I've often wondered why Slashdot editors don't RTFA themselves, particularly, why they don't go back to the original source article when it's readily available on-line. The text (not the headline) of the article makes it clear that first of all, Griffiths isn't saying Blu-Ray ONLY has five years left. He's saying it has AT LEAST five good years left, but less than ten, in his opinion. Secondly, the business about OLEDs makes it clear that the thrust of the timeframe discussion is with respect to a profit stream. That is, there are five good years of profits left in Blu-Ray, but in the future, Samsung sees OLEDs as a long-term source of profits. Which is reasonable. After all, CD players are still around, and Sammy still makes 'em, but they're not a major revenue source at this point. From that perspective, of hardware profits, they're basically dead, although from a software perspective, CDs are still the #1 media delivery mechanism.
I don't get it.
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Can somebody explain to me why resource limits are still an issue in Windows? I usually keep 25-40 tabs open in FF, and after it gets over the 350MB range, the whole browser starts to act flaky. Why is 211MB, 267MB, 350MB or even 500MB a problem on today's platforms with 2 to 6GB RAM standard?
Fine, but what seems odd to me is that according to this page, the EU is using the same test on their cattle and found 1,100 cases in a five year testing period. It says that although BSE may have a lengthy incubation period, in some cases the disease can be detected in cows that were asymptomatic while alive. In short it alleges that the test is not completely worthless after all.
I'd like to believe that the government is only looking out for our best interests as citizens and that that is its only consideration but frankly its track record is not good.
It would make more sense, IMO, for the government to allow this one company to spend money, if it wishes, on this supposedly pointless test. If nothing turns up over a period of time then the company should be allowed to label its export products as "100% BSE tested according to international standards" but should not be allowed to use any such labeling on beef meant for domestic consumption. Then foreign markets will be happy but the USDA can still uphold its aim of protecting the US consumer from possible misinformation.
The movie does have negative value if what you're interested in is listening to the music. Even if someone has a DVD player in their car, they won't typically listen to a movie's soundtrack by putting in a DVD; the songs are edited, people talk over them not to mention explosions or other noises, the track locations don't correspond with the beginning of the song, the fidelity is pristine, etc. For music listening purposes, an actual CD (or soundtrack equivalent) is a much better value. Most people really only want to see a movie once or twice, whereas they'll listen to a soundtrack they like dozens of times.
It's fine that the rental math comes out so great. It really is. In fact, it's so fine that, based on what you're saying, they ought to be able to wipe the floor in a fair match with retail boxes. Further, since the value is so excellent, if they competed openly with sold boxes, they ought to be able to raise their rental rates and for people to still perceive it as a bargain.
I suspect the real reason they don't want to let you buy your own box is because it will make it that much harder for them to limit theft of services. In their own boxes they can place whatever detection/deactivation chips are necessary to keep a lock on the signal. Harder to do when there are 20 different manufactures adhering to slightly different specs.
I have my own personal theories on this matter. As a writer myself, I repudiate copyright on all I do. I openly ask others to reprint my writings, and even stick their own names on it if they want. Because I write about niche markets, the aid of distribution of my thoughts means more people are attracted to those ideas, which means they'll likely eventually find me. That's a huge benefit for me as I can then sell future newbies to the market on my newsletters, or even hire myself out as a ghost writer or personal writer. My income has surged because I don't copyright my writings, or even ask others to attribute me during the redistribution process.
You really need to ask yourself why you brought up the subject of racism, when the post you're replying to said nothing about racism or even black people.
Anyway, a few people here seem to be confused so let's get something straight. Slavery and wages are orthogonal concepts. Do you have the freedom to leave your employer and seek new work? Or the freedom not to work? If so, then you're not a slave.
You can be paid and still be a slave. This actually happened occasionally in the antebellum South -- skilled slave artisans could get to keep some of their income and buy their freedom, although this depended on the honor of their masters -- a slave had no legal recourse if their master chose to keep the money and not to free them. It can also be cynically argued that even normal unskilled slaves were "paid" in room and board. (The extreme would be some kind of war captive, forced to work without any food or shelter until he drops dead of hunger and exposure.)
