ for mediocre cable broadband. We feel that it is a poor value, and so we have actually opted to go with dial-up for email and light browsing, going to places like work, school or McDonald's when we need a faster connection.
Since private companies do not seem to be budging on this issue, I think that the government may need to step in and prod them. Maybe this legislation is a step in the right direction; I don't really know what is appropriate, there.
I would like to think that smaller companies could rise up and solve telecommunications problems in ways that are more helpful to local areas. I think that municipal Internet access is an interesting idea, but I feel the need to look at some case studies to see how well these things work. I hope to get more involved with this once I'm done with school.
There are my initial thoughts. How would you answer the questions you posed?
Whew! I am glad we have found common ground, because I am interested in discussing the telecom problem, too! I was afraid we would remain at cross purposes and never get around to it. ;c)
I feel that I am far too timid in participating in debate; I would like to become more active in such discussions, and Slashdot has helped me become braver in this. I think it is because I am able to choose who I argue with, but more so because I can take the time to ponder what I say. I often fear that if I engage in verbal debate, I will not be able to form my arguments fast enough. It is something I want to work on.
Now, then. Telecom troubles. I will need to sleep on this, because (i) I am sick and need my rest and (ii) it is after midnight, here in Europe, where I am currently studying abroad. So I will bring some thoughts tomorrow. Watch this space. :c)
Hmm. Lots going on here. I think that a disconnect on the discussion's framework is probably at the core. Let's see if we can reign things in.
My original reading of the ACs post was of senators as lusers, wielding legislation as a sword to solve mundane technical problems. ("When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.") I thought it to be facetious, and crafted a reply in kind. This may have been foolish, but I did not think it out of place in a Slashdot thread. To be honest, your original reply caught me off-guard; I did not expect it to be taken seriously. It was not intended to represent my feelings on these issues, and while it may have been anti-government, I hope that I am not so.
So, I'll admit that it was not legitimate. Many of my arguments above were trying to show that I meant it facetiously, but I can see that I did not explain myself very well. I wrote a comment that was unsupportable because I felt that the one I was replying to was also unsupportable. I will own that Slashdot would be a more useful place without meaningless straw-man stereotypes, and I will think twice about posting such things again.
Before I say anything further, can you tell me: Were there statements in my subsequent comments that you found to be anti-government, or was it just that initial remark?
What bullshit antitax rant are you talking about? I pay the taxes that I owe, and have no problem with that. Whether or not you actually lose the property, you will be punished for evading property taxes. Yes, these taxes go towards the services that they provide for living in the jurisdiction, but they are directly tied to property ownership, not residency. You still pay property tax on land you own, even if you never live or work there. This is why it seems reasonable to think of it, in one possible perspective, as rent on the property. You can't necessarily be evicted, but you can be fined or imprisoned.
I agree, though, that this doesn't really mean that you don't own the land. I was distracted by a new vocabulary word.
You really need to redirect your venom at the AC which started this thread, not me. They are the one who said that this should not be mandated in legislation. If "public servants need a wireless network to do their job", then this is a dubious application of legislation – but it seems to be about more than that.
If, indeed, the proposed bill is about solving telecommunications problems for all Americans, then I am 100% for it. The telecommunications infrastructure in the United States badly needs to be improved, and the private companies currently responsible are not investing in this. Therefore, the government needs to get the ball rolling. As popular as it is to promote net neutrality these days, ensuring that common carriers are impartial is of limited use if they cannot actually cope with the traffic.
I will concede that senators are much more powerful than you and I. Legislation has its place, and I am for it in this forward-looking situation. You did not ask if I thought the legislation was a bad idea; you asked about non-legislative ways to get things done. I obliged you. I never said that they would be as effective as legislation. I only suggested that Congress might not be the most natural place for these policies to be established. If one is a member of congress, however, choosing the most natural place to set policy may not be so important as getting the policy in place. I am okay with that.
I did not agree with the AC. My original comment was neither "right" nor "wrong": It was hyperbole.
Come, now. I was aiming for funny, not insightful. But since you ask..
Senators are US citizens, just like most people living in the USA. Introducing legislation is one of the special powers that they have as members of the legislative branch of the government, and as such it is more effective for them than for the rest of us. But do you really believe that legislation is the only tool US citizens (legislators or not) have for getting things done? You must feel pretty powerless. :c(
They could talk to the people in charge of technical infrastructure in federal buildings. Communicate with people in the FCC and Presidential cabinet. I don't know who would be in charge of the oversight and implementation of the installations that they are trying to introduce with this bill, but it seems to me that Congress is probably not the closest Womb of Policy for this particular issue. I have no doubt that if I felt strongly about increasing wireless coverage, I could find out who the important people are, and get in touch. As senators, Snowe and Warner have more ready knowledge of these hierarchies, and the station and name recognition to have their voices heard.
