While you're at it, download the Microsoft Baseline Security Tool. It's not quite the same, but it's an excellent tool for anyone looking to make their Windows box more secure. It can also scan computers on your network (that you have rights on), so you can easily find all the Windows boxes on your network that aren't up to date on their patches, have Guest accounts enabled, or other bad things.
"I pay $30 myself, for a 1.5-megabits-per-second (mbps) connection" -- original post
I'm on Road Runner in Milwaukee, pay $25/month, and get T1 speed downloads. Upload is slower, but not to the point that I've ever noticed a difference. I have friends in Dallas, Chicago, Miami, and St. Paul who are paying about the same for similar connections. So, I'm neither lying nor misinformed. I'm just basing it on the facts given in the original post.
Your best bet is to wait for cable modem access in your area.
One other thing that you could do is gauge the interest in broadband in your area, and try setting up something yourself. Many small communities have done this, but it takes some hefty startup costs. You could arrange for a T1 to a central location in your community, and then provide a wireless access point that people can connect through (obviously, everyone would need bigger antennae).
If you live in an apartment building, even better... talk to the management company and see if they can get T1 access to your building. They could wire up the building, tack on an extra $10 to everyone's rent, and have the cost of the T1 + switch + installation costs covered in the first two years. After that, they'd be able to make some great profits as well as having an extra selling point to potential tenents ("we're the only apt. complex in the area that has high speed internet available... and it's 'FREE'").
As many other posters have pointed out, a cable connection that's not oversold (most isn't) is the same speed and around the same cost as what this guy has in S. Korea. So, in cities like New York and Chicago (and smaller cities like Milwaukee and Houston) you DO have the same thing.
It's the rural areas of the US that limit broadband accessibility and put it behind smaller countries on accessibility reports. As time goes on, hopefully wireless access or broadband over power lines will become a possibility for folk that live in the middle of nowhere. Until then, the US is keeping up fine.
We COULD make huge strides, though, if the big telcos would stop restricting access to their copper so much.
Why do you need broadband service everywhere in your city? Don't you just need it wherever you live?
Also, any cable connection is easily as fast as this guy's service in S. Korea. You can get cable in most of the US for under $30/month (RoadRunner has a "lite" service they provide if you just call and ask for it... $25/m).
As for cities that have a lot of "high technology", you might want to look to the urban areas of Washington, California, and Texas. Any big city has more than enough technology to interest the average nerd. You just have to get out and find it. Personally, I've found that college towns and cities have the right mix of culture, technology, and entertainment.
So is Russia arming the Chenyans (sp)? Is Isreal arming Islamic terrorists? Is Britain arming the IRA?
I can't believe your tinfoil hat opinion got an insightful moderation. Any logical Bush opponent knows that the US doesn't have a problem with having a weak opponent... it's that Bush is overzealous when defining who that opponent is. (I don't personally believe that, but my Bush hating friends do).
Iraq is a perfect example. It's not like we decided to drop loaded weapons for Saddam to use right before we attacked. We're not going around arming insurgents in Iraq... the hate for Americans is strong enough that we don't have to.
Note: Before anyone brings up that we armed Saddam back in the day, it's not relevant. That's long before we realized that he would be someone we would have to fight. The parent poster is talking about arming KNOWN foes.
Even though I agree that states shouldn't require GPS in cars, you have some faulty logic there. If meals for wheels provides the same meal that a prison does on a given day, does that mean they think their patrons are inmates? No... the two are mutually exclusive.
To put it more clearly, one is about taxes, the other is about probation restrictions.
They can easily have some type of notification if you lose signal (which includes wrapping it in foil). As a condition of probation, they can require that if you're notified of loss of signal, you have to call your PO within a certain amount of time... say 15 minutes? That way the PO can still keep tabs on the person, but the person won't get in trouble just for losing signal.
Exactly. I put together my home theater PC for about $500 (software & hardware) plus around $5/movie for storage space. It not only gives me my movies on-demand, but is a PVR also. It even upconverts DVD playback to 1080i resolution, which looks absolutely stunning.
People who buy the $27K setups have money to waste.
In this case the lowered taxes put more money in the economy and resulted in increased spending. That forced the end of the recession.
The interest rates help restrict inflation, which is exactly why the Fed has been raising them. As long as they continue to do that within reason, inflation won't be a big factor.
