So you are arguing that privacy/security on by default is a bad thing?
Nobody's arguing that. The mistake is in thinking of DNT with a privacy/security mechanism. If that's what it were, Microsoft's decision would be defensible or even good. But DNT is something totally different. I'd argue two things:
1) DNT is for expressing a user's preference. Not even just a preference, but the user's preference. It is impossible for any application's default setting to express a user's preference for anything. (Your editor can default to a white background, but it can't, out of the box, honestly tell other people that YOU prefer swiss cheese over provolone. The person who wrote your editor might have some strong opinions and could even show some polling information, but in the end, he doesn't really know what kind of cheese you want. He can only take a guess.) MSIE's default DNT:swiss header is a communication between a web server and Microsoft Corporation, rather than a communication between a web server and a user.
Yes, a DNT:swiss default is a bad thing (just as bad as a DNT:provolone default). By doing that, Microsoft undermined DNT and helped the ad industry justify ignoring it. If you're a user, you should be angry at MS about this (at least so far as DNT is important at all).
2) DNT is nearly useless for protecting a user's security. If you want security, then you must deny capability to your adversary, or put costs on things, not merely politely ask him to behave in a certain manner. That means having your browser not initiate certain connections, or not send certain things (or send noise) over those connections, or.. whatever.
I have to say "nearly" useless because at least DNT could signal that some users care, but just don't care enough to stop sending intell. But it looks like this subtlety was lost on.. damn.. nearly everyone, I think.
Up to now I've thought of DNT as a basically good idea (a weak one, but still positive), but maybe it's time to accept that if nobody understands DNT then it can't possibly communicate anything meaningful.
If people _are_ being executed the obviously someone did win the debate.
If people were never being executed, would you say the same thing? No matter what happens, or what fraction of the population is persuaded, someone is always a winner? What a nice "the glass is half-full" attitude!:-)
Why does the US still even have the Death penalty?
Why does the US still even have fines? Why does the US still even have imprisonment?
Answer any of these questions, and you'll have answered them all. Show the foolishness of any of them, and you'll have shown the foolishness of them all.
I think the most popular answer, is that we have these things to punish criminals. HTH.
but rarely discuss the morality of executing people.
WTF? People discuss that all the time. And apparently they split, with some people saying it's intolerable, and some people saying it's a good idea, and as usual, lots of people falling somewhere in between.
But let's not pretend that issue hasn't been discussed to death. Of course it has. And there are no new inputs, so few people have reason to change their opinion from whatever it already is. The fact that you (or the other side) never "won" the argument doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It just means that people don't know how to prove points of morality.
Copyright does what you're describing. Before anyone ever heard of DRM, we already had hundreds of years of experience with copyright doing the job. Nearly every corporate "content provider" you've heard of, built their fortune and become the big name that you recognize today, through sales or rentals of non-DRM content. (Netflix being a notable exception.)
DRM has nothing to do with arts-patron taxes, "giving away at a loss" or content-providers' revenue. (Uhr.. except so far as it decreases their revenue, the same way that telling customers "fuck you" decreases revenue in any industry.) If you want to prevent an arts tax and also support a society with many creators, you should be against DRM, not for it. DRM only keeps people out (both supply and demand).
You didn't read it, but that's forgivable considering this poster's windiness.
He's not really asking about how much bandwidth, but which bandwidth. Many people today have two ISPs:
1) a cord of some kind that goes into your house. This ISP's data is effectively unlimited, or if there's a cap, it's relatively high (a few hundred gigabytes per month).
2) a radio mostly used by handheld computers. This ISP's data is limited because everyone is using the same airwaves, and using even a single gigabyte in a month, might be considered extravagant and wasteful. But most importantly: it costs more per byte than the other ISP.
Customers of the second type of ISP use terminology like "data plan." Customers of the first ISP consider "data plan" to be funny talk. And yet many of us have a foot in both worlds.
The idea is that with conventional video files, you can download it whenever you want, using whatever ISP you want. If you want to watch the video on your handheld (e.g. while commuting on subway) then you copy it over wifi or even sneakernet to the handheld. On the other hand, with DRMed streams, you can only use the whatever ISP you're able to connect to at the time you play the media. Considering that the point of handhelds is that they're most useful when you're not at home, that typically means it's going to be your radio ISP, the more expensive one. With DRMed streams, there's no time-shifting (or "network-shifting"). With conventional files, there is. So one tech costs more than the others, independent of how many bytes are involved.
