>>>Putting POTS under regulatory scrutiny really made them behave properly
Not really. POTS fell under regulatory control in the 20s, and then we had to deal with a stagnation of technology due to the government-created ATT monopoly for another 60 years. (Example: Modem technology stagnated at 1200 bits/second from the 1950s to the 80s.) Basically the same thing that happened in East Germany with their piece-of-junk Tribant car - technology froze in a WW2 state.
It was only when the government finally deregulated and allowed competition (i.e. put power in the hands of the consumer to choose their long-distance provider, and modem/phone) that things improved for the average person. Competition breeds innovation.
Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, my speed has jumped from 14k to 750k, with the the option of 50,000k if I want. How is that "not seeing results"?
Also I'll have a data-capable cellphone. That didn't even exist in 96.
Also why does everyone think Europe is so much better? According to speedtest.net the EU's average wired internet speed is 1 Mbit/s slower than the US average. Is their cell service any better, or if this just a case of "the grass looks greener on the other side" until you get there and discover it's actually no different.
>>>I am all but certain that this is another example of telcoms limiting and crippling their services rather than improving their infrastructure.
(putting on conspiracy nut hat). I think it's done on purpose. ATT and others want to take TV channels 25 and up for usage by cellular phones/internet. What better way to achieve that goal than to slow everything to a crawl, and then say to Congress, "Look. We've already run out of space and need more spectrum. It's time for television to give its 'fair share' rather than hog all the space."
Of course they will conveniently ignore that Cellular services already have ~1000 megahertz and radio/tv only occupies ~200.
Irrelevant. Even if 99% of users were satisfied, it only takes 1% of unhappy higher-level bosses (or even just 1) to fire you from your manager job. I know from personal experience.
That's why most people DON'T take the risky position of switching to Mac or Linux OS, and you probably wouldn't either if you needed a job.
You should read ALL the links that pop up, but one of the key ones says: "Prosecutors charged Watts with violating a federal law that prohibits threats against the president. Watts countered that his statement was a form of crude political opposition. A federal jury convicted Watts of a felony for violating the law and a federal appeals court affirmed his conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Watts' statement was political hyperbole." (1969) And there are SEVERAL more court cases along that line.
First Amendment provides protection.
It clearly says no speech shall be abridged by Congress. The end. No inferior law can overrule that superior law, according to our longest-serving Chief Justice John Marshall and basic jurisprudence.
>>>Or, looking at it another way, a single language [French] was used to enforce the control of a privileged superminority [less than 25%] who trampled the rights and freedoms of people [greater than 75%] across an entire continent [Canadian North America].
I never said assault was protected speech. Please learn to read. The relevant Supreme Court cases dealt with the race riots of the 60s and early 70s. During these riots certain black men and white men said things to one another, and were sued for issuing death threats. The SCOTUS reviewed the cases upon appeal and determined that "during the course of political protests, speech can become heated" but is nevertheless protected by the First Amendment. The men were let go without punishment.
They also ruled the death threat is not protected if the person is armed, because then it's not just speech, but also a clear and present danger.
And one of the top links discusses the death threat protection. "Prosecutors charged Watts with violating a federal law that prohibits threats against the president. Watts countered that his statement was a form of crude political opposition. A federal jury convicted Watts of a felony for violating the law and a federal appeals court affirmed his conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Watts' statement was political hyperbole." (1969) And there are SEVERAL more examples along that line.
First Amendment provides protection. It clearly says no speech shall be abridged by Congress. The end. No inferior law can overrule that superior law, according to our longest-serving Chief Justice John Marshall.
I've calmed down now. - The companies are IMPORTING FOREIGNERS and only paying them $15-20/hour. I meet Indian and Chinese engineers with big grins on their faces and bragging about how "I just arrive in US on 2-year visa!" That's great for them but sucks for the Homeland engineers/programmers who can't find work. Cancel the visas and hire your OWN countrymen.
Either that or enjoy watching me (and others) suck $550/week of unemployment out of your paycheck every week
Your choice.
MY choice was to stop sending IEEE money, because their constant articles to "increase the number of H1B1 visas" struck me as backstabbing. They weren't serving my interests.
>>>...to care for their aging population seems quite reasonable, not stupid.
No it was stupid. Creating more babies means Japan will be overpopulated and unable to deal with $1000/barrel oil when it arrives. A wiser coure would have been to allow de-population to continue, so that a Jpan with half as many people can better weather the coming storm. ----- As for the old people, freeze the taxrate on the young and cut the handouts for the old. The old are the richest segment of society (most own $200-300,000 homes plus a lifetime of savings) and should be able to care for themselves, rather than be a burden on the young who own next-to-nothing.
