People should get what they want, unless it's harmful. Imagine a four-year old who can eat ice cream all day-he wants to eat it, but he shouldn't.
Damn. That's one of the most blantant statements of one of the nastiest pieces of bullshit ever conceived by those intent on destroying the human race.
You believe it is okay to deny people what they want if you deem it to be "harmful". How very typical of the sort of thinking that contributes to human misery on a global scale every day.
I think it was in response to that sort of an attitude that the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" was coined.
Even your pathetic attempt at an example is nonsense. I submit that even a four-year-old would figure out where the stomach ache came from after a few too many bowls.
Who the fuck do you think you are?
Until you and your ilk have completely subverted the constitution of the US and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the UN), your statement above is just plain wrong. Your right to interfere with the pursuit of happiness in other persons is a figment of some fevered, religious imagination. You have the right to protect yourself from harm, and no right at all to decide what is best for others.
You are a shining example of what is wrong with the world today. Why the hell would anyone want to strive for anything if some thoughtless moron like yourself could come along and arbitrarily decide "that's not good for you, so you may not have it."
This path provides the immediate gratification and a doorway to wizardry if she chooses to pursue it.
in my experience the most difficult concept involved is that of "files"; make sure she has a good understanding of what a text file is, and has a good text editor
I like w3.org and w3schools.com as starting points; lots less to unlearn that way
start with the most recent version of the HTML standard; the industry will not be going backwards with this stuff
Avoid javascript; some ECMA scripting might be useful, but javascript is too platform dependant (bad habits)
pThe point made in the parent about having a use for the tool is a good point.
In spite of the fact that the debate about the alleged "War on Terror" is lively and informative, I think it represents a good bit of cyber-turfing in support of various non-domestic agendas.
The article is about the abuse of the US legislative, judicial, and enforcement power to silence and oppress american citizens, yet the bulk of the discussion seems to be about the war. It's a classic case of diversion, imo, depite the fact that many valid points are being made on other (arguably related) subjects.
I don't think Bush is actually in league with bin Laden.
Depends on which Bush you mean. The White House is, was, and remains a supporter of Osama bin Ladin. Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda were "assets" for US intelligence, and there is no record of their ever having gone off the payroll, afaik.
When Clinton attacked al Qaeda the neocons screamed bloody murder and demanded an immeadiate cessation of action. I guess they were waiting for 9/11/2001 and Dubya's "pre-emptive" war on Iraq. God forbid a liberal should wipe out al Qaeda from afar before Haliburton could get involved, eh? Besides, I'm sure Dubya had a little trouble explaining to his buddy Osama why cruise missiles were raining down on his training camps before the operation they were training for could be carried out.
If it weren't for Osama, there would be no excuse for the Bush/Cheney organization to make war, and by Bush/Cheney reasoning, lack of War amounts to a lost sales. Bush/Cheney gave money to the Pakistani SS, who passed the money to the hijackers. The money probably originated with the Saudis, who are shown to have financed other terror ops e.g. the WTC attacks. The evidence agaist Bush/Cheney remains circumstantial, but the White House certainly can't afford for bin Ladin to be captured, since bin Ladin is a former Bush administration insider and would probably confirm the ties in order to save his own ass. If found, he will be found dead. Meanwhile, I'm sure he continues to enjoy the hospitality of the Bush family...
It is my understanding that the canonical use of a tie was to clean eye-glasses. I can think of several other uses that are... interesting... if not wholly practical. Ties can be used in sex play and as weapons, for instance, but I don't think that's what the boss has in mind when he tells you to wear one to work... or maybe it is. Hard to say unless you are part of that culture, which I am not.
Who was is said "I have never seen a programmer doing actual work while wearing a tie?"
> fill the pvc pipe with SAND and heat it on the range,
'ware the fumes.
This might work for a single run, a couple of bends, but I think you'd want something less time consuming for piping in e.g. all the houses on several city blocks, or several floors of an office building....
> 2 or 3 bends you will get good at it
Or get sick.
> and wont spend money in a machine that you would probably use 2 times.
Even just a single residence wired and the equipment pays for iteself. You gain nothing by trying to cheap out on your tools, long term.
Okay I take your point about the regulations. I was unaware of the NY codes. Does the prohibition include underground runs between access points? Like, shouldn't it be acceptable to run PVC between externally vented boxes or pull points?
Note that in all cases I would favor coduit over direct burial cables for the application under discussion. You are very right about ease of cable upgrades in conduit vs. non-conduit cable installations....
> PVC bender: $300+ > Hand operated 3/4" EMT bender: $50 > I also mentioned using multiple smaller conduits as opposed to one big one, > to prevent them from interfering with each other.
Whether you're talking PVC or EMT, this cost comparison is unrealistic. You have to calculate the additional cost of buying the conduit for multiple smaller conduit runs. That cost is going to accumulate over time, in every instance where you run 6 smaller conduits instread of one big one. This is true whether you're running PVC or EMT.
Multiple small runs will have a slightly higher material cost (include cost of conduit, straps, conduit bodies, and so on). The labour cost will also be higher. And I do reccomend you calculate the cost of your own labour even if you're doing it yourself, since what it boils down to is that it takes longer to run a group of smaller conduits than one large one.
Since the scale of the project is defined as "a neighborhood", I find it entirely plausible to believe that it would be cheaper long term to buy a bender than to either buy pre-made bends or use multiple small conduit runs.
As for minimizing the cost of the bender: Check pawnshops. People are forever hocking hydrolic benders and rigid conduit threading machines.
Some areas have strict codes against plastic conduit and/or PVC, it'll help lessen any EMI, plus it's very difficult to bend PVC.
Codes don't prohibit PVC (it's not "plastic conduit" -- water pipes may be plastic but electrical conduit is PVC and made for use as such); Codes specify the gauge and diameter of conduit you may use; the materials allowed for the conduit can vary some based on envronments (wet/dry/corrosive, etc). Note that Low-voltage (e.g. network) wiring codes are different than power wiring codes. In general you don't run power and signal in the same conduit.
If your goal is to "lessen EMI", use grounded metal conduit; PVC, while it may not be entirely transparent to EM, is certainly less of a sheild than metal. [EMT = "Electrical Metal Tubing"] However, CAT5 is not particularly noise sensitive, esp if you use twisted pairs. You can also get shielded cables, which, for my taste, make really excellent audio cables, since audio signals really are EMI sensitive. Also, shielding the audio is cheaper, since it requires fewer sheidled pairs...