The bizarreness of Thomas' justification is pretty over-the-top. He's saying that an anonymous call creates probable cause because its not anonymous? The progression of that argument would be the government can authorize itself to search anything. A cop could just call 911, non-anonymously and even give his name, to create the tip that authorizes himself to search. Wouldn't that trigger the newly-created exception and make it legal?
Maybe there's some way that 911 calls could circumvent the 4th, but a not-really-anonymous anonymous call angle? WTF.
I can see how this kind of story would support legalization (crimes against criminals often go unaddressed), but how would it support regulating? Is theft unusually common with unregulated crops, as opposed to regulated ones?
(Ignorance plea: Heh, it occurs to me that I don't even know what crops are regulated and what isn't. Maybe agriculture is already totally micromanaged by Washington; I sure hear enough stories of corruption (e.g. subsidies) within the topic!)
Sometimes I think the war-on-people has an upside. This is how we're going to develop the tech to colonize other worlds. I think you just described a Martian farm from the year 2200.
I don't really have a specific argument about the numbers. Truthfully I couldn't pay attention long enough to really find a flaw in the argument. That said, my gut is telling me author is wrong.
Damn, why didn't I think of this?
People, is it true? Would the market bear a "Republican Technology News" site?
So your suggesting that Glass be made more covert?
No, I'm saying why people don't like it.
So you're saying people would dislike it less, if it were more covert. Whether Google or their competitors should take that as a product design suggestion, is left to the reader. Understood.
If everything the medical industry has been doing has been wrong, why has human life expectancy consistently gone up?
That's an illusion. You only think life expectancy has gone up, because you look at evidence. But suppose we ignore dubious things such as evidence, measurements, math done on those measurements, inferring general rules and then testing them, as well as all our everyday experiences where reality seems to be functioning according to understandable rules. Then what reason is left, for believing that life expectancy has been going up? None, that's what.
Balancing out that nothingness, there's my feelings and intuition and paranoia and whatever dogma I've been exposed to. And those things tell me medicine is bad. Ergo, it sure looks like life expectancy is going down.
SSL/TLS need to be reworked to support multiple root CAs in case one is compromised. That way, if two CAs have no clue about a cert, but one CA vets it, this can raise a red flag.
That's not how you do multiple CAs. You don't raise red flags; you abstain from raising green ones. Everything starts red by default. No CA (even the most hated and distrusted one) can ever possibly harm your estimation that a key is correct; they can simply fail to increase your estimate. Trust is somewhere between zero and one, but never less than zero. Even Cthulhu Hitler CA rates no less than 0.0.
they see no additional benefit to do a costly upgrade, no reason to change a running system.. So what is the best way to secure this remaining Windows XP systems?
Don't. Don't secure it. Just let the chips fall where they may. Failure is an option, and you've presented things such that it's the best option.
Before you reply with "that's crazy" (or "that's lazy") let me remind you, that you there's "no.. benefit" to being more secure, and "no reason" to worry about the consequences. The submission has already stated that solving the security problem has zero value. So why are you working on it? Just let it go. Security is a don't-care condition. Every hour spent on it, is an hour wasted for no benefit.
If you change your mind about it being a don't-care condition, then you open the door to upgrading to a maintainable OS. But you can't do that, until you decide that upgrading does have benefits, and there is reason to change a running system.
So.. have you changed your mind? Are you still sure there's no benefit to an upgrade and no reason to change a running system? Or have you realized that's TOTALLY FUCKING ABSURD yet? Because I think once you realize that it's TOTALLY FUCKING ABSURD then you're going to see some options appear.
People should switch to metric religion. The sabbaths are every ten days, there are ten super-holy days per year (each with one special rite and ten minor cultural flavorings) which are always guaranteed to never also land on a sabbath so you get an extra day off from work, there are ten gods, the tenth son of a tenth son gets a magic power (among a choice of ten possibe powers, and balanced by one of ten disadvantages), each priest gets immunity from prosecution for one of ten different crimes (yes, rape is one of the choices, but they don't all have to choose rape!), the holy book that you're expected to be familiar with is only a hundred pages long and contains ten myths, and the kilochurches (there are no "megachurches") are only allowed to have one thousand members apiece before they're required to fission into hectochurches, so there's plenty of parking and they don't antagonize their surrounding community so much, thereby limiting the amount that you're hated and loathed in residential areas.