You can be unpaid and not be a slave. We commonly know these people as unpaid volunteers. Or the self-employed. Or, apparently, Apple techs. The point being that nobody's actually forcing them to work under pain of corporal punishment or holding their families hostage or through other means of extortion of labor.
Your examples don't compare to what happened here.
First of all, if I yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the results are predictable. There will be a panic and some people will suffer physical injury. Any reasonable person can see that. Second, some of the people who get hurt may be innocent, trampled by others due to events entirely outside of their control.
In this case, one could not have necessarily predicted that Lori Drew's torments would result in the girl's suicide. Nor was the girl completely innocent in that she bore responsibility for failing to end the relationship, not to mention that she was the one who actually committed the act.
But even so, if we're going to nevertheless say that this was murder or some form of homicide, why do we need to specially invoke the internet? If I kill someone with a toothpick, does my crime have to be prosecuted under "death by toothpick" statute? How about wrenchicular homicide, CD jewel case murder laws, death by telephonic intimidation, etc. If we needed to make a special case for every form of homicide, we'd lose any semblance of universality in our laws. Each one would have to be some kind of post hoc creation. I don't think that's necessary. If this is a crime, normal laws, without contortion, ought to be able to deal with it.
Finally, even if Drew walks on the crimes, the girl's surviving relatives will undoubtedly try to sue for harrassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and wrongful death. I don't see this as a scot-free situation, not by any means.
You're agreeing with your parent. It stated "This is not global warming, this is ocean acidification." The only way to parse that and for it to make sense is that this refers to, not the solution (pun intended), but the problem -- the environmental situation we are seeking to ameliorate.
I was all prepared to say, "pish-posh!" but then I realized, of the three computers we have at home, one of them uses mouse + writing tablet, one uses a trackball, and one is a laptop with a touchpad + touchscreen. So, while I still think it's silly to predict the absolute demise of the mouse, I do agree that it will continue to lose ground with respect to other input devices, especially considering that more people are using laptops than ever before.
However, the article fails to deeply explore the reasons little devices use force-feedback or tilt sensors to begin with. Not because they are in any absolute sense better than mice, but because they are used in situations where mice are impractical. They're basically consolation prizes in the input sweepstakes. But, when you're actually at your computer, you don't need to tilt-scroll your 24" monitor to see a whole webpage or to type onto a virtual haptic keyboard when you're sitting in front of a real one. And while the Wiimote might be great for certain games, it's not so handy for games that require keyboard input.
1)Obviously the phone doesn't "require" jailbreak any more than Photoshop "requires" a keygen or my neighbor's house "requires" a skeleton key.
3)There are some devices that play more media types, some that play less. If that's the only criteria you care about when searching for a phone, then I guess the iPhone's not for you. The majority of people don't really care about whether their phones are mkv capable or not, though.
4)Matter of opinion, doesn't really belong in the midst of facts.
6)This is true but the mitigating factor is that the device already comes with more storage than most people have on their expandable phones.
It happens that I'm not an Apple fan and don't own any of their gadgets or computers. However I accept that people can make a decision to buy an iPhone without being mindless consumers, hipsters or fanboys. That's why, if you get modded down, it will be because you deserve it. The first half of your post, although not entirely accurate, was written in a calm reasonable manner. The second half was nothing but flamebait.
What you're saying sounds very...unlikely. A criminal trial is about something bad you allegedly did. Nobody really cares about all the good stuff you did the rest of the day. That's why, e.g., you should never talk to the cops if you're the subject of an investigation. Damning stuff you say will become evidence against you. Exculpatory stuff you say will be rightly disregarded as self-serving (and hearsay), unless it is somehow contradicted by something else you said during the questioning, in which case it will turn into evidence against you. So your animal rescue pictures will be ignored in court, and if you somehow managed to get them introduced into evidence, the prosecution will argue that they are probably staged and demonstrate that you cynically believe you can put one over on the court.(I mean, a felon who suddenly decides to go around rescuing trapped animals? Come on.)