Part of the defecit is because of reduced taxes, you fool. That's the primary complaint of most Democrats. Everyone I know, from a few welfare families to a millionaire, had their taxes go down.
Considering US Politics is one of the categories for the topic, I think that's pretty obvious. I apologize for forgetting that this article is about worldwide censorship of scientists... wait, no it's not. I don't understand why people feel the need to point out the range of the American political spectrum when it's obvious what the scope of the original comment was.
I know your post was meant as a joke, and it is kind of funny, but I feel the need to respond to it. It is sad that it's always Republican vs. Democrat because both sides fail to see the benefits that the other brings to the table. Republican's goal of reduced taxes is great, just like Democrat's goal of environmental protection. Someone I read/listened to a few days back said the problem with politicians is that they get elected by saying yes to everything. However, in order to serve the people properly, they have to say no.
I agree that Halliburton loves their federal contracts, and I agree that it's a problem. However, you need to do some more research into Halliburton. They do make significant money from other things. I know this because my father is a union employee at one of their factories. Halliburton owns Dresser, Dresser owns Waukesha Engine. Waukesha Engine makes very large engines that are used in generators for very large buildings (they had 2 to power the entire WTC). Dresser has a yearly revenue of over $1.4B. Keep in mind that it's just one of many companies that Halliburton owns.
My point in the previous post wasn't disdain for groups that get federal money, either. It was pointing out that it's impossible to separate politics from federal funding. The company I work for gets federal grants, so I'm definitely not against them either. I'm just pointing out the truth.
Thank you for clarifying my point. It is impossible for a government funded program of any sort to escape government pressure. I work for a social agency in a state with a Democratic governor and I see the results of it daily. We have to return numbers that make the state budget look good, otherwise there's no point for our agency to exist.
The only way to remove political pressure from programs like these is to get the politician's hands completely off them. The only way that can happen is removing government grants. That will not happen and should not happen.
If you're going to bash the bad stuff, at least praise the good along with it. Slashdot posters love to tout clean nuclear power, but ignore it when it's brought up by the President they love to hate:
"To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home--including safe, clean nuclear energy."
I'm a typical Republican and I would give the following response:
It's a shame if this is really going on, but I'm hesitant to believe anything that comes out of this group. I believe it'd be similar to how you view stories from Fox News. That's not to say it's not true... it'd just be nice to get a version of the story that wasn't spun by either side.
I agree that it would be nice if politics were removed from the system, but that would require privatizing the system, which those same scientists would complain about. They LOVE their federal research grants.
why did you already divide this into a Republican/Democrat debate?
He was planning ahead. See: Example 1 Example 2 I'm sure there will be many more to follow.
He also brought it up because the group of scientists in the article (and always has been) are extremely leftist and always have been. It's the same as when Fox News gets mentioned, just in the opposite direction this time.
It also makes more financial sense to step back and allow genocide to happen in Rwanda. If we do nothing, it costs us nothing. However, I believe that civilized societies have a duty to step in and help in situations like that. That's exactly what the UN has done in Somalia and in Kuwait during the first Gulf war.
I stated in the original post that any reasonable person would agree that we can't leave Iraq yet, and I'll stand by that statement. Every quote I've seen about Iraq from foreign leaders (including the Palestinian authority and Iraq's interim leaders) has said that the US should not leave yet. It seems like everyone except you knows that the US forces are REQUIRED for rebuilding and stabilization at this point.
How are the deaths of 1/4 of a million people under Hussein useless? You seem to be coming from the stance that you don't care that Iraqi citizens are dying, as long as it doesn't cost us the lives of our solidiers or our money. Is an American solidier's life any more important than that of an Iraqi citizen? Aren't 25,000 deaths, while unfortunate, worth saving 10 times that many?
As for saying "we need to stay" a party line, how do you explain that the only people that seem to think otherwise are a select few extreme democrats (Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi)? It would seem like "we need to get out" is the party line, and "we need to stay" is common sense accepted throughout the world.
Slashdot Mirror
If it were the NYSE, they might:
NYSE runs Java/Linux
So, a blonde would be able to charge it and talk on it at the same time? :D
While you're at it, download the Microsoft Baseline Security Tool. It's not quite the same, but it's an excellent tool for anyone looking to make their Windows box more secure. It can also scan computers on your network (that you have rights on), so you can easily find all the Windows boxes on your network that aren't up to date on their patches, have Guest accounts enabled, or other bad things.
