Well, here's something to ponder... and I've heard it from a few places...
Hillary claims to be a candidate for change. Yet if Hillary is elected, that would mean we've gone from a Bush to a Clinton to a Bush to a Clinton. Is that REALLY a change? What follows after that, Jeb Bush?
What you call "concentration" I call redistribution of wealth. It's bad enough that most of my state tax dollars get distributed all around the state to build roads in the middle of nowhere. I would much rather have my tax dollars stay local than get sent out to somewhere else just to "buy" votes.
There's another thing he's missing... if you get rid of or drastically shrink the services provided at the federal level, your federal income tax bill will get cut way down as well... so you'll recover some of the money there. And I say some because your state income taxes will go up.
Now wait just one doggoned minute there... you're asking the congresscritter to actually read the proposed bill before actually voting on it.
We can't have that. That's making the congresscritter do his or her job instead of going out there and campaigning and fundraising. Sure, you might argue that is why there are congressional staffers... but the staffers should just be looking up historical details and stuff like that... not giving the congresscritter the reader's digest version of the text of the bill.
The vast majority of elected politicians have been in their offices for so long, they don't know what it's like to live in the real world under the laws that they have created, modified, or otherwise butchered. They're protected from these things. Then, every November, we go back only to send the same clowns right back in or send a clone in who may or may not be wearing the same letter (R or D) on his or her jacket. Once they get there, they're all the same... not really trying to do their jobs, but doing just enough to make sure they get all the special interest money to get reelected.
What will it take for the "middle" to finally get out there and say, "Enough is enough! We're tired of the status quo and want someone who has personal integrity and will do the job we sent him there to do"?
Yes... and if you read the article, the filing fee was $35,000... well above the $5,000 limit he was allowed to spend, so he never bothered.
It's a shame, too. Finally, you have someone who may be making fun of the system, but is also showing the average person just what's wrong with the good ol' boy system that is alive and well in our national politics.
Geez... you're asking for our Congresscritters and others to do the jobs they were elected to do. That would take time away from their ability to acquire money from lobbyists, special interest groups, corporations, and other well-to-do donors.
Next thing you know, you're actually going to ask for them to read the legislation before they're allowed to debate it, let alone vote on it.
I think you'll have an easier time trying to get an independent or third party candidate elected.
But in regards to what you state, the big companies being extorted out of their monies would go and do exactly the same thing to other companies, given the system as it is now. It's all part of the game, and they don't want to change the rules.
I'm sure the Verizon execs are jumping for joy over this.
You're quite correct. Verizon screwed us as best as they could within the law (FITL), and now they're going to be able to just get their customers with all the sandpaper they can possibly use... and we're not going to have much of a choice.
This is just further proof of why the entity that maintains the physical lines should not be allowed to also be service providers.
if they reveal publically what if anything the infringements are then unless they are really earth shattering things they will just be worked arround or prior art found weakening microsofts position further.
Not only that, but once they reveal the patents, others have a chance to prove whether or not it was "prior art" before they even have to worry about defense of it, in which case the patent itself is voided and you no longer have a patent infringement.
Microsoft is only trying to scare people. Until they reveal the patents... which they are required to do by law, if claiming patent infringement... they're just blowing null bits.
The catch is, with fully open-sourced projects, you can distribute the patch freely and anyone who wants to use your version is free to do so. The only reason you submit your patch is to get it into the main line code.
The Microsoft license does not permit you to distribute your patch.
Here's what I heard Ed Koch say on his radio show on WABC in NYC back in the early-mid 1990's (not an exact quote, but it's the thoughts):
"When I was in Congress, I used to vote for every feel-good piece of legislation that came along. Then, when I became Mayor of NYC, I had to try to implement all of those decisions and more, and realized the consequences of a lot of my votes."
Time to vote against the incumbents... regardless of party affiliation.
Can we include anyone who uses the 30 seconds for any political pontification? Thanking "the little people" is one thing... using a forum like that to force your political views on the world is another. Taser them and mod them -1 Offtopic.
Why would NBC no longer distribute video via iTunes? Duh... anyone hear of MSNBC?
Well, there's probably a similar thing going on here... they're either working a deal or have a deal with another provider to try to exclude Apple's products. Aside from conversion to one format then to MP3, it won't be more than a day or two before someone has a standalone program or plug-in for an existing one that will do the conversion.
If just 1% refused and returnd the product for a re-fund the terms would change.