Mod parent up. Current versions of WMP11 don't automatically open up web pages, and if you have it configured to do so, you can turn it off easily through options.
Also, why are you so eager to see copyrights expire? What's the benefit for you?
I heard a tune that I like. I did not buy the tune -- I was forced to listen to it from a nearby radio. However, it's gotten stuck in my head now. I like it and I want to perform it in public. I can't, not without a license. I'm being told I can't do something that in a natural state I should be allowed to do. Naturally, humans are imitators of sounds. If I hear a bird's whistle or a cow's moo, I'm free to imitate it in public to my heart's content. It's the natural state of things, for people to imitate sounds, to talk and to sing, in public. But let a human being string together certain notes, and I am no longer free to imitate those sounds. So, my rights are being restricted, do you see that? This, despite the fact that I have no contract with the songwriter, nor does the songwriter have any obligation toward me in consideration of the rights I am surrendering. Except for one obligation. Which is to put the work into the public domain after a limited period of time, so that I, so that we all may be compensated for allowing the songwriter exclusive right over the creation.
Without that consideration, without copyrights expiring, then I am being unfairly restricted. Multiply that by the thousands or hundreds of thousands of things that I encounter in my daily life that I must restrict myself from utilizing, and suddenly, my world starts to feel smaller and smaller. Paradoxically, the more things that are created, the more that my rights are destroyed.
The immediate problem with The Sword of Truth as a children's series is the extreme violence/S&M/bondage in some of the books. That doesn't stop them from being good stories, but it does make them incredibly embarrassing to recommend to your kids. You might want to just leave the books around and let them discover the kinky stuff without that icky "Daddy lent this to me" feeling spoiling their enjoyment of the books.
But better yet, keep them away from Goodkind altogether, unless you are planning on indoctrinating them in oversimplified Randian (pun intentional, I assume, by Goodkind) claptrap. The series got atrociously bad by about the fourth or fifth book, but gave a surprising turnaround with Chainfire, which was good enough for me to feel incredibly ripped-off and disappointed by the final book, whose name I have already mercifully forgotten.
Unfortunetly, Slashdot lack of imagination and narrowmindedness when it comes to anything has lead to an automatic acceptance of everything as "neat."
It seems to me that you are the one being narrowminded here. Clearly you are knowledgeable on the subject. But to utterly dismiss a research project on the grounds that it seems vaguely like something you did 20 years ago, and you can't see any immediate right-away 2008 benefits forthcoming, I don't know. Do you really believe with such certainly that this research project was a waste or did you argue yourself into a corner and now don't wish to back off from your absolutism?
Frankly, even if this project is derivative and doesn't advance the science in any great measure, I still think it qualifies as "neat." Just as neat as another Firefox nightly or a new version of Ubuntu or some home-brew programming language. Does everything have to advance the sciences to be interesting? Well then, how about this: "Furthermore, the artificial DNA may be a superior building scaffold for constructing nanostructures of materials interest because of the stable C-nucleosides against ubiquitous naturally occurring enzymes such as DNase." Isn't that reason enough?
It may be meant as a defensive measure, but its result is offensive, and anticompetitive.
The problem isn't that big businesses have to pay to keep themselves out of trouble. The problem is, what if this works as intended? Then ultimately, it will lower the relative risks of the member tech giants. So relatively speaking, every other small and medium business will have to pay a risk tax that does not exist for these large companies. Basically, AST will drive your mom & pop shop out of business, not through better products, but by unleveling the playing field, making it too risky for you to compete. Which will hobble the engine of American competitiveness, and in the long run, damage its place in the world economy. Not that Verizon et al. will care because they can always relocate to Europe or China if need be.
The vast majority of the "R" IDs are because members of Congress are traditionally identified by their party affiliation. Other politicians (President, Speaker, Mayor, Governor) are not. There's nothing nefarious about this, that's just how it's done. Unfortunately, the Republicans long-standing dominance of Congress means they are overrepresented in that body's annals of corruption.