In most cases it is a distinction without a difference.
If you're neither of them, then the distinction is as minor and irrelevant as the difference between the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea.
If you're one of them, the difference is as critically important as the difference between the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea.
If someone changing a map can "drive you into a lake" then YOU have already been hacked, and it doesn't matter how [in]secure your car is. You (not one of your computers) have been owned. You don't exist anymore, because your body (which had previously been a person) has become an unconscious fully-trusting map-executing machine.
That's cause for concern, but I wouldn't worry about their computers' security problems.
I would not be surprised if Target's credit card purchasing process mandates that all disputes must be arbitrated.
That sounds like something Target's customers might have agreed(*) to. But the banks? If they didn't sign(*) the agreement, then I don't know how they'd be bound to it.
(*) I am trying to use technical jargon versions of "agreed" and "sign," not the layman's, and I might not be up-to-date on the jargon definitions. Yet if it looks like I'm saying the exact opposite of what I appear to be saying, then I think that means I used the words correctly(**) so I hope that's the case.
(**) Oh no, not again. I'd explain what I meant by "correctly" but whenever I try, I get some kind of error message about a stack. What, a stack of credit cards? I don't understand.
Purchasing a $2 cup of coffee with Bitcoins bought for $1 would trigger $1 in capital gains for the coffee drinker and $2 of gross income for the coffee shop.
That seems very common-sensy, but it just raises questions/flames about what you're contrasting it to. Right away, you ought to be thinking, "If I did the same thing with Euros or Pesos, how would that differ?"
If Bitcoin were treated as a foreign currency, ordinary -- not capital gains -- tax rates would apply. Losses would be easier to deduct, however.
Oh.
I don't really know which (if either) of these policies is good (it's all so arbitrary) but I know at least one of them is stupid.
theres a VERY good chance you'll (as a techie) be in a group that pays a fuckton more than others since you aren't going to be the standard generic type of user who helps share the cost of the services they use.
Hard to say. It's possible but I wouldn't be so sure; I see nontechies do amazingly volumnous things that make me cringe, but you might be right that some of my habits more than balance that out. If I do happen to use twice as much bandwidth as my neighbor, though, then I'm ok with paying about twice as much; I'm not asking for a subsidy. Similarly, if I use half as much, I'd love to pay half as much. What I don't want, is my neighbor using twice as much bandwidth on the same medium as me, but because half of it is "Brand X bytes" that are exempt (yet no less costly for the infrastructure), that our bills are about the same and I essentially subsidize the sunday night congestion, or I that I'm paying for a portion of the overall possible bandwidth to be reserved for special use (e.g. bandwidth that could be freed to IP, stays reserved for proprietary protocols) that won't be available for me. The more directly we're charged in proportion to our actual impact, the better.
When you pay you internet provider, do you not feel that your agreement with them is for a pipe to the Internet and that ALL traffic over it is created equal?
Yes! We're not in disagreement on that point. I think there might be a little confusion here..
Why do you seem to think you should not only pay for the bandwidth... but then pay extra because you use someone specific?
.. I have not argued that I should "pay extra because I used someone specific"; indeed I'm arguing directly against that. I want us all charged either by the [tera]byte (or by some other fair objective measure of cost, though I think it's hard to beat the byte). I don't want my impact to cost differently than someone else's, though. And I think "Chevrolet made a deal with the toll road owner," is a horrible reason to charge me a different rate for the road, whether that happens to appear to be discount or an extra charge: because we all know that it's really an extra charge, for everyone, even the Chevrolet owners. (It's not like anyone's grocery expenses really went down when we all start using those damn track-my-purchases-for-a-"discount" cards.)
Live tv and on-demand video, going through the tv cable provider's standard routes for said services. Both the article and summary acknowledge this.
Ars quotes WSJ and appears to directly contradict what you just asserted:
"Under the plan Apple proposed to Comcast, Apple's video streams would be treated as a 'managed service' traveling in Internet protocol format—similar to cable video-on-demand or phone service," the Journal wrote. "Those services travel on a special portion of the cable pipe that is separate from the more congested portion reserved for public Internet access."