That said, the article indicates (in the fourth paragraph) that they are not only interested in Wi-Fi coverage in Federal buildings, but "preventing dropped calls that occur indoors and in rural areas due to poor cell phone coverage, while also hopefully boosting wireless network capacity". This sounds much more comprehensive than the summary, which indicates that they are simply focusing on federal buildings. That is a scenario where legislation may be warranted.
My comment, however, was simply playing off the parent, who was basically asking, "Do we really need a law on the books so that members of Congress don't get dropped calls in the Capitol Building?" If that is all this bill is about, then it seems like these senators would be better-served by walking down the hall and knocking on the door of their helpdesk. Maybe they've already tried that, and now are going over the head of an ornery sysadmin.
That is interesting. What caused the election of senators to transfer to the people from state governments, and when did this take place?
I was going to say something similar, but you put it well. I had never heard the word 'usufruct' before; thanks for expanding my vocabulary!
Cut 'em some slack. These are senators... legislation is the only way they know to get things done!
Hopefully there aren't too many more similar prefixes available in this meme-ome.
Because stupidity is the opposite of wisdom, not knowledge.
The only issue is that I'm not sure how you go about getting the EeePC distro of Xandros without buying an EeePC (the regular Xandros distro is quite different and doesn't have the customised interface).
I have been dying to know this, myself. My Eee PC came with Windows XP, and I would like to think that Asus's flavor of Xandros would play better with my hardware than Ubuntu does.
In Soviet Russia, an IP address uses Visual Basic to create a GUI interface to track YOU!
Am I doing it right?
Item (2), above, says that notice is provided once seizure takes place. If I walk out of the house in my bathrobe while they are loading the car on a wrecker, I would expect some explaination. But if they already have a warrant, I would not expect to be able to talk them out of it. (Perhaps I am wrong? I am no expert on rights in these scenarios.) But if I slept through the whole thing, or was not home, I don't know what would happen. Would they knock on the door? Leave a note? Call me and maybe leave a voicemail? Wait for me to call in and report* the car stolen?
In any case, I doubt that the requirements for contact during notice of seizure are as stringent as the requirements for, say, serving notice of court summons. Or maybe they are. But I agree: people should be informed either during such seizures or ASAP after the operation is finished.** The fact that the domain owner got his information from the registrar and not the authorities may say more about his diligent interest in the site's uptime than about the government's promptness in giving notice about these things. Perhaps there is a letter in the mail right now, sent by registered post.
However, as nice as it might be to have prior notice that the cops are going to come take my belongings, I don't expect them to set an appointment. If they think I am engaging in illegal activity, there is a long tradition in law enforcement of doing such things with no prior notice to those affected. Such notice would give criminals time to destroy evidence, leave town, stock up on ammo, or wire the car-to-be-confiscated with explosives. While I might not like the idea that my car can be seized without notice, the fact is that many, many seizures are performed in situations where real crimes have occurred, and giving notice does nothing but escalate the risk to law enforcement officers by an order of magnitude.
* "If he doesn't call the police, he must have something to hide!"
** Maybe the operation is not finished. There may be more that ICE is up to, and they might not give notice to domain owners until everything has been accomplished.
I am pretty sure that siezure does not equate to the mentioned transferrence of title. If I am behind the wheel in a hit-and-run, the police may take my car in as evidence, but I don't actually lose ownership of the car until after my day in court. That does not mean that they can't take the vehicle without notice, with a warrant, before the trial has begun. But, if I am convicted of the crime, the vehicle is forfeit. Otherwise, it should be returned to me.
(+1, only compelling argument against so far)
Because right now the powers-that-be are soliciting public comments on the topic.
One of these days, he will show up in court to testify with his photographic evidence, and the defense will have a photo of him taking a photo. The verdict? Both of them get their licenses revoked.
But if the FCC figures out a way to make it work, we will have the opposite problem: texting 911 does work, and people don't know it.
Until seeing this news item, I could not have said for certain that 911 dispatchers could not deal with text messages. I see no reason that they shouldn't, provided that they are able to add enough information to the protocols. Dispatchers are already able to deal with text-based communication for the deaf; why should text messages be so very different?
That sounds epic. I'm sorry I missed it!
The type of larger city where they can get work at an international airport, you mean?