This could just as easily be used by a terrorist who has control of the kill codes and disables a plane while its on its final descent. Or they create a situation whereby planes must be used to evacuate people but all the planes are disabled. Somehow reminds me of this, a prototype system to remotely disable cars fleeing from cops. Which could also be used by cracker/criminals to prevent their victims from fleeing TO safety. Or by a rogue government to lock down a whole city.
But beside the issue of inevitable abuse, there's something repellent about these incremental encroachments upon our free will, Technology as our protector/warden. At what point do we decide that we have surrendered too much of our autonomy as living creatures for the sake of safety? Too many find false comfort in the womb-like cocoon of total surveillance and control. "...and when I wake up, I'll be fat and rich and I won't remember a goddamned thing." But unlike The Matrix, in the real world the technology is not run by impersonal machines but by real people who we voluntarily set up as our masters.
I pay my ISP for 80GB download, my ISP pays 15 cents per megabyte to Southern Cross cable for the link to the US and 14 cents per megabyte to SingTel for the link to Singapore. If I overuse my quota (consume more than my share of traffic) it comes out of my ISPs profits. So you're saying your ISP pays $12,000.00 for your 80GB download? Somehow I think you're making those numbers up.
Small providers may have a different situation but large ISPs have basically fixed costs regardless of how much their customers download. The argument for capping use is to provide a decent browsing experience to the largest amount of users so that the customers don't quit or make expensive tech support complaints. But, if the idea is really to keep customers satisfied, it makes much more sense to throttle bandwidth if a user has greatly exceeded his allocation. Using this as an excuse to gouge customers with exorbitant over-the-limit fees is basically a way to squeeze easy profits out of the hardcore users who are least likely to be highly sensitive to pricing differential.
Slashdot Mirror
Another way to look at that is 6/10ths of a Comcast Monthly Cap per second.
I've often wondered why Slashdot editors don't RTFA themselves, particularly, why they don't go back to the original source article when it's readily available on-line. The text (not the headline) of the article makes it clear that first of all, Griffiths isn't saying Blu-Ray ONLY has five years left. He's saying it has AT LEAST five good years left, but less than ten, in his opinion. Secondly, the business about OLEDs makes it clear that the thrust of the timeframe discussion is with respect to a profit stream. That is, there are five good years of profits left in Blu-Ray, but in the future, Samsung sees OLEDs as a long-term source of profits. Which is reasonable. After all, CD players are still around, and Sammy still makes 'em, but they're not a major revenue source at this point. From that perspective, of hardware profits, they're basically dead, although from a software perspective, CDs are still the #1 media delivery mechanism.
Can somebody explain to me why resource limits are still an issue in Windows? I usually keep 25-40 tabs open in FF, and after it gets over the 350MB range, the whole browser starts to act flaky. Why is 211MB, 267MB, 350MB or even 500MB a problem on today's platforms with 2 to 6GB RAM standard?
Fine, but what seems odd to me is that according to this page, the EU is using the same test on their cattle and found 1,100 cases in a five year testing period. It says that although BSE may have a lengthy incubation period, in some cases the disease can be detected in cows that were asymptomatic while alive. In short it alleges that the test is not completely worthless after all.
I'd like to believe that the government is only looking out for our best interests as citizens and that that is its only consideration but frankly its track record is not good.
It would make more sense, IMO, for the government to allow this one company to spend money, if it wishes, on this supposedly pointless test. If nothing turns up over a period of time then the company should be allowed to label its export products as "100% BSE tested according to international standards" but should not be allowed to use any such labeling on beef meant for domestic consumption. Then foreign markets will be happy but the USDA can still uphold its aim of protecting the US consumer from possible misinformation.