There's a problem with that. People have tried the Windows Refund route. They get the runaround from the OEM and Microsoft as to who actually owes you the money. By the time all is said and done, the people requesting the refund are getting all of a dollar or two back, because that's what it costs the OEM to put it on your machine.
Of course, if you decide, after-the-fact, that you really do want a Windows license, you will have to buy it at retail for $200.
I wouldn't mind the ads so much if they weren't so intrusive. There is no need to have huge flashing, blinking things in the middle of the screen to damage my retinas. If you want to put a small link in there, that's fine. What I don't want are these banners that take up some chunk of screen real estate, the popup windows/tabs that seem to take over my desktop, and the waste of bandwidth.
What ever happened to, "<h2>This website sponsored, in part, by <a href='company uri'>Company</a></h2>"? (Pick your favorite header level.) Do that, and you won't have people complaining about ads on websites as much as they do. There are still far too many people out there on dialup for whom all these image- or flash-based ads are doing nothing but hindering their entire experience on the web.
They're called "riders." They are things that wouldn't normally be done as a separate issue and are tacked on to other legislation... frequently to get something passed that wouldn't otherwise pass through a standalone vote, or is often considered to be too "miniscule" to warrant its own vote.
I wish they'd get rid of riders... too much crap gets into the legal code because of them.
As many have said before, The Patriot Act is anything but patriotic.
Various parts of The Government Intrusion Act have been struck down over the years, right from the time it was first passed. I was hoping they'd let it just go away through its sunset clause, but they rammed a new version through. So now we start the process anew... go after one part at a time. It may take a while, but it will all eventually go away because Congress and the President overstepped their constitutional authority.
When the people who maintain the wires are also allowed to sell the broadband services over them but are required to "open up the lines" to competing services, you basically have a conflict of interest. There are exactly three entities that can put lines up on your local phone poles or in the conduits: local power company, local mega-baby bell, and local cable contract holder. That's it. Nobody else. Otherwise, if you have above-ground lines, you'd look up and see wire after wire after wire after wire.
Enter the loophole in the law that states that if they build a brand new line from the central office to your house, they can control its content. Guess who can't put in new lines? Right... the "competing services" who are supposed to be able to access the lines that already exist. Therefore, you have a conflict of interest in that the line maintainers are the only ones capable of putting up new infrastructure... thus guaranteeing a monopoly of service. Now, while it may make business sense to wire up the areas that can and will be heavily subscribing first (it's called "return on investment"), you'll find that some other areas that have gotten it only did because they're in between the source and target area, so they just went and wired up that section too.
That said, I cannot get FiOS in my neighborhood. Neighborhoods around me are getting wired for it and receiving it. We aren't... and believe me, it's not because we're a poor neighborhood (probably has more to do with our being an older subdivision that still has above-ground lines). I've called Verizon a few times and the response I always get when I ask for a date is, "We can't give you a date because that would commit us." Duh! That's the point of my asking for a date or time frame! Verizon first sticks it to us with FITL, so we can't get any form of DSL other than IDSL/ISDN, unless you go with a T-1 or other dedicated line like that... then they stick it to us by not wiring up the neighborhood... and they further stick it to us by being the only telco that can do so, and limit the service to themselves. I'm sure there are other companies that could be wiring up neighborhoods too, and would love a shot at doing it... if they were legally allowed to do so.
Basically, like you said... the ones who maintain the lines should not be allowed to sell the services. Give the line maintainers one responsibility: infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. Everyone else, including Verizon, would have to "buy" their time and space on the lines.
If you prefer the Readers' Digest version with your helping of crow:
Installing IE 7 clearly changes the way Windows processes URIs. This is clearly illustrated by what happens if you pass the "bad" link directly to the Windows shell via the "Run" option in the Start menu. With IE6 installed, Outlook Express is launched, with IE7, cmd.exe and the calculator.
And
According to the Bugzilla entry for this problem, one reason for the new vulnerability is that Windows XP interprets the string %00 incorrectly. As a result, instead of the URL protocol handler, the FileType handler is called with the complete URL, via which it is then possible to call further programs with arbitrary arguments.
I wish I could remember who said it, but this is just another episode in the, "You can take away everyone's freedoms if you do it slowly enough" campaign.
While trying to find that quote, I found this little gem:
"I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master." --Thomas Jefferson
I guess he didn't realize that eventually people in power would come to relish that power even more, only to start that spiral of creating a variant of the same ruling class he and so many of the founding fathers despised.
Slashdot Mirror
Hillary claims to be a candidate for change. Yet if Hillary is elected, that would mean we've gone from a Bush to a Clinton to a Bush to a Clinton. Is that REALLY a change? What follows after that, Jeb Bush?