"I pay $30 myself, for a 1.5-megabits-per-second (mbps) connection" -- original post
I'm on Road Runner in Milwaukee, pay $25/month, and get T1 speed downloads. Upload is slower, but not to the point that I've ever noticed a difference. I have friends in Dallas, Chicago, Miami, and St. Paul who are paying about the same for similar connections. So, I'm neither lying nor misinformed. I'm just basing it on the facts given in the original post.
Your best bet is to wait for cable modem access in your area.
One other thing that you could do is gauge the interest in broadband in your area, and try setting up something yourself. Many small communities have done this, but it takes some hefty startup costs. You could arrange for a T1 to a central location in your community, and then provide a wireless access point that people can connect through (obviously, everyone would need bigger antennae).
If you live in an apartment building, even better... talk to the management company and see if they can get T1 access to your building. They could wire up the building, tack on an extra $10 to everyone's rent, and have the cost of the T1 + switch + installation costs covered in the first two years. After that, they'd be able to make some great profits as well as having an extra selling point to potential tenents ("we're the only apt. complex in the area that has high speed internet available... and it's 'FREE'").
Perhaps in order to increase the number of people that have affordable broadband, you need to know WHY they currently don't have it?
That includes the country's size, population density, phone company regulations, computer availability, and economic conditions, among other things.
Besides, what other point did the original article have? It was intended to troll the differences.
As many other posters have pointed out, a cable connection that's not oversold (most isn't) is the same speed and around the same cost as what this guy has in S. Korea. So, in cities like New York and Chicago (and smaller cities like Milwaukee and Houston) you DO have the same thing.
It's the rural areas of the US that limit broadband accessibility and put it behind smaller countries on accessibility reports. As time goes on, hopefully wireless access or broadband over power lines will become a possibility for folk that live in the middle of nowhere. Until then, the US is keeping up fine.
We COULD make huge strides, though, if the big telcos would stop restricting access to their copper so much.
Why do you need broadband service everywhere in your city? Don't you just need it wherever you live?
Also, any cable connection is easily as fast as this guy's service in S. Korea. You can get cable in most of the US for under $30/month (RoadRunner has a "lite" service they provide if you just call and ask for it... $25/m).
As for cities that have a lot of "high technology", you might want to look to the urban areas of Washington, California, and Texas. Any big city has more than enough technology to interest the average nerd. You just have to get out and find it. Personally, I've found that college towns and cities have the right mix of culture, technology, and entertainment.
*sigh* Chechnyans
Need some caffeine NOW.
So is Russia arming the Chenyans (sp)? Is Isreal arming Islamic terrorists? Is Britain arming the IRA?
I can't believe your tinfoil hat opinion got an insightful moderation. Any logical Bush opponent knows that the US doesn't have a problem with having a weak opponent... it's that Bush is overzealous when defining who that opponent is. (I don't personally believe that, but my Bush hating friends do).
Iraq is a perfect example. It's not like we decided to drop loaded weapons for Saddam to use right before we attacked. We're not going around arming insurgents in Iraq... the hate for Americans is strong enough that we don't have to.
Note: Before anyone brings up that we armed Saddam back in the day, it's not relevant. That's long before we realized that he would be someone we would have to fight. The parent poster is talking about arming KNOWN foes.
Damn, you're right. Boat owners, geocachers, and military personnel should obviously be worried as well. After all, they all use GPS... :)
Correction: meals on wheels
Time for more caffeine.
Even though I agree that states shouldn't require GPS in cars, you have some faulty logic there. If meals for wheels provides the same meal that a prison does on a given day, does that mean they think their patrons are inmates? No... the two are mutually exclusive.
To put it more clearly, one is about taxes, the other is about probation restrictions.
They can easily have some type of notification if you lose signal (which includes wrapping it in foil). As a condition of probation, they can require that if you're notified of loss of signal, you have to call your PO within a certain amount of time... say 15 minutes? That way the PO can still keep tabs on the person, but the person won't get in trouble just for losing signal.
Exactly. I put together my home theater PC for about $500 (software & hardware) plus around $5/movie for storage space. It not only gives me my movies on-demand, but is a PVR also. It even upconverts DVD playback to 1080i resolution, which looks absolutely stunning.