The movie does have negative value if what you're interested in is listening to the music. Even if someone has a DVD player in their car, they won't typically listen to a movie's soundtrack by putting in a DVD; the songs are edited, people talk over them not to mention explosions or other noises, the track locations don't correspond with the beginning of the song, the fidelity is pristine, etc. For music listening purposes, an actual CD (or soundtrack equivalent) is a much better value. Most people really only want to see a movie once or twice, whereas they'll listen to a soundtrack they like dozens of times.
If they shoot at you, you can be sure it's the enemy.
True, but as we saw recently with the anthrax researcher, your "enemy" doesn't necessary work for the other guys.
FYI, a close friend was a sniper for SpecOps.
And you're still alive? Whatever happened to "I'd tell you but then I'd have to kill you"?
It's fine that the rental math comes out so great. It really is. In fact, it's so fine that, based on what you're saying, they ought to be able to wipe the floor in a fair match with retail boxes. Further, since the value is so excellent, if they competed openly with sold boxes, they ought to be able to raise their rental rates and for people to still perceive it as a bargain.
I suspect the real reason they don't want to let you buy your own box is because it will make it that much harder for them to limit theft of services. In their own boxes they can place whatever detection/deactivation chips are necessary to keep a lock on the signal. Harder to do when there are 20 different manufactures adhering to slightly different specs.
I have my own personal theories on this matter. As a writer myself, I repudiate copyright on all I do. I openly ask others to reprint my writings, and even stick their own names on it if they want. Because I write about niche markets, the aid of distribution of my thoughts means more people are attracted to those ideas, which means they'll likely eventually find me. That's a huge benefit for me as I can then sell future newbies to the market on my newsletters, or even hire myself out as a ghost writer or personal writer. My income has surged because I don't copyright my writings, or even ask others to attribute me during the redistribution process.
--xigxag.
You're right, I was confused and I owe you a very deep apology. Somehow I misfollowed the thread and thought you were replying to this post.
If it isn't racist, it isn't slavery?
You really need to ask yourself why you brought up the subject of racism, when the post you're replying to said nothing about racism or even black people.
Anyway, a few people here seem to be confused so let's get something straight. Slavery and wages are orthogonal concepts. Do you have the freedom to leave your employer and seek new work? Or the freedom not to work? If so, then you're not a slave.
You can be paid and still be a slave. This actually happened occasionally in the antebellum South -- skilled slave artisans could get to keep some of their income and buy their freedom, although this depended on the honor of their masters -- a slave had no legal recourse if their master chose to keep the money and not to free them. It can also be cynically argued that even normal unskilled slaves were "paid" in room and board. (The extreme would be some kind of war captive, forced to work without any food or shelter until he drops dead of hunger and exposure.)
You can be unpaid and not be a slave. We commonly know these people as unpaid volunteers. Or the self-employed. Or, apparently, Apple techs. The point being that nobody's actually forcing them to work under pain of corporal punishment or holding their families hostage or through other means of extortion of labor.
Your examples don't compare to what happened here.
First of all, if I yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the results are predictable. There will be a panic and some people will suffer physical injury. Any reasonable person can see that. Second, some of the people who get hurt may be innocent, trampled by others due to events entirely outside of their control.
In this case, one could not have necessarily predicted that Lori Drew's torments would result in the girl's suicide. Nor was the girl completely innocent in that she bore responsibility for failing to end the relationship, not to mention that she was the one who actually committed the act.
But even so, if we're going to nevertheless say that this was murder or some form of homicide, why do we need to specially invoke the internet? If I kill someone with a toothpick, does my crime have to be prosecuted under "death by toothpick" statute? How about wrenchicular homicide, CD jewel case murder laws, death by telephonic intimidation, etc. If we needed to make a special case for every form of homicide, we'd lose any semblance of universality in our laws. Each one would have to be some kind of post hoc creation. I don't think that's necessary. If this is a crime, normal laws, without contortion, ought to be able to deal with it.
Finally, even if Drew walks on the crimes, the girl's surviving relatives will undoubtedly try to sue for harrassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and wrongful death. I don't see this as a scot-free situation, not by any means.