The nonstandard portion. Neither ClearQAM nor IP. That part that you cannot access or interoperate with, unless you make a special deal with Comcast.
And it makes sense. If it were the provider's standard routes, then Apple wouldn't have to negotiate. They would slide a piece of paper across the table, and the Comcast negotiator would pick it up and look at the "0" and tears would form in his eyes. The Comcast negotiator would sniffle, turn to his tech, and plead through his tears, "can't we do anything?" The tech would sadly shake his head, "No, they're building on top of the standards, like Netflix, or the old non-cablecard Tivos before them. We're going to have to be satisfied with collecting money from our customers in exchange for a service, like all the other industries do." And then the Comcast negotiator's sniffles would turn into a horrible wail.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody's arguing that. The mistake is in thinking of DNT with a privacy/security mechanism. If that's what it were, Microsoft's decision would be defensible or even good. But DNT is something totally different. I'd argue two things:
1) DNT is for expressing a user's preference. Not even just a preference, but the user's preference. It is impossible for any application's default setting to express a user's preference for anything. (Your editor can default to a white background, but it can't, out of the box, honestly tell other people that YOU prefer swiss cheese over provolone. The person who wrote your editor might have some strong opinions and could even show some polling information, but in the end, he doesn't really know what kind of cheese you want. He can only take a guess.) MSIE's default DNT:swiss header is a communication between a web server and Microsoft Corporation, rather than a communication between a web server and a user.
Yes, a DNT:swiss default is a bad thing (just as bad as a DNT:provolone default). By doing that, Microsoft undermined DNT and helped the ad industry justify ignoring it. If you're a user, you should be angry at MS about this (at least so far as DNT is important at all).
2) DNT is nearly useless for protecting a user's security. If you want security, then you must deny capability to your adversary, or put costs on things, not merely politely ask him to behave in a certain manner. That means having your browser not initiate certain connections, or not send certain things (or send noise) over those connections, or .. whatever.
I have to say "nearly" useless because at least DNT could signal that some users care, but just don't care enough to stop sending intell. But it looks like this subtlety was lost on .. damn .. nearly everyone, I think.
Up to now I've thought of DNT as a basically good idea (a weak one, but still positive), but maybe it's time to accept that if nobody understands DNT then it can't possibly communicate anything meaningful.
If people were never being executed, would you say the same thing? No matter what happens, or what fraction of the population is persuaded, someone is always a winner? What a nice "the glass is half-full" attitude! :-)
Why does the US still even have fines? Why does the US still even have imprisonment?
Answer any of these questions, and you'll have answered them all. Show the foolishness of any of them, and you'll have shown the foolishness of them all.
I think the most popular answer, is that we have these things to punish criminals. HTH.
WTF? People discuss that all the time. And apparently they split, with some people saying it's intolerable, and some people saying it's a good idea, and as usual, lots of people falling somewhere in between.
But let's not pretend that issue hasn't been discussed to death. Of course it has. And there are no new inputs, so few people have reason to change their opinion from whatever it already is. The fact that you (or the other side) never "won" the argument doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It just means that people don't know how to prove points of morality.
And if you don't like it, then you're an "elitist."
No, no, no. This is just plain incorrect.
Copyright does what you're describing. Before anyone ever heard of DRM, we already had hundreds of years of experience with copyright doing the job. Nearly every corporate "content provider" you've heard of, built their fortune and become the big name that you recognize today, through sales or rentals of non-DRM content. (Netflix being a notable exception.)
DRM has nothing to do with arts-patron taxes, "giving away at a loss" or content-providers' revenue. (Uhr.. except so far as it decreases their revenue, the same way that telling customers "fuck you" decreases revenue in any industry.) If you want to prevent an arts tax and also support a society with many creators, you should be against DRM, not for it. DRM only keeps people out (both supply and demand).
You didn't read it, but that's forgivable considering this poster's windiness.
He's not really asking about how much bandwidth, but which bandwidth. Many people today have two ISPs:
1) a cord of some kind that goes into your house. This ISP's data is effectively unlimited, or if there's a cap, it's relatively high (a few hundred gigabytes per month).
2) a radio mostly used by handheld computers. This ISP's data is limited because everyone is using the same airwaves, and using even a single gigabyte in a month, might be considered extravagant and wasteful. But most importantly: it costs more per byte than the other ISP.