PVC is not hard to bend at all, especially the larger diameter conduits. Contrast bending 2" EMT with bending 2" PVC. You just need a PVC bender, which typically uses heat, not hydrolics, as the EMT bender would.
A copy of the electrical code can be had at most electrical supply houses, and I would reccomend a copy of Ugly's Electical References. Invaluable for solving electrical wiring, conduit bending, and conduit wire fill type problems.
You might get away with CAT 5e for the in-house wiring, but you need to consider CAT6 or multi-mode fiber for connections between switches. I just ren into this recently:
And don't scoff at the idea of gigabit inside the dwellings, either. I saw a 5 port gigabit switch for (i think) about 89.95 (US) the other day.
If you run gigabit-capable (CAT 6 or Multi-mode Fiber) from dwellings to central switch, then the resident can put in a 10/100 switch switch with a Gigabit uplink or a regular gigabit switch. Of course, there is going to be bottle-necking at the central switch, but if you put in a few OC3's maybe no one will notice...
These guys, and the American public that support them, are clueless.
What in the name of the Goddess makes you think there are Americans who support the morons in congress who perpetrated the "patriot act"?
Clearly you have fallen victim to the the media propaganda which so regularly proclaims such idiocy...
There are no American citizens that support the patriot act..
Dubya and company have expatriated themselves by attempting to dismantle the Constitution; they cannot be citizens of the nation that still regards that Constitution as Law, since by proclaiming anti-constitutional law, they are asserting that nation no longer exists.
Furthermore anyone who agrees with and supports them or their anti-Constitution Law cannot be a citizen, since they are agreeing that the Constitution, the document which defines the country of which they were once citizens, is null and void in this new nation they are trying to create on American soil.
There are some Americans citizens still practicing their beliefs and abiding the Rule of Law, but to that group - the citizens, the USA PATRIOT Act is anathema.
It is goddamn scary that a U.S. citizen even has to consider posting information on foreign ground to acheive freedom of speech and press. What has gone so wrong...?
Well, it was scary a few years ago (circa 1999) when we first saw it (moving information offshore to protect it as Speech). Now it's just the way you have to do things...
What's going to be really scary is when US citizens have to to start applying for politcatical asylum or refugee status with foreign governments embassies.
Are there no longer visionaries in government?
Sure. There are several: Dubya/Asscroft/Cheney/et al. They're all visionary. They draw their visions straight out of the dreams of other visionaries like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, etc al.
take over a government website and host it there, then print out a copy, walk up Capitol Hill and tape it to the wall.
What they did to Mitnick was nothing compared to what they're prepared to do under the USA PATRIOT Act. What you're describing (dissent, Free Speech, political activism) is now classified as "un-American" and "Terrorism". Didn't you listen to Dubya's last couple speeches? To disagree with Dubya is to give aid and comfort to the enemmy, and is punishable under all the most henious provisions of the Act.....
Things need to get a lot worse before they get
better.
Generally true. It is an exercise to try to quantify that. Ask "How
much worse?"
People in the west are apathetic right now because from
day to day they are comfortable and secure (relative to the rest of the
world).
I'm assuming you mean the Western Hemisphere ("the west")? I think
apathetic is too strong a word (as I mentioned in my earlier post). I
think the people in the US feel more disenfranchised and dis-empowered
than they do apathetic. As a group, anyway. There may be indivuduals
how feel otherwise, but I know many more people who are enraged or
worse, depressed (suppressed rage) than I do people who just don't care.
If I had to pick a single word to set against what I call the "apathy
argument" it would be "frutstrated". I think there are a lot more
frustreated Americans than there are apathetic Americans. It is the
"bow and arrows against the apache gunships problem, but on many levels,
not just military...
This is not going to last forever and when the bubble
bursts and people start to feel the wind of fortune change then they
will be more susceptible to new ideas for better or
worse.
I think the primary problem right now is communications. Most of
these frustrated people are cut off from interaction with others who
share their feelings. So completely cut off that in many cases they
don't even realize how widespread their condition is.
The designers of the coup that swept the country in 2000 showed a
basic understanding of military strategy: divide and conquer, unite and
rule; in order to subgate, they employed the basic 'disrupt
communications and trasportation'... very "by the book". As are the
results.
It is interesting to me to find that the Chinese students discussed
in the article are essentially fighting the same battle I am - for
network access - but on different ground, for ostensibly different
reasons. They fault their government, and so do I - given that the
government I am fighting is the Corporatocracy, of which the US Federal
government is just an Arm. In some ways, their fight is simpler.
And for the record, I do agree that arming the Chinese students is not a useful strategy for solving the particular problem of Internet access for them. Weapons of Mass Destruction would probably be more useful, especially now that we've broadened the WMD definition to include cheap, portable, throwaway wireless access points... Revolution is what China is all about, right? Chairman Mao, etc?
Ok lets suppose the revolution does come and you are successful what are you going to replace the current system with?
I subscribe to the old-school theory that the oppressed, when the Revolution is won, typically become the oppressors. The Revolutionaries eventually become that which they sought to replace. Therefor, since I am now (arguably) a Revolutionary, I think it best that I leave the decisions concerning what the New System will be to others. I have some opinions, some ideas, but mostly those comprise what I don't want to live under, as opposed to what I would like to see implemented. Since this is a theoretical discussion, I could take the tack of planning a new society, but really that's a whole 'nuther rantwhich we might get into it at some point...
, "working to Prevent corruption and greed from screwing things up" is an endless, demoralizing task"
Thats true but then again for the majority of people so is the day to day struggle of staying alive and sane.
I view the tasks of staying alive and sane as pretty much synonymous with the tasks of overcoming greed and corruption. Greed and corruption are anti-life and anit-sanity, imo.
An armed revolution will ultimately land your children with the same problems you face today namely facing greed and corruption
Not necesarily. If we assume for a moment that the progression of greed and corruption is continual, then any interruption of it a least a "break even" proposition for a point in future time. If, as you say, I manage to overthrow the current corrupt regime, and it takes greed and corruption a half a generation to regain lost ground, then my kids are in the same place I am. Arguably, this is what happened in the US between 1955 and the present...
By the same token, if I continue to fight futilely (absesnce of armed revolution will render the fight futile at some point), then greed and corruption continue to gain ground during that same generation, and my kids would be worse off than I over the same passage of time.
and who is to say that your children will be any less apathetic than the majority are today.
That falls into the "not my problem" catagory.
First of all, that famous "apathy" we hear so much about is a media construct that is advantageous to the Powers That Be. It is not a real thing, imo. This based on empiricism: I don't know anyone who could be summarized by the term "apathetic".