Ultimately what we're seeing in Japan is what happens with all Ponzi Pyramid Schemes - they collapse. They are never sustainable no matter how many babies you make (because eventually the baby boom will retire and then THEY will collapse the system).
Yeah you're thinking of Corn ethanol and Biodiesel which solves the transportation problem, but not the starvation problem. Competition with the food industry for scarce land will create skyrocketing grocery costs, leading to the starvation I mentioned before.
As for genetically-modified food, yes yield was improved but at the cost of putting food production in megacorps control (like ADM) and THAT is leading to rampant starvation around the world. Search youtube for Food Inc (second half) for more information about how subsistence farmers are getting screwed out of their homes, and losing their jobs.
See.... even the present is not rosy, and it's only going to get worse, especially when oil wells start drying up and prices soar to $1000/barrel during the 2020s.
>>>Apple could bank on this by not using these chips and then running a new Mac vs PC ad
Considering Apple Macs cost ~$1000 while my new Window 7 PC only cost $200 (sale price), damn straight Apple better not give me a handicapped CPU. Such things are okay for budget computers, but not for luxury computers that have 4-5 times markup. That would be like upgrading from a Honda to an Acura, and discovering I have to pay $50 extra to upgrade from FM to HD radio.
>>>I suppose this particular case is a little sticky.
Not really. I find it funny that a woman has more rights to kill a human fetus, than we do to flap our OWN mouths and share ideas with other people. It's bass-backwards when killing is easier than speaking/emailing. The governments around the world are effectively applying muzzles to our mouths, and then spreading "The Big Lie" that you're free even though you're not. What a great way for the Lords to impose both population control AND silence dissent from the serfs at the same time. .
>>>then just drive at the speed limit and screw them out of the money.
So instead of a 6 hour trip from DC to my weekend home, I'd have an 8 hour trip. Your solution is a poor solution for those who have to travel a distance. Besides interstates are ALL designed for 120 mph travel per Congressional law, other than a few close=in spurs (like I-495). It is illogical to badge a high-speed road at only half its designed speed.
Speed limits on US interstates should be the same as they are on Germany's autobahn, which is what Eisenhower was copying when he brought the idea back home.
You clearly didn't understand the man's point (he's biased in favor of *stricter* traffic law) but were too busy trying to prove him wrong to pay attention.
"The police claim he must be getting inside information and suspect that disgruntled traffic officers may be involved."
Cops know the real score, but they want to keep their job just the same as you & I do. Example: I witnessed my boss taking a government-paid "business trip" but really a Vacation every single week - but I kept my mouth shut because I needed a job.
If you search around youtube you'll find a few videos from former cops discussing all the corruption they have witnessed, not just in speeding revenue generation but also in general, like entering homes without permission.
>>>Do you remember the last 10 officers who didn't give you a ticket?
Yes I do, because I was surprised they did not ticket me. (I speed a lot and in 99% of cases I deserve it.) You made a false assumption here. As for the grandparent post I agree that Speed Laws are about making money. Accidents are not caused by fast driving (500,000 miles and zero accidents for me).
Accidents are caused by lane changes where one driver misjudged and hit another car. i.e. Zig-zagging i.e. recklessness. Nobody has ever proved that speeding, by itself, caused accidents. Look at the low rate of accidents in places like Montana where 85-90 mph is the norm. Speeding is not what causes accidents. Driver error/recklessness does.
So basically reducing the speed limit, even as low as 35 on an interstate, will not magically end crashes.
>>>If we reduce the number of people then each of them will wallow in all the surplus energy, guzzling it and releasing huge amounts of CO2.
I doubt that. If the US and EU population was reduced by 1/10th (to 80 million), we wouldn't have to worry about global warming at all. at least in our half of the world. Sure some of us might get greedy & burn 1.5-2 times as many coal-generated KWH, but overall it would still be a huge drop in CO2 emissions.
I agree with the grandparent poster - the root cause is the same cause when a bird has 6 chicks instead of 2 - a soiling of our nest by overpopulation. Reduce the population and the nest will be a lot cleaner. The pollution will all but disappear.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>Putting POTS under regulatory scrutiny really made them behave properly
Not really. POTS fell under regulatory control in the 20s, and then we had to deal with a stagnation of technology due to the government-created ATT monopoly for another 60 years. (Example: Modem technology stagnated at 1200 bits/second from the 1950s to the 80s.) Basically the same thing that happened in East Germany with their piece-of-junk Tribant car - technology froze in a WW2 state.
It was only when the government finally deregulated and allowed competition (i.e. put power in the hands of the consumer to choose their long-distance provider, and modem/phone) that things improved for the average person. Competition breeds innovation.
Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, my speed has jumped from 14k to 750k, with the the option of 50,000k if I want. How is that "not seeing results"?
Also I'll have a data-capable cellphone. That didn't even exist in 96.
>>>seeing the effects of regulatory capture.
What's that?
Also why does everyone think Europe is so much better? According to speedtest.net the EU's average wired internet speed is 1 Mbit/s slower than the US average. Is their cell service any better, or if this just a case of "the grass looks greener on the other side" until you get there and discover it's actually no different.
>>>I am all but certain that this is another example of telcoms limiting and crippling their services rather than improving their infrastructure.
(putting on conspiracy nut hat). I think it's done on purpose. ATT and others want to take TV channels 25 and up for usage by cellular phones/internet. What better way to achieve that goal than to slow everything to a crawl, and then say to Congress, "Look. We've already run out of space and need more spectrum. It's time for television to give its 'fair share' rather than hog all the space."
Of course they will conveniently ignore that Cellular services already have ~1000 megahertz and radio/tv only occupies ~200.
Epic fail #2:
You are paying ~$50/month for this service. My DSL gives me the same speed for only $15. Even satellite is cheaper. (cue Nelson) Ha! Ha!
Irrelevant. Even if 99% of users were satisfied, it only takes 1% of unhappy higher-level bosses (or even just 1) to fire you from your manager job. I know from personal experience.
That's why most people DON'T take the risky position of switching to Mac or Linux OS, and you probably wouldn't either if you needed a job.
HERE: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=U.S.+supreme+court+rulings+first+amendment+threats
You should read ALL the links that pop up, but one of the key ones says: "Prosecutors charged Watts with violating a federal law that prohibits threats against the president. Watts countered that his statement was a form of crude political opposition. A federal jury convicted Watts of a felony for violating the law and a federal appeals court affirmed his conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Watts' statement was political hyperbole." (1969) And there are SEVERAL more court cases along that line.
First Amendment provides protection.
It clearly says no speech shall be abridged by Congress. The end. No inferior law can overrule that superior law, according to our longest-serving Chief Justice John Marshall and basic jurisprudence.
>>>Or, looking at it another way, a single language [French] was used to enforce the control of a privileged superminority [less than 25%] who trampled the rights and freedoms of people [greater than 75%] across an entire continent [Canadian North America].
Fixed that for you.
And +1 Insightful.
.
>>>The definition of assault
I never said assault was protected speech. Please learn to read. The relevant Supreme Court cases dealt with the race riots of the 60s and early 70s. During these riots certain black men and white men said things to one another, and were sued for issuing death threats. The SCOTUS reviewed the cases upon appeal and determined that "during the course of political protests, speech can become heated" but is nevertheless protected by the First Amendment. The men were let go without punishment.
They also ruled the death threat is not protected if the person is armed, because then it's not just speech, but also a clear and present danger.
I like how you twist it around to blame me, when it's your OWN laziness. (No wonder professors get frustrated with students.)
HERE: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=U.S.+supreme+court+rulings+first+amendment+threats [lmgtfy.com]
And one of the top links discusses the death threat protection. "Prosecutors charged Watts with violating a federal law that prohibits threats against the president. Watts countered that his statement was a form of crude political opposition. A federal jury convicted Watts of a felony for violating the law and a federal appeals court affirmed his conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Watts' statement was political hyperbole." (1969) And there are SEVERAL more examples along that line.
First Amendment provides protection. It clearly says no speech shall be abridged by Congress. The end. No inferior law can overrule that superior law, according to our longest-serving Chief Justice John Marshall.
I agree near-100% with what you said. .
I've calmed down now. - The companies are IMPORTING FOREIGNERS and only paying them $15-20/hour. I meet Indian and Chinese engineers with big grins on their faces and bragging about how "I just arrive in US on 2-year visa!" That's great for them but sucks for the Homeland engineers/programmers who can't find work. Cancel the visas and hire your OWN countrymen.
Either that or enjoy watching me (and others) suck $550/week of unemployment out of your paycheck every week
Your choice.
MY choice was to stop sending IEEE money, because their constant articles to "increase the number of H1B1 visas" struck me as backstabbing. They weren't serving my interests.
In a rare event, an Anonymous Coward just said something brilliant:
So why don't YOU apply for any of those $15-20/hour jobs?
Thanks. You just proved my point (that importing workers harms American engineers/programmers by driving down wages).
Thank you AC.
>>>...to care for their aging population seems quite reasonable, not stupid.
No it was stupid. Creating more babies means Japan will be overpopulated and unable to deal with $1000/barrel oil when it arrives. A wiser coure would have been to allow de-population to continue, so that a Jpan with half as many people can better weather the coming storm. ----- As for the old people, freeze the taxrate on the young and cut the handouts for the old. The old are the richest segment of society (most own $200-300,000 homes plus a lifetime of savings) and should be able to care for themselves, rather than be a burden on the young who own next-to-nothing.