Customers of the second type of ISP use terminology like "data plan." Customers of the first ISP consider "data plan" to be funny talk. And yet many of us have a foot in both worlds.
The idea is that with conventional video files, you can download it whenever you want, using whatever ISP you want. If you want to watch the video on your handheld (e.g. while commuting on subway) then you copy it over wifi or even sneakernet to the handheld. On the other hand, with DRMed streams, you can only use the whatever ISP you're able to connect to at the time you play the media. Considering that the point of handhelds is that they're most useful when you're not at home, that typically means it's going to be your radio ISP, the more expensive one. With DRMed streams, there's no time-shifting (or "network-shifting"). With conventional files, there is. So one tech costs more than the others, independent of how many bytes are involved.
The bizarreness of Thomas' justification is pretty over-the-top. He's saying that an anonymous call creates probable cause because its not anonymous? The progression of that argument would be the government can authorize itself to search anything. A cop could just call 911, non-anonymously and even give his name, to create the tip that authorizes himself to search. Wouldn't that trigger the newly-created exception and make it legal?
Maybe there's some way that 911 calls could circumvent the 4th, but a not-really-anonymous anonymous call angle? WTF.
A computer that has run for three years. That's so cute!
I can see how this kind of story would support legalization (crimes against criminals often go unaddressed), but how would it support regulating? Is theft unusually common with unregulated crops, as opposed to regulated ones?
(Ignorance plea: Heh, it occurs to me that I don't even know what crops are regulated and what isn't. Maybe agriculture is already totally micromanaged by Washington; I sure hear enough stories of corruption (e.g. subsidies) within the topic!)
Sometimes I think the war-on-people has an upside. This is how we're going to develop the tech to colonize other worlds. I think you just described a Martian farm from the year 2200.
It's not a good thing, if your financial interests are aligned with the cartels.
If I'm on Al Capone's payroll and you ask for my opinion of the 21st Amendment, I'm going to say it's a bad idea.
Damn, why didn't I think of this?
People, is it true? Would the market bear a "Republican Technology News" site?
This will only harm computers that make use of the patent. If you don't run Bill's software, your computer will be fine.
Hmm. That sounds familiar, somehow.
So you're saying people would dislike it less, if it were more covert. Whether Google or their competitors should take that as a product design suggestion, is left to the reader. Understood.
That's an illusion. You only think life expectancy has gone up, because you look at evidence. But suppose we ignore dubious things such as evidence, measurements, math done on those measurements, inferring general rules and then testing them, as well as all our everyday experiences where reality seems to be functioning according to understandable rules. Then what reason is left, for believing that life expectancy has been going up? None, that's what.
Balancing out that nothingness, there's my feelings and intuition and paranoia and whatever dogma I've been exposed to. And those things tell me medicine is bad. Ergo, it sure looks like life expectancy is going down.
HTH.
[yeah, this is a digression]
That's not how you do multiple CAs. You don't raise red flags; you abstain from raising green ones. Everything starts red by default. No CA (even the most hated and distrusted one) can ever possibly harm your estimation that a key is correct; they can simply fail to increase your estimate. Trust is somewhere between zero and one, but never less than zero. Even Cthulhu Hitler CA rates no less than 0.0.
Don't. Don't secure it. Just let the chips fall where they may. Failure is an option, and you've presented things such that it's the best option.
Before you reply with "that's crazy" (or "that's lazy") let me remind you, that you there's "no .. benefit" to being more secure, and "no reason" to worry about the consequences. The submission has already stated that solving the security problem has zero value. So why are you working on it? Just let it go. Security is a don't-care condition. Every hour spent on it, is an hour wasted for no benefit.
If you change your mind about it being a don't-care condition, then you open the door to upgrading to a maintainable OS. But you can't do that, until you decide that upgrading does have benefits, and there is reason to change a running system.
So .. have you changed your mind? Are you still sure there's no benefit to an upgrade and no reason to change a running system? Or have you realized that's TOTALLY FUCKING ABSURD yet? Because I think once you realize that it's TOTALLY FUCKING ABSURD then you're going to see some options appear.