Secondly, I can only do what I can do. I teach my kids the concepts of Total World Domination and Universal Rule; I show them the rewards of Ambition and Self-Interst; I make sure that they understand the relative advantages and disadvantages of Power, Rule, and Authority, and how to manipulate those constructs. I do the best I can to mold a political, social, and economic environment conducive to their success. The future is their turf. What they do with it is up to them. I can only lay groundwork.
those bozos in the white house still run the country and make decisions on your behalf which affect you
I would want to summarize this to "take actions that affect me"; I think the "run the country" and "on my behalf" parts entail value judgements, and are therefore debatable. That said, I can certainly agree that the decisions and actions of The Bozos do have wide impact. Simply put, though, that is not democracy, and therefore not the legitimate government of the United States of America. That fact opens up some options when deciding e.g. how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied in the forthcoming removal of said Bozos.
I think their is a big difference between a hunting rifle versus a helicopter gun ship and a flint lock rifle versus a bow and arrow or a slightly less accurate flint lock rifle.
I was thinking more along the lines of the difference between a flintlock and a British Man'o'war (battleship). The Brits themselves made an interesting use of what were considered inferior firepower and weapons platforms in their fight against the Spanish, I believe
Actively working to Prevent corruption and greed from screwing things up for society today is far more productive than fantasizing about taking on the federal government in firefight you wont win tomorrow.
Unfortunately, "working to Prevent corruption and greed from screwing things up" is an endless, demoralizing task, which leads one directly to the desire - even the need - to engage in a "fantasy about taking on the federal government", since it is that alleged "federal government" that is the primary perpetrator, facilitator, and protector of the aforementioned corruption and greed.
It appears you are in denial, dreaming of the perfect world where good people don't get oppressed by fascist, tyrannical governments whose sole activity is to accumulate to itself the Power that rightfully belongs to People while feeding the People to the Beast that is the Global Corporatocracy.
Your argument (or POV, if you'd rather, whatever) is the same one used some some 40 years ago to pacify the US Revolutionaries of that era... which is, after all, why we are here, now, still trying to decide what to do about it: Your POV won out, that time.
All the hippies "grew up", the Panthers were arrested, the Movement was broken up, and it was a Good Thing, because we could continue to fight corruption and greed from our condos and SUVs and corporate cubicals without shooting or fighting or doing other non-Peaceful things. Things that would make us like the War-Mongers, against whom we were just bound to lose in a pitched battle, anyway, right?... Would you say that we have been successful "preventing corruption and greed" by following your advice, post-poning The Revolution, making it something our children or our childrens children will need to do, and against even more overwhelming firepower? I would hardly say that there is any less greed and corruption now than there was then...
Fwiw, I would call your approach to solving society's problems the "fantasy" here; in a word, it is naive.
I am more eager to get people realizing that civil war isn't going to solve anything and that our only hope as a society is to stop the corruption and greed before it drives us to the brink.
Revolution doesn't have to be civil war, however. And short of a Revolution, I doubt this society will survive long enough to be reformed...
I have to point out that the only individual in the world who could possibly benefit from the Iraqi's decapitation of Mr. Berg is George Dubya Bush. The public opinion backlash against the Iraqis could conceivablely save the election for him. Before yesterday, Dubya's numbers had gone below 50%. Betting is by tomorow they will be above 55 (no, I haven't checked in that last 8 hours)
You are making an assumption that the government MUST have better weapons than the people. Fine.
Ok name one country (apart from switzerland) where the general population has better or comparative weapons to the government ?
I want to split a hair, here.
Technically, it is not the government that the people must fight in the (hypothetical) case of the US rebelling againt the fascist neocon oppressors who have seized the Seats of Power.
The government in the US is purportedly made up of The People, so regardless of what the bozos e.g. in DC call themselves, once they have crossed the line from being Representatives of the People - Public Servants, if you will - to being Tyrannical Oppressors of the Citizenry, the Citizens can rightfully claim that the oppressors are not The Government, regardless of any lying blather to the contrary, and regardless of any Force of Arms that the Lying Usurpers of the Function of Government and the Seats of Power may be able to bring to bear. That Force of Arms belongs to The People, and it is up to The People who they allow to exercise it in their name. If a Government" turns force against the People, then by definition (under the Constitution) that Government ceases to be the Government, and becomes simply a bunch of thugs with big (or lots of) guns.
As an execise, try imagining what might happen if e.g. Europe actually believed that the US had been overthrown by subversion, and that the people running e.g. the Iraq action were not legitimately commanding the US milititary. Then who's the "rogue" ruler? Interestingly, the current ruler of the US Government thought that a wearing t-shirt bearing a slogan supporting this idea ("not my president") was grounds to have an american citizen detained, threatened, and interogated. Seems odd, to me that, were the subject of that gentle critique a Real American, he should have any issue with the statement of it. Clearly it is a case of the Emporer asserting he is clothed; and to the detriment of The People, since now they all have to continue to look at his flabby nazty azz parading down the streetz....
The short version, just because the guy with the gun calls himself the duly elected president of the US doesn't mean he is. This holds, regardless of the size of the gun.
By extension, just because some group of people with lots of guns, money and bombs declares that e.g. the constution of the US is now suspended for the duration, doesn't mean, doesn't mean that it is. It is up to the well-armed, well-regulated citizens to protect themselves by defining the legitimate government of their nation and bringing their defined militias into play.
In these terms, as applied to the US Federal Govt, the US Military becomes a key player in any exercise of the Second Amendment to make a change in the Federal Government. It becomes the duty of the leaders of that Military to execise judgement concerning their own leaders and the constintutionality of the behaviour. It is not too difficult to imagine a scenario that could lead to re-estabilishment of a legitimate US Federal Government by military coup.
In a perfect (constitutionally governed) world, a US military commander would overthrow the Federal Government before he would order his troops to fire on US Citizens who have not violated the Constitution of the United States, since the Constitution is the Law defines the Country which those military commanders purportedly defend.
I am not against the second amendment I just think it is highly overrated as a device to protect personal freedom in modern countries.
Arguably, the difference in firepower between handguns and rifles against a 21st century military is not so different than the differnce in firepower between e.g. the American settlers and the British oppressors, the Palestinian settlers (pre-Isreali-state Zionists) and the
Allowing individuals/organizations to own nukes and chemical weapons however could well pose a threat to the general population
Perhaps. However, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to faccilitate the removal of tyrannical rulers and to provide for the common defense of the nation, not to prevent Joe Citizen from shooting himself in the foot... or nuking the state he lives in, for that matter. You're mixing apples and oranges by trying to combine the concepts...
and their may well be a case for limiting a persons right to bare arms in such extreme cases.