You're agreeing with your parent. It stated "This is not global warming, this is ocean acidification." The only way to parse that and for it to make sense is that this refers to, not the solution (pun intended), but the problem -- the environmental situation we are seeking to ameliorate.
I was all prepared to say, "pish-posh!" but then I realized, of the three computers we have at home, one of them uses mouse + writing tablet, one uses a trackball, and one is a laptop with a touchpad + touchscreen. So, while I still think it's silly to predict the absolute demise of the mouse, I do agree that it will continue to lose ground with respect to other input devices, especially considering that more people are using laptops than ever before.
However, the article fails to deeply explore the reasons little devices use force-feedback or tilt sensors to begin with. Not because they are in any absolute sense better than mice, but because they are used in situations where mice are impractical. They're basically consolation prizes in the input sweepstakes. But, when you're actually at your computer, you don't need to tilt-scroll your 24" monitor to see a whole webpage or to type onto a virtual haptic keyboard when you're sitting in front of a real one. And while the Wiimote might be great for certain games, it's not so handy for games that require keyboard input.
1)Obviously the phone doesn't "require" jailbreak any more than Photoshop "requires" a keygen or my neighbor's house "requires" a skeleton key.
3)There are some devices that play more media types, some that play less. If that's the only criteria you care about when searching for a phone, then I guess the iPhone's not for you. The majority of people don't really care about whether their phones are mkv capable or not, though.
4)Matter of opinion, doesn't really belong in the midst of facts.
6)This is true but the mitigating factor is that the device already comes with more storage than most people have on their expandable phones.
It happens that I'm not an Apple fan and don't own any of their gadgets or computers. However I accept that people can make a decision to buy an iPhone without being mindless consumers, hipsters or fanboys. That's why, if you get modded down, it will be because you deserve it. The first half of your post, although not entirely accurate, was written in a calm reasonable manner. The second half was nothing but flamebait.
Those may be processing units, but they're hardly CENTRAL Processing units.
What you're saying sounds very...unlikely. A criminal trial is about something bad you allegedly did. Nobody really cares about all the good stuff you did the rest of the day. That's why, e.g., you should never talk to the cops if you're the subject of an investigation. Damning stuff you say will become evidence against you. Exculpatory stuff you say will be rightly disregarded as self-serving (and hearsay), unless it is somehow contradicted by something else you said during the questioning, in which case it will turn into evidence against you. So your animal rescue pictures will be ignored in court, and if you somehow managed to get them introduced into evidence, the prosecution will argue that they are probably staged and demonstrate that you cynically believe you can put one over on the court.(I mean, a felon who suddenly decides to go around rescuing trapped animals? Come on.)
Mod parent up. Current versions of WMP11 don't automatically open up web pages, and if you have it configured to do so, you can turn it off easily through options.
Also, why are you so eager to see copyrights expire? What's the benefit for you?
I heard a tune that I like. I did not buy the tune -- I was forced to listen to it from a nearby radio. However, it's gotten stuck in my head now. I like it and I want to perform it in public. I can't, not without a license. I'm being told I can't do something that in a natural state I should be allowed to do. Naturally, humans are imitators of sounds. If I hear a bird's whistle or a cow's moo, I'm free to imitate it in public to my heart's content. It's the natural state of things, for people to imitate sounds, to talk and to sing, in public. But let a human being string together certain notes, and I am no longer free to imitate those sounds. So, my rights are being restricted, do you see that? This, despite the fact that I have no contract with the songwriter, nor does the songwriter have any obligation toward me in consideration of the rights I am surrendering. Except for one obligation. Which is to put the work into the public domain after a limited period of time, so that I, so that we all may be compensated for allowing the songwriter exclusive right over the creation.
Without that consideration, without copyrights expiring, then I am being unfairly restricted. Multiply that by the thousands or hundreds of thousands of things that I encounter in my daily life that I must restrict myself from utilizing, and suddenly, my world starts to feel smaller and smaller. Paradoxically, the more things that are created, the more that my rights are destroyed.