People should switch to metric religion. The sabbaths are every ten days, there are ten super-holy days per year (each with one special rite and ten minor cultural flavorings) which are always guaranteed to never also land on a sabbath so you get an extra day off from work, there are ten gods, the tenth son of a tenth son gets a magic power (among a choice of ten possibe powers, and balanced by one of ten disadvantages), each priest gets immunity from prosecution for one of ten different crimes (yes, rape is one of the choices, but they don't all have to choose rape!), the holy book that you're expected to be familiar with is only a hundred pages long and contains ten myths, and the kilochurches (there are no "megachurches") are only allowed to have one thousand members apiece before they're required to fission into hectochurches, so there's plenty of parking and they don't antagonize their surrounding community so much, thereby limiting the amount that you're hated and loathed in residential areas.
If you're neither of them, then the distinction is as minor and irrelevant as the difference between the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea.
If you're one of them, the difference is as critically important as the difference between the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea.
If someone changing a map can "drive you into a lake" then YOU have already been hacked, and it doesn't matter how [in]secure your car is. You (not one of your computers) have been owned. You don't exist anymore, because your body (which had previously been a person) has become an unconscious fully-trusting map-executing machine.
That's cause for concern, but I wouldn't worry about their computers' security problems.
That sounds like something Target's customers might have agreed(*) to. But the banks? If they didn't sign(*) the agreement, then I don't know how they'd be bound to it.
(*) I am trying to use technical jargon versions of "agreed" and "sign," not the layman's, and I might not be up-to-date on the jargon definitions. Yet if it looks like I'm saying the exact opposite of what I appear to be saying, then I think that means I used the words correctly(**) so I hope that's the case.
(**) Oh no, not again. I'd explain what I meant by "correctly" but whenever I try, I get some kind of error message about a stack. What, a stack of credit cards? I don't understand.
That seems very common-sensy, but it just raises questions/flames about what you're contrasting it to. Right away, you ought to be thinking, "If I did the same thing with Euros or Pesos, how would that differ?"
Oh.
I don't really know which (if either) of these policies is good (it's all so arbitrary) but I know at least one of them is stupid.
Hard to say. It's possible but I wouldn't be so sure; I see nontechies do amazingly volumnous things that make me cringe, but you might be right that some of my habits more than balance that out. If I do happen to use twice as much bandwidth as my neighbor, though, then I'm ok with paying about twice as much; I'm not asking for a subsidy. Similarly, if I use half as much, I'd love to pay half as much. What I don't want, is my neighbor using twice as much bandwidth on the same medium as me, but because half of it is "Brand X bytes" that are exempt (yet no less costly for the infrastructure), that our bills are about the same and I essentially subsidize the sunday night congestion, or I that I'm paying for a portion of the overall possible bandwidth to be reserved for special use (e.g. bandwidth that could be freed to IP, stays reserved for proprietary protocols) that won't be available for me. The more directly we're charged in proportion to our actual impact, the better.
Yes! We're not in disagreement on that point. I think there might be a little confusion here..
.. I have not argued that I should "pay extra because I used someone specific"; indeed I'm arguing directly against that. I want us all charged either by the [tera]byte (or by some other fair objective measure of cost, though I think it's hard to beat the byte). I don't want my impact to cost differently than someone else's, though. And I think "Chevrolet made a deal with the toll road owner," is a horrible reason to charge me a different rate for the road, whether that happens to appear to be discount or an extra charge: because we all know that it's really an extra charge, for everyone, even the Chevrolet owners. (It's not like anyone's grocery expenses really went down when we all start using those damn track-my-purchases-for-a-"discount" cards.)
Ars quotes WSJ and appears to directly contradict what you just asserted:
The nonstandard portion. Neither ClearQAM nor IP. That part that you cannot access or interoperate with, unless you make a special deal with Comcast.
And it makes sense. If it were the provider's standard routes, then Apple wouldn't have to negotiate. They would slide a piece of paper across the table, and the Comcast negotiator would pick it up and look at the "0" and tears would form in his eyes. The Comcast negotiator would sniffle, turn to his tech, and plead through his tears, "can't we do anything?" The tech would sadly shake his head, "No, they're building on top of the standards, like Netflix, or the old non-cablecard Tivos before them. We're going to have to be satisfied with collecting money from our customers in exchange for a service, like all the other industries do." And then the Comcast negotiator's sniffles would turn into a horrible wail.