Not according to the Second Amendment, nor according to any part of the documents used to organize the country, by my reading. Furthermore, if you say they do, I have to point out that you are speaking in favour of a violation of the Constitution, a slippery slope which leads to the very tyranny I mentioned earlier. Beware.
Furthermore, I wouldn't say that nuke or biologic capability is such an "extreme case". Pretty much anybody with a decent education should be able to cook up a pretty big bang with easily available matierials. Chemical weapons? They can be build out of drain cleaner. Interestingly, these are the kinds of things that can be used against "modern" military weapons, but even the knowledge of how to build them is becoming proscribed. The proscription is a violation of the Second Amendment, imo.
The kind of thinking w.r.t. weapons and weapons technology is the very thing that has led us to the mess we're in, where ALL the Rights in the Bill of Rights have been unilaterally been declared moot by the Federal Government. The demonstration of the tryrannical nature of the current rulers will be complete when the Enforcement of the provisions they have already put in place comes to the awareness of the citizenry as a whole. That hasn't happened yet, and will not happen until and unless a media that supports the First Amendment is brought into play.
Fear? Fear is what spawned the USA PATRIOT ACT. I personnally don't know anyone who is particularly afraid of Terrorism... but then, most of the people I know chose to prusue their Second Amendment Rights regardless of attempts at tyranny.
Modipodio, I've followed down thru some of your argument here, and, while I do disagree with your assertion that "Windows is a democracy", I applaud the strong argument you make for the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms as a Right to keep and bear fully automatic weapons, shoulder-to-air missiles, grenades, and tactical nukes. I agree 100%!
The Second Amendment, iirc, is the basis for postulated Right to Keep and Bear Arms that we all talk about; futhermore, the Amendment itself also provides a basis for such a broad interpretation.
For reference:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. -
U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
Additionally, it is my understanding that, in part, at least, the intent of this "well-regulated militia" is to allow the citizens to unseat and replace any government to which they may find themselves subjected which becomes tyrannical. There is the definition of tyrannical to consider, and the acceptance of that definition as applying (or not) to any particular government at a given time, nevertheless, I think the intent is clear: It is not for the purpose of self-defense or taking game that the arms are to be kept and borne.
In short, I would say that I would agree with you insofar as the idea that the people's right to keep and bear such arms as may be required to overthrow any particular tyrannical regime must not be infringed.
Note that the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment doesn't seem to require prior membership in a well-regulated militia as a condition for keeping and bearing. The idea seems to be that I should personnally keep and bear my own cruise missiles against the need to mobilize my local, well-regulated militia in defense of Liberty. Since I'm probably the only person on my block who can afford my own cruise missile (not sure about the crack dealers across the street; they seem to have a lot of disposable income, even compared to me), I (for now) can only afford one cruise missile, so I should not be constrained from keeping and bearing other, miscellenous small arms as I might need, but... where do you find a constitutional argument that my right to keep and bear a cruise missile should be infringed?
The only real argument against it is the idea that some people might not trust me with it, might be afraid of my intent with said missile. And what is it that we are supposed to be resisting in this "War on Terror?" Last time I was forced to listen to Dubya's blathering, he was rambling (agonizingly, I might add; must the man speak as though he just swallowed a fistful of Quaaludes?!) on about not giving in to FEAR and TERROR. The phrase "we must be strong" comes to mind, although I don't know if he actually said that. Anyway, I agree, in principle. We should should stand up against the fear of the citizen's right to keep and bear whatever weapons they might need to fulfil their duty to defend their Liberty.
Now, in the real world: How many cruise missiles did my taxes pay for over the last 10 years, and when do I get to start keeping and bearing them pursuant to my duty to overthrow whatever tyrannical govt may be oppressing my community?
I see money in the HomeConnect technology, plain and simple.
I quite understand, believe me. It is simply that, from the standpoint of one of Comcasts intended victims, there is not money at all in this. The only persons who stand to benefit are Comcast and their shareholders (notably Microsoft Corporation).
Furthermore, Comcast believes (as evidence their prior behavior) that they can maximize that shareholder profit by screwing the end user. Therefore it is a certainty that the devices the are planning to distrbute will be used in any way possible, and in conjunction with a "user agreement", to extract the maximum amount of money possible from the hapless victims, while providing the minimum possible level of service.
That is, in fact, my complaint. I cannot get from Comcast the service for which I paid them. Add to that the idea that they want to add an additional device for the sole purpose of additional control of the user's (victim's) sub-net, an you have made my case for me.
Comcast, and other companies of their ilk, make money by victimizing customers. I never said they would not make money. I simply pointed out that this new tech is just another way of screwing their victims. They wouldn't distribute it for any other reason.
It's a classic case of a monopoly requiring regulation. Some legal authority has to step in and prevent Comcast from simply taking money from people, then telling those people to piss off, as they are currently doing.
The consumer needs to be able to buy cable broadband service (or cable t.v. or whatever) without totally give up control of their own property, regardless of the capbillities of the technology. Some control also needs be applied how much Comcast (and others) is allowed to overcharge for a non-competitive service, imo; the service is dysfuntional now, why should they be allowed to add cost for adding hardware whose only function is to enforce additional cost? If there were competition, the expectation might be that cost problems would be more or less self-limiting, but this is not a competitive market, regardless of hype by the cable industry to the contrary. But that's another rant....
I would draw an analogy to the power company: The power company
is regulated
does not constrain me as to what brand or quantity of appliances I buy
In the first case, costs and quality of service are monitored, and to some degree the consumer has an advocate in these areas in the personages of the public service commission -- not a perfect system, maybe, but better than anything Comcast has shown me....
In the second case, I am billed quantitatively for use of the service. If I use electrical power to duplicate a copyrighted work, then distribute the work using an electrical device (e.g. a computer)the power company doesn't turn off my power when they are contacted by e.g. the MPAA.
Also, it is not typical that the power company, phone company, and so on, can deny service based on e.g. the brand of phone handset or microwave oven I use.
Comcast, on the other hand, has such rules, placing themselves in the position e.g. a building instpector (to continue the analogy) would occupy in the standard utility construction/usage/billing model. The problem is, this (theoretical) Comcast enforcement official
is heavily biased ($1 billion in M$ money invested in Comcast, remember) towards a particular brand of appliances,
has applied something other than technical and engineering constraints to the decision of whether or not my building "passes inspection" (it can be shown, in fact, that his decision is completely arbitrary except for the aforementioned bias), and
does not have the best interest of the customer at heart.