Ultimately what we're seeing in Japan is what happens with all Ponzi Pyramid Schemes - they collapse. They are never sustainable no matter how many babies you make (because eventually the baby boom will retire and then THEY will collapse the system).
Yeah you're thinking of Corn ethanol and Biodiesel which solves the transportation problem, but not the starvation problem. Competition with the food industry for scarce land will create skyrocketing grocery costs, leading to the starvation I mentioned before.
As for genetically-modified food, yes yield was improved but at the cost of putting food production in megacorps control (like ADM) and THAT is leading to rampant starvation around the world. Search youtube for Food Inc (second half) for more information about how subsistence farmers are getting screwed out of their homes, and losing their jobs.
See.... even the present is not rosy, and it's only going to get worse, especially when oil wells start drying up and prices soar to $1000/barrel during the 2020s.
>>>Apple could bank on this by not using these chips and then running a new Mac vs PC ad
Considering Apple Macs cost ~$1000 while my new Window 7 PC only cost $200 (sale price), damn straight Apple better not give me a handicapped CPU. Such things are okay for budget computers, but not for luxury computers that have 4-5 times markup. That would be like upgrading from a Honda to an Acura, and discovering I have to pay $50 extra to upgrade from FM to HD radio.
>>>I suppose this particular case is a little sticky.
Not really. I find it funny that a woman has more rights to kill a human fetus, than we do to flap our OWN mouths and share ideas with other people. It's bass-backwards when killing is easier than speaking/emailing. The governments around the world are effectively applying muzzles to our mouths, and then spreading "The Big Lie" that you're free even though you're not. What a great way for the Lords to impose both population control AND silence dissent from the serfs at the same time.
.
There are. Many states have "left lane for passing only" and I've seen cops ticket drivers that disobey.
>>>then just drive at the speed limit and screw them out of the money.
So instead of a 6 hour trip from DC to my weekend home, I'd have an 8 hour trip. Your solution is a poor solution for those who have to travel a distance. Besides interstates are ALL designed for 120 mph travel per Congressional law, other than a few close=in spurs (like I-495). It is illogical to badge a high-speed road at only half its designed speed.
Speed limits on US interstates should be the same as they are on Germany's autobahn, which is what Eisenhower was copying when he brought the idea back home.
+1 for Cold Hearted Snake.
You clearly didn't understand the man's point (he's biased in favor of *stricter* traffic law) but were too busy trying to prove him wrong to pay attention.
"The police claim he must be getting inside information and suspect that disgruntled traffic officers may be involved."
Cops know the real score, but they want to keep their job just the same as you & I do. Example: I witnessed my boss taking a government-paid "business trip" but really a Vacation every single week - but I kept my mouth shut because I needed a job.
If you search around youtube you'll find a few videos from former cops discussing all the corruption they have witnessed, not just in speeding revenue generation but also in general, like entering homes without permission.
>>>Do you remember the last 10 officers who didn't give you a ticket?
Yes I do, because I was surprised they did not ticket me. (I speed a lot and in 99% of cases I deserve it.) You made a false assumption here. As for the grandparent post I agree that Speed Laws are about making money. Accidents are not caused by fast driving (500,000 miles and zero accidents for me).
Accidents are caused by lane changes where one driver misjudged and hit another car. i.e. Zig-zagging i.e. recklessness. Nobody has ever proved that speeding, by itself, caused accidents. Look at the low rate of accidents in places like Montana where 85-90 mph is the norm. Speeding is not what causes accidents. Driver error/recklessness does.
So basically reducing the speed limit, even as low as 35 on an interstate, will not magically end crashes.
>>>If we reduce the number of people then each of them will wallow in all the surplus energy, guzzling it and releasing huge amounts of CO2.
I doubt that. If the US and EU population was reduced by 1/10th (to 80 million), we wouldn't have to worry about global warming at all. at least in our half of the world. Sure some of us might get greedy & burn 1.5-2 times as many coal-generated KWH, but overall it would still be a huge drop in CO2 emissions.
I agree with the grandparent poster - the root cause is the same cause when a bird has 6 chicks instead of 2 - a soiling of our nest by overpopulation. Reduce the population and the nest will be a lot cleaner. The pollution will all but disappear.
Surely EU citizens have some other places equivalent to Hulu.com or NBC.com where they can see TV shows/movies online?
>>>PC-RAM stands a good chance of being the long-term future
I don't see Flash Drives replacing disk drives, anymore than I see Cartridges making a comeback in gaming.