People who buy the $27K setups have money to waste.
In this case the lowered taxes put more money in the economy and resulted in increased spending. That forced the end of the recession.
The interest rates help restrict inflation, which is exactly why the Fed has been raising them. As long as they continue to do that within reason, inflation won't be a big factor.
Part of the defecit is because of reduced taxes, you fool. That's the primary complaint of most Democrats. Everyone I know, from a few welfare families to a millionaire, had their taxes go down.
So, either you're trolling or ignorant.
Considering US Politics is one of the categories for the topic, I think that's pretty obvious. I apologize for forgetting that this article is about worldwide censorship of scientists... wait, no it's not. I don't understand why people feel the need to point out the range of the American political spectrum when it's obvious what the scope of the original comment was.
I know your post was meant as a joke, and it is kind of funny, but I feel the need to respond to it. It is sad that it's always Republican vs. Democrat because both sides fail to see the benefits that the other brings to the table. Republican's goal of reduced taxes is great, just like Democrat's goal of environmental protection. Someone I read/listened to a few days back said the problem with politicians is that they get elected by saying yes to everything. However, in order to serve the people properly, they have to say no.
I agree that Halliburton loves their federal contracts, and I agree that it's a problem. However, you need to do some more research into Halliburton. They do make significant money from other things. I know this because my father is a union employee at one of their factories. Halliburton owns Dresser, Dresser owns Waukesha Engine. Waukesha Engine makes very large engines that are used in generators for very large buildings (they had 2 to power the entire WTC). Dresser has a yearly revenue of over $1.4B. Keep in mind that it's just one of many companies that Halliburton owns.
My point in the previous post wasn't disdain for groups that get federal money, either. It was pointing out that it's impossible to separate politics from federal funding. The company I work for gets federal grants, so I'm definitely not against them either. I'm just pointing out the truth.
Thank you for clarifying my point. It is impossible for a government funded program of any sort to escape government pressure. I work for a social agency in a state with a Democratic governor and I see the results of it daily. We have to return numbers that make the state budget look good, otherwise there's no point for our agency to exist.
The only way to remove political pressure from programs like these is to get the politician's hands completely off them. The only way that can happen is removing government grants. That will not happen and should not happen.
If you're going to bash the bad stuff, at least praise the good along with it. Slashdot posters love to tout clean nuclear power, but ignore it when it's brought up by the President they love to hate:
"To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home--including safe, clean nuclear energy."
I'm a typical Republican and I would give the following response:
It's a shame if this is really going on, but I'm hesitant to believe anything that comes out of this group. I believe it'd be similar to how you view stories from Fox News. That's not to say it's not true... it'd just be nice to get a version of the story that wasn't spun by either side.
I agree that it would be nice if politics were removed from the system, but that would require privatizing the system, which those same scientists would complain about. They LOVE their federal research grants.
why did you already divide this into a Republican/Democrat debate?
He was planning ahead. See:
Example 1
Example 2
I'm sure there will be many more to follow.
He also brought it up because the group of scientists in the article (and always has been) are extremely leftist and always have been. It's the same as when Fox News gets mentioned, just in the opposite direction this time.
It also makes more financial sense to step back and allow genocide to happen in Rwanda. If we do nothing, it costs us nothing. However, I believe that civilized societies have a duty to step in and help in situations like that. That's exactly what the UN has done in Somalia and in Kuwait during the first Gulf war.
I stated in the original post that any reasonable person would agree that we can't leave Iraq yet, and I'll stand by that statement. Every quote I've seen about Iraq from foreign leaders (including the Palestinian authority and Iraq's interim leaders) has said that the US should not leave yet. It seems like everyone except you knows that the US forces are REQUIRED for rebuilding and stabilization at this point.
How are the deaths of 1/4 of a million people under Hussein useless? You seem to be coming from the stance that you don't care that Iraqi citizens are dying, as long as it doesn't cost us the lives of our solidiers or our money. Is an American solidier's life any more important than that of an Iraqi citizen? Aren't 25,000 deaths, while unfortunate, worth saving 10 times that many?
As for saying "we need to stay" a party line, how do you explain that the only people that seem to think otherwise are a select few extreme democrats (Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi)? It would seem like "we need to get out" is the party line, and "we need to stay" is common sense accepted throughout the world.