The "user" -- citizen/voter/taxpayer -- the shareholder in govt -- is the (ostensibly) the pro
The only real point in my responses to your postings has been that, since Comcast currently is known to abuse their customers in a variety of ways, there is no real reason to believe that they will not continue to do so, esp given that they are an unregulated monopoly, and that there is no reasonable expectation of accountability on thier part.
I think it is past time to regulate the industry, and I think Comcast's corporate behaviour supports that point of view. They are a canonical example of everything that's wrong with the internet in general, and the cable broadband industry in particular, imo.
I have no doubt whatsoever that only reason Comcast chose to develop and distribute the technology described in the article is pursuant to some diaboliocal plan for further abuse of thier victims. In fact, given that they already completely control their markets, and have no competition, what other reason could they have for distributing the tech?
I in no way believe that Comcast has any desire to gain customers or even satisfy the customers they have. They are simply power made, and are in a race to destroy any vestige of choice or privacy the public may have remaining to them.
I personally find the idea that a company like Comcast would do anything that didn't involve draconican spy tools and wide-spread abuses of personal information downright laffable.
I appreciate you sympathy for my plight (trying to live and work in an area where Comcast is in a postition to control my access), however, I have to say that you seem to exhibit an unwholesome degree of trust in a corporation that has done nothing to warrent it. For my part, I hope you do not fall victim to Comcasts depredations. I have Road Runner service, as well, in other areas, and haven't had reason to complain to them; I can only hope that as the Comcast moster continues to feed it does not turns its undead, staring eye in those directions.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn. That's one of the most blantant statements of one of the nastiest pieces of bullshit ever conceived by those intent on destroying the human race.
You believe it is okay to deny people what they want if you deem it to be "harmful". How very typical of the sort of thinking that contributes to human misery on a global scale every day.
I think it was in response to that sort of an attitude that the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" was coined.
Even your pathetic attempt at an example is nonsense. I submit that even a four-year-old would figure out where the stomach ache came from after a few too many bowls.
Who the fuck do you think you are?
Until you and your ilk have completely subverted the constitution of the US and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the UN), your statement above is just plain wrong. Your right to interfere with the pursuit of happiness in other persons is a figment of some fevered, religious imagination. You have the right to protect yourself from harm, and no right at all to decide what is best for others.
You are a shining example of what is wrong with the world today. Why the hell would anyone want to strive for anything if some thoughtless moron like yourself could come along and arbitrarily decide "that's not good for you, so you may not have it."
HTML, CSS, then PHP.
This path provides the immediate gratification and a doorway to wizardry if she chooses to pursue it.
- in my experience the most difficult concept involved is that of "files"; make sure she has a good understanding of what a text file is, and has a good text editor
- I like w3.org and w3schools.com as starting points; lots less to unlearn that way
- start with the most recent version of the HTML standard; the industry will not be going backwards with this stuff
- Avoid javascript; some ECMA scripting might be useful, but javascript is too platform dependant (bad habits)
pThe point made in the parent about having a use for the tool is a good point.In spite of the fact that the debate about the alleged "War on Terror" is lively and informative, I think it represents a good bit of cyber-turfing in support of various non-domestic agendas.
The article is about the abuse of the US legislative, judicial, and enforcement power to silence and oppress american citizens, yet the bulk of the discussion seems to be about the war. It's a classic case of diversion, imo, depite the fact that many valid points are being made on other (arguably related) subjects.
Just because the media reported that you were looking for bin Ladin, doesn't mean you were.
.... and what makes you think bin Ladin is in Afghanistan?
Depends on which Bush you mean. The White House is, was, and remains a supporter of Osama bin Ladin. Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda were "assets" for US intelligence, and there is no record of their ever having gone off the payroll, afaik.
When Clinton attacked al Qaeda the neocons screamed bloody murder and demanded an immeadiate cessation of action. I guess they were waiting for 9/11/2001 and Dubya's "pre-emptive" war on Iraq. God forbid a liberal should wipe out al Qaeda from afar before Haliburton could get involved, eh? Besides, I'm sure Dubya had a little trouble explaining to his buddy Osama why cruise missiles were raining down on his training camps before the operation they were training for could be carried out.
If it weren't for Osama, there would be no excuse for the Bush/Cheney organization to make war, and by Bush/Cheney reasoning, lack of War amounts to a lost sales. Bush/Cheney gave money to the Pakistani SS, who passed the money to the hijackers. The money probably originated with the Saudis, who are shown to have financed other terror ops e.g. the WTC attacks. The evidence agaist Bush/Cheney remains circumstantial, but the White House certainly can't afford for bin Ladin to be captured, since bin Ladin is a former Bush administration insider and would probably confirm the ties in order to save his own ass. If found, he will be found dead. Meanwhile, I'm sure he continues to enjoy the hospitality of the Bush family...
It is my understanding that the canonical use of a tie was to clean eye-glasses. I can think of several other uses that are ... interesting ... if not wholly practical. Ties can be used in sex play and as weapons, for instance, but I don't think that's what the boss has in mind when he tells you to wear one to work ... or maybe it is. Hard to say unless you are part of that culture, which I am not.
Who was is said "I have never seen a programmer doing actual work while wearing a tie?"
LoL! I'll burn it if you'll inhale deeply..... lay off the crack pipe.
> fill the pvc pipe with SAND and heat it on the range,
'ware the fumes.
This might work for a single run, a couple of bends, but I think you'd want something less time consuming for piping in e.g. all the houses on several city blocks, or several floors of an office building....
> 2 or 3 bends you will get good at it
Or get sick.
> and wont spend money in a machine that you would probably use 2 times.
Even just a single residence wired and the equipment pays for iteself. You gain nothing by trying to cheap out on your tools, long term.
Okay I take your point about the regulations. I was unaware of the NY codes. Does the prohibition include underground runs between access points? Like, shouldn't it be acceptable to run PVC between externally vented boxes or pull points?
...
Note that in all cases I would favor coduit over direct burial cables for the application under discussion. You are very right about ease of cable upgrades in conduit vs. non-conduit cable installations.
> PVC bender: $300+
> Hand operated 3/4" EMT bender: $50
> I also mentioned using multiple smaller conduits as opposed to one big one,
> to prevent them from interfering with each other.
Whether you're talking PVC or EMT, this cost comparison is unrealistic. You have to calculate the additional cost of buying the conduit for multiple smaller conduit runs. That cost is going to accumulate over time, in every instance where you run 6 smaller conduits instread of one big one. This is true whether you're running PVC or EMT.