The immediate problem with The Sword of Truth as a children's series is the extreme violence/S&M/bondage in some of the books. That doesn't stop them from being good stories, but it does make them incredibly embarrassing to recommend to your kids. You might want to just leave the books around and let them discover the kinky stuff without that icky "Daddy lent this to me" feeling spoiling their enjoyment of the books.
But better yet, keep them away from Goodkind altogether, unless you are planning on indoctrinating them in oversimplified Randian (pun intentional, I assume, by Goodkind) claptrap. The series got atrociously bad by about the fourth or fifth book, but gave a surprising turnaround with Chainfire, which was good enough for me to feel incredibly ripped-off and disappointed by the final book, whose name I have already mercifully forgotten.
Unfortunetly, Slashdot lack of imagination and narrowmindedness when it comes to anything has lead to an automatic acceptance of everything as "neat."
It seems to me that you are the one being narrowminded here. Clearly you are knowledgeable on the subject. But to utterly dismiss a research project on the grounds that it seems vaguely like something you did 20 years ago, and you can't see any immediate right-away 2008 benefits forthcoming, I don't know. Do you really believe with such certainly that this research project was a waste or did you argue yourself into a corner and now don't wish to back off from your absolutism?
Frankly, even if this project is derivative and doesn't advance the science in any great measure, I still think it qualifies as "neat." Just as neat as another Firefox nightly or a new version of Ubuntu or some home-brew programming language. Does everything have to advance the sciences to be interesting? Well then, how about this: "Furthermore, the artificial DNA may be a superior building scaffold for constructing nanostructures of materials interest because of the stable C-nucleosides against ubiquitous naturally occurring enzymes such as DNase." Isn't that reason enough?
It may be meant as a defensive measure, but its result is offensive, and anticompetitive.
The problem isn't that big businesses have to pay to keep themselves out of trouble. The problem is, what if this works as intended? Then ultimately, it will lower the relative risks of the member tech giants. So relatively speaking, every other small and medium business will have to pay a risk tax that does not exist for these large companies. Basically, AST will drive your mom & pop shop out of business, not through better products, but by unleveling the playing field, making it too risky for you to compete. Which will hobble the engine of American competitiveness, and in the long run, damage its place in the world economy. Not that Verizon et al. will care because they can always relocate to Europe or China if need be.
The vast majority of the "R" IDs are because members of Congress are traditionally identified by their party affiliation. Other politicians (President, Speaker, Mayor, Governor) are not. There's nothing nefarious about this, that's just how it's done. Unfortunately, the Republicans long-standing dominance of Congress means they are overrepresented in that body's annals of corruption.
This could just as easily be used by a terrorist who has control of the kill codes and disables a plane while its on its final descent. Or they create a situation whereby planes must be used to evacuate people but all the planes are disabled. Somehow reminds me of this, a prototype system to remotely disable cars fleeing from cops. Which could also be used by cracker/criminals to prevent their victims from fleeing TO safety. Or by a rogue government to lock down a whole city.
But beside the issue of inevitable abuse, there's something repellent about these incremental encroachments upon our free will, Technology as our protector/warden. At what point do we decide that we have surrendered too much of our autonomy as living creatures for the sake of safety? Too many find false comfort in the womb-like cocoon of total surveillance and control. "...and when I wake up, I'll be fat and rich and I won't remember a goddamned thing." But unlike The Matrix, in the real world the technology is not run by impersonal machines but by real people who we voluntarily set up as our masters.
Small providers may have a different situation but large ISPs have basically fixed costs regardless of how much their customers download. The argument for capping use is to provide a decent browsing experience to the largest amount of users so that the customers don't quit or make expensive tech support complaints. But, if the idea is really to keep customers satisfied, it makes much more sense to throttle bandwidth if a user has greatly exceeded his allocation. Using this as an excuse to gouge customers with exorbitant over-the-limit fees is basically a way to squeeze easy profits out of the hardcore users who are least likely to be highly sensitive to pricing differential.
So in other words, basically MediaDefender = OJ Simpson in 2007?