Multiple small runs will have a slightly higher material cost (include cost of conduit, straps, conduit bodies, and so on). The labour cost will also be higher. And I do reccomend you calculate the cost of your own labour even if you're doing it yourself, since what it boils down to is that it takes longer to run a group of smaller conduits than one large one.
Since the scale of the project is defined as "a neighborhood", I find it entirely plausible to believe that it would be cheaper long term to buy a bender than to either buy pre-made bends or use multiple small conduit runs.
As for minimizing the cost of the bender: Check pawnshops. People are forever hocking hydrolic benders and rigid conduit threading machines.
Don't forget to oversize the conduit. A pull string is most helpful if the conduit is something less than 50% full of wires when you need to use it...
A copy of the electrical code can be had at most electrical supply houses, and I would reccomend a copy of Ugly's Electical References. Invaluable for solving electrical wiring, conduit bending, and conduit wire fill type problems.
You might get away with CAT 5e for the in-house wiring, but you need to consider CAT6 or multi-mode fiber for connections between switches. I just ren into this recently:
CAT 5 - 10Mhz Ethernet
CAT 5e - 100Mhz Ethernet
CAT 6 - Gigabit Ethernet
And don't scoff at the idea of gigabit inside the dwellings, either. I saw a 5 port gigabit switch for (i think) about 89.95 (US) the other day.
If you run gigabit-capable (CAT 6 or Multi-mode Fiber) from dwellings to central switch, then the resident can put in a 10/100 switch switch with a Gigabit uplink or a regular gigabit switch. Of course, there is going to be bottle-necking at the central switch, but if you put in a few OC3's maybe no one will notice...
At any rate, this sounds like a fun project.
What in the name of the Goddess makes you think there are Americans who support the morons in congress who perpetrated the "patriot act"?
Clearly you have fallen victim to the the media propaganda which so regularly proclaims such idiocy...
There are no American citizens that support the patriot act. .
Dubya and company have expatriated themselves by attempting to dismantle the Constitution; they cannot be citizens of the nation that still regards that Constitution as Law, since by proclaiming anti-constitutional law, they are asserting that nation no longer exists.
Furthermore anyone who agrees with and supports them or their anti-Constitution Law cannot be a citizen, since they are agreeing that the Constitution, the document which defines the country of which they were once citizens, is null and void in this new nation they are trying to create on American soil.
There are some Americans citizens still practicing their beliefs and abiding the Rule of Law, but to that group - the citizens, the USA PATRIOT Act is anathema.
Well, it was scary a few years ago (circa 1999) when we first saw it (moving information offshore to protect it as Speech). Now it's just the way you have to do things...
What's going to be really scary is when US citizens have to to start applying for politcatical asylum or refugee status with foreign governments embassies.
Sure. There are several: Dubya/Asscroft/Cheney/et al. They're all visionary. They draw their visions straight out of the dreams of other visionaries like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, etc al.
What they did to Mitnick was nothing compared to what they're prepared to do under the USA PATRIOT Act. What you're describing (dissent, Free Speech, political activism) is now classified as "un-American" and "Terrorism". Didn't you listen to Dubya's last couple speeches? To disagree with Dubya is to give aid and comfort to the enemmy, and is punishable under all the most henious provisions of the Act. ....
Generally true. It is an exercise to try to quantify that. Ask "How much worse?"
I'm assuming you mean the Western Hemisphere ("the west")? I think apathetic is too strong a word (as I mentioned in my earlier post). I think the people in the US feel more disenfranchised and dis-empowered than they do apathetic. As a group, anyway. There may be indivuduals how feel otherwise, but I know many more people who are enraged or worse, depressed (suppressed rage) than I do people who just don't care. If I had to pick a single word to set against what I call the "apathy argument" it would be "frutstrated". I think there are a lot more frustreated Americans than there are apathetic Americans. It is the "bow and arrows against the apache gunships problem, but on many levels, not just military...
I think the primary problem right now is communications. Most of these frustrated people are cut off from interaction with others who share their feelings. So completely cut off that in many cases they don't even realize how widespread their condition is.
The designers of the coup that swept the country in 2000 showed a basic understanding of military strategy: divide and conquer, unite and rule; in order to subgate, they employed the basic 'disrupt communications and trasportation' ... very "by the book". As are the
results.
It is interesting to me to find that the Chinese students discussed in the article are essentially fighting the same battle I am - for network access - but on different ground, for ostensibly different reasons. They fault their government, and so do I - given that the government I am fighting is the Corporatocracy, of which the US Federal government is just an Arm. In some ways, their fight is simpler.
And for the record, I do agree that arming the Chinese students is not a useful strategy for solving the particular problem of Internet access for them. Weapons of Mass Destruction would probably be more useful, especially now that we've broadened the WMD definition to include cheap, portable, throwaway wireless access points... Revolution is what China is all about, right? Chairman Mao, etc?
I subscribe to the old-school theory that the oppressed, when the Revolution is won, typically become the oppressors. The Revolutionaries eventually become that which they sought to replace. Therefor, since I am now (arguably) a Revolutionary, I think it best that I leave the decisions concerning what the New System will be to others. I have some opinions, some ideas, but mostly those comprise what I don't want to live under, as opposed to what I would like to see implemented. Since this is a theoretical discussion, I could take the tack of planning a new society, but really that's a whole 'nuther rantwhich we might get into it at some point...
I view the tasks of staying alive and sane as pretty much synonymous with the tasks of overcoming greed and corruption. Greed and corruption are anti-life and anit-sanity, imo.
Not necesarily. If we assume for a moment that the progression of greed and corruption is continual, then any interruption of it a least a "break even" proposition for a point in future time. If, as you say, I manage to overthrow the current corrupt regime, and it takes greed and corruption a half a generation to regain lost ground, then my kids are in the same place I am. Arguably, this is what happened in the US between 1955 and the present...
By the same token, if I continue to fight futilely (absesnce of armed revolution will render the fight futile at some point), then greed and corruption continue to gain ground during that same generation, and my kids would be worse off than I over the same passage of time.
That falls into the "not my problem" catagory.
First of all, that famous "apathy" we hear so much about is a media construct that is advantageous to the Powers That Be. It is not a real thing, imo. This based on empiricism: I don't know anyone who could be summarized by the term "apathetic".
Secondly, I can only do what I can do. I teach my kids the concepts of Total World Domination and Universal Rule; I show them the rewards of Ambition and Self-Interst; I make sure that they understand the relative advantages and disadvantages of Power, Rule, and Authority, and how to manipulate those constructs. I do the best I can to mold a political, social, and economic environment conducive to their success. The future is their turf. What they do with it is up to them. I can only lay groundwork.
I would want to summarize this to "take actions that affect me"; I think the "run the country" and "on my behalf" parts entail value judgements, and are therefore debatable. That said, I can certainly agree that the decisions and actions of The Bozos do have wide impact. Simply put, though, that is not democracy, and therefore not the legitimate government of the United States of America. That fact opens up some options when deciding e.g. how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied in the forthcoming removal of said Bozos.
I was thinking more along the lines of the difference between a flintlock and a British Man'o'war (battleship). The Brits themselves made an interesting use of what were considered inferior firepower and weapons platforms in their fight against the Spanish, I believe
Unfortunately, "working to Prevent corruption and greed from screwing things up" is an endless, demoralizing task, which leads one directly to the desire - even the need - to engage in a "fantasy about taking on the federal government", since it is that alleged "federal government" that is the primary perpetrator, facilitator, and protector of the aforementioned corruption and greed.
It appears you are in denial, dreaming of the perfect world where good people don't get oppressed by fascist, tyrannical governments whose sole activity is to accumulate to itself the Power that rightfully belongs to People while feeding the People to the Beast that is the Global Corporatocracy.
Your argument (or POV, if you'd rather, whatever) is the same one used some some 40 years ago to pacify the US Revolutionaries of that era ... which is, after all, why we are here, now, still trying to decide what to do about it: Your POV won out, that time.
All the hippies "grew up", the Panthers were arrested, the Movement was broken up, and it was a Good Thing, because we could continue to fight corruption and greed from our condos and SUVs and corporate cubicals without shooting or fighting or doing other non-Peaceful things. Things that would make us like the War-Mongers, against whom we were just bound to lose in a pitched battle, anyway, right? ... Would you say that we have been successful "preventing corruption and greed" by following your advice, post-poning The Revolution, making it something our children or our childrens children will need to do, and against even more overwhelming firepower? I would hardly say that there is any less greed and corruption now than there was then...
Fwiw, I would call your approach to solving society's problems the "fantasy" here; in a word, it is naive.
Revolution doesn't have to be civil war, however. And short of a Revolution, I doubt this society will survive long enough to be reformed ...
I have to point out that the only individual in the world who could possibly benefit from the Iraqi's decapitation of Mr. Berg is George Dubya Bush. The public opinion backlash against the Iraqis could conceivablely save the election for him. Before yesterday, Dubya's numbers had gone below 50%. Betting is by tomorow they will be above 55 (no, I haven't checked in that last 8 hours)
I want to split a hair, here.
Technically, it is not the government that the people must fight in the (hypothetical) case of the US rebelling againt the fascist neocon oppressors who have seized the Seats of Power.
The government in the US is purportedly made up of The People, so regardless of what the bozos e.g. in DC call themselves, once they have crossed the line from being Representatives of the People - Public Servants, if you will - to being Tyrannical Oppressors of the Citizenry, the Citizens can rightfully claim that the oppressors are not The Government, regardless of any lying blather to the contrary, and regardless of any Force of Arms that the Lying Usurpers of the Function of Government and the Seats of Power may be able to bring to bear. That Force of Arms belongs to The People, and it is up to The People who they allow to exercise it in their name. If a Government" turns force against the People, then by definition (under the Constitution) that Government ceases to be the Government, and becomes simply a bunch of thugs with big (or lots of) guns.
As an execise, try imagining what might happen if e.g. Europe actually believed that the US had been overthrown by subversion, and that the people running e.g. the Iraq action were not legitimately commanding the US milititary. Then who's the "rogue" ruler? Interestingly, the current ruler of the US Government thought that a wearing t-shirt bearing a slogan supporting this idea ("not my president") was grounds to have an american citizen detained, threatened, and interogated. Seems odd, to me that, were the subject of that gentle critique a Real American, he should have any issue with the statement of it. Clearly it is a case of the Emporer asserting he is clothed; and to the detriment of The People, since now they all have to continue to look at his flabby nazty azz parading down the streetz....
The short version, just because the guy with the gun calls himself the duly elected president of the US doesn't mean he is. This holds, regardless of the size of the gun.
By extension, just because some group of people with lots of guns, money and bombs declares that e.g. the constution of the US is now suspended for the duration, doesn't mean, doesn't mean that it is. It is up to the well-armed, well-regulated citizens to protect themselves by defining the legitimate government of their nation and bringing their defined militias into play.
In these terms, as applied to the US Federal Govt, the US Military becomes a key player in any exercise of the Second Amendment to make a change in the Federal Government. It becomes the duty of the leaders of that Military to execise judgement concerning their own leaders and the constintutionality of the behaviour. It is not too difficult to imagine a scenario that could lead to re-estabilishment of a legitimate US Federal Government by military coup.
In a perfect (constitutionally governed) world, a US military commander would overthrow the Federal Government before he would order his troops to fire on US Citizens who have not violated the Constitution of the United States, since the Constitution is the Law defines the Country which those military commanders purportedly defend.
Arguably, the difference in firepower between handguns and rifles against a 21st century military is not so different than the differnce in firepower between e.g. the American settlers and the British oppressors, the Palestinian settlers (pre-Isreali-state Zionists) and the
Perhaps. However, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to faccilitate the removal of tyrannical rulers and to provide for the common defense of the nation, not to prevent Joe Citizen from shooting himself in the foot ... or nuking the state he lives in, for that matter. You're mixing apples and oranges by trying to combine the concepts ...
Not according to the Second Amendment, nor according to any part of the documents used to organize the country, by my reading. Furthermore, if you say they do, I have to point out that you are speaking in favour of a violation of the Constitution, a slippery slope which leads to the very tyranny I mentioned earlier. Beware.
Furthermore, I wouldn't say that nuke or biologic capability is such an "extreme case". Pretty much anybody with a decent education should be able to cook up a pretty big bang with easily available matierials. Chemical weapons? They can be build out of drain cleaner. Interestingly, these are the kinds of things that can be used against "modern" military weapons, but even the knowledge of how to build them is becoming proscribed. The proscription is a violation of the Second Amendment, imo.
The kind of thinking w.r.t. weapons and weapons technology is the very thing that has led us to the mess we're in, where ALL the Rights in the Bill of Rights have been unilaterally been declared moot by the Federal Government. The demonstration of the tryrannical nature of the current rulers will be complete when the Enforcement of the provisions they have already put in place comes to the awareness of the citizenry as a whole. That hasn't happened yet, and will not happen until and unless a media that supports the First Amendment is brought into play.
Fear? Fear is what spawned the USA PATRIOT ACT. I personnally don't know anyone who is particularly afraid of Terrorism ... but then, most of the people I know chose to prusue their Second Amendment Rights regardless of attempts at tyranny.
Modipodio, I've followed down thru some of your argument here, and, while I do disagree with your assertion that "Windows is a democracy", I applaud the strong argument you make for the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms as a Right to keep and bear fully automatic weapons, shoulder-to-air missiles, grenades, and tactical nukes. I agree 100%!
The Second Amendment, iirc, is the basis for postulated Right to Keep and Bear Arms that we all talk about; futhermore, the Amendment itself also provides a basis for such a broad interpretation.
For reference:
Additionally, it is my understanding that, in part, at least, the intent of this "well-regulated militia" is to allow the citizens to unseat and replace any government to which they may find themselves subjected which becomes tyrannical. There is the definition of tyrannical to consider, and the acceptance of that definition as applying (or not) to any particular government at a given time, nevertheless, I think the intent is clear: It is not for the purpose of self-defense or taking game that the arms are to be kept and borne.
In short, I would say that I would agree with you insofar as the idea that the people's right to keep and bear such arms as may be required to overthrow any particular tyrannical regime must not be infringed.
Note that the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment doesn't seem to require prior membership in a well-regulated militia as a condition for keeping and bearing. The idea seems to be that I should personnally keep and bear my own cruise missiles against the need to mobilize my local, well-regulated militia in defense of Liberty. Since I'm probably the only person on my block who can afford my own cruise missile (not sure about the crack dealers across the street; they seem to have a lot of disposable income, even compared to me), I (for now) can only afford one cruise missile, so I should not be constrained from keeping and bearing other, miscellenous small arms as I might need, but ... where do you find a constitutional argument that my right to keep and bear a cruise missile should be infringed?
The only real argument against it is the idea that some people might not trust me with it, might be afraid of my intent with said missile. And what is it that we are supposed to be resisting in this "War on Terror?" Last time I was forced to listen to Dubya's blathering, he was rambling (agonizingly, I might add; must the man speak as though he just swallowed a fistful of Quaaludes?!) on about not giving in to FEAR and TERROR. The phrase "we must be strong" comes to mind, although I don't know if he actually said that. Anyway, I agree, in principle. We should should stand up against the fear of the citizen's right to keep and bear whatever weapons they might need to fulfil their duty to defend their Liberty.
Now, in the real world: How many cruise missiles did my taxes pay for over the last 10 years, and when do I get to start keeping and bearing them pursuant to my duty to overthrow whatever tyrannical govt may be oppressing my community?
I quite understand, believe me. It is simply that, from the standpoint of one of Comcasts intended victims, there is not money at all in this. The only persons who stand to benefit are Comcast and their shareholders (notably Microsoft Corporation).
Furthermore, Comcast believes (as evidence their prior behavior) that they can maximize that shareholder profit by screwing the end user. Therefore it is a certainty that the devices the are planning to distrbute will be used in any way possible, and in conjunction with a "user agreement", to extract the maximum amount of money possible from the hapless victims, while providing the minimum possible level of service.
That is, in fact, my complaint. I cannot get from Comcast the service for which I paid them. Add to that the idea that they want to add an additional device for the sole purpose of additional control of the user's (victim's) sub-net, an you have made my case for me.
Comcast, and other companies of their ilk, make money by victimizing customers. I never said they would not make money. I simply pointed out that this new tech is just another way of screwing their victims. They wouldn't distribute it for any other reason.
It's a classic case of a monopoly requiring regulation. Some legal authority has to step in and prevent Comcast from simply taking money from people, then telling those people to piss off, as they are currently doing.
The consumer needs to be able to buy cable broadband service (or cable t.v. or whatever) without totally give up control of their own property, regardless of the capbillities of the technology. Some control also needs be applied how much Comcast (and others) is allowed to overcharge for a non-competitive service, imo; the service is dysfuntional now, why should they be allowed to add cost for adding hardware whose only function is to enforce additional cost? If there were competition, the expectation might be that cost problems would be more or less self-limiting, but this is not a competitive market, regardless of hype by the cable industry to the contrary. But that's another rant ....
I would draw an analogy to the power company: The power company
In the first case, costs and quality of service are monitored, and to some degree the consumer has an advocate in these areas in the personages of the public service commission -- not a perfect system, maybe, but better than anything Comcast has shown me. ...
In the second case, I am billed quantitatively for use of the service. If I use electrical power to duplicate a copyrighted work, then distribute the work using an electrical device (e.g. a computer)the power company doesn't turn off my power when they are contacted by e.g. the MPAA.
Also, it is not typical that the power company, phone company, and so on, can deny service based on e.g. the brand of phone handset or microwave oven I use.
Comcast, on the other hand, has such rules, placing themselves in the position e.g. a building instpector (to continue the analogy) would occupy in the standard utility construction/usage/billing model. The problem is, this (theoretical) Comcast enforcement official
The "user" -- citizen/voter/taxpayer -- the shareholder in govt -- is the (ostensibly) the pro
The only real point in my responses to your postings has been that, since Comcast currently is known to abuse their customers in a variety of ways, there is no real reason to believe that they will not continue to do so, esp given that they are an unregulated monopoly, and that there is no reasonable expectation of accountability on thier part.
I think it is past time to regulate the industry, and I think Comcast's corporate behaviour supports that point of view. They are a canonical example of everything that's wrong with the internet in general, and the cable broadband industry in particular, imo.
I have no doubt whatsoever that only reason Comcast chose to develop and distribute the technology described in the article is pursuant to some diaboliocal plan for further abuse of thier victims. In fact, given that they already completely control their markets, and have no competition, what other reason could they have for distributing the tech?
I in no way believe that Comcast has any desire to gain customers or even satisfy the customers they have. They are simply power made, and are in a race to destroy any vestige of choice or privacy the public may have remaining to them.
I personally find the idea that a company like Comcast would do anything that didn't involve draconican spy tools and wide-spread abuses of personal information downright laffable.
I appreciate you sympathy for my plight (trying to live and work in an area where Comcast is in a postition to control my access), however, I have to say that you seem to exhibit an unwholesome degree of trust in a corporation that has done nothing to warrent it. For my part, I hope you do not fall victim to Comcasts depredations. I have Road Runner service, as well, in other areas, and haven't had reason to complain to them; I can only hope that as the Comcast moster continues to feed it does not turns its undead, staring eye in those directions.