What you call "concentration" I call redistribution of wealth. It's bad enough that most of my state tax dollars get distributed all around the state to build roads in the middle of nowhere. I would much rather have my tax dollars stay local than get sent out to somewhere else just to "buy" votes.
There's another thing he's missing... if you get rid of or drastically shrink the services provided at the federal level, your federal income tax bill will get cut way down as well... so you'll recover some of the money there. And I say some because your state income taxes will go up.
Maybe he's Rick James, instead...
But not to the target of the stupidity.
We can't have that. That's making the congresscritter do his or her job instead of going out there and campaigning and fundraising. Sure, you might argue that is why there are congressional staffers... but the staffers should just be looking up historical details and stuff like that... not giving the congresscritter the reader's digest version of the text of the bill.
The vast majority of elected politicians have been in their offices for so long, they don't know what it's like to live in the real world under the laws that they have created, modified, or otherwise butchered. They're protected from these things. Then, every November, we go back only to send the same clowns right back in or send a clone in who may or may not be wearing the same letter (R or D) on his or her jacket. Once they get there, they're all the same... not really trying to do their jobs, but doing just enough to make sure they get all the special interest money to get reelected.
What will it take for the "middle" to finally get out there and say, "Enough is enough! We're tired of the status quo and want someone who has personal integrity and will do the job we sent him there to do"?
Oh, and expect a standard form-type response at best.
It's a shame, too. Finally, you have someone who may be making fun of the system, but is also showing the average person just what's wrong with the good ol' boy system that is alive and well in our national politics.
Next thing you know, you're actually going to ask for them to read the legislation before they're allowed to debate it, let alone vote on it.
I think you'll have an easier time trying to get an independent or third party candidate elected.
But in regards to what you state, the big companies being extorted out of their monies would go and do exactly the same thing to other companies, given the system as it is now. It's all part of the game, and they don't want to change the rules.
You're quite correct. Verizon screwed us as best as they could within the law (FITL), and now they're going to be able to just get their customers with all the sandpaper they can possibly use... and we're not going to have much of a choice.
This is just further proof of why the entity that maintains the physical lines should not be allowed to also be service providers.
Microsoft is only trying to scare people. Until they reveal the patents... which they are required to do by law, if claiming patent infringement... they're just blowing null bits.
The Microsoft license does not permit you to distribute your patch.
"When I was in Congress, I used to vote for every feel-good piece of legislation that came along. Then, when I became Mayor of NYC, I had to try to implement all of those decisions and more, and realized the consequences of a lot of my votes."
Time to vote against the incumbents... regardless of party affiliation.
Can we include anyone who uses the 30 seconds for any political pontification? Thanking "the little people" is one thing... using a forum like that to force your political views on the world is another. Taser them and mod them -1 Offtopic.
Well, there's probably a similar thing going on here... they're either working a deal or have a deal with another provider to try to exclude Apple's products. Aside from conversion to one format then to MP3, it won't be more than a day or two before someone has a standalone program or plug-in for an existing one that will do the conversion.
Of course, if you decide, after-the-fact, that you really do want a Windows license, you will have to buy it at retail for $200.
What ever happened to, "<h2>This website sponsored, in part, by <a href='company uri'>Company</a></h2>"? (Pick your favorite header level.) Do that, and you won't have people complaining about ads on websites as much as they do. There are still far too many people out there on dialup for whom all these image- or flash-based ads are doing nothing but hindering their entire experience on the web.
I wish they'd get rid of riders... too much crap gets into the legal code because of them.
Various parts of The Government Intrusion Act have been struck down over the years, right from the time it was first passed. I was hoping they'd let it just go away through its sunset clause, but they rammed a new version through. So now we start the process anew... go after one part at a time. It may take a while, but it will all eventually go away because Congress and the President overstepped their constitutional authority.
Enter the loophole in the law that states that if they build a brand new line from the central office to your house, they can control its content. Guess who can't put in new lines? Right... the "competing services" who are supposed to be able to access the lines that already exist. Therefore, you have a conflict of interest in that the line maintainers are the only ones capable of putting up new infrastructure... thus guaranteeing a monopoly of service. Now, while it may make business sense to wire up the areas that can and will be heavily subscribing first (it's called "return on investment"), you'll find that some other areas that have gotten it only did because they're in between the source and target area, so they just went and wired up that section too.
That said, I cannot get FiOS in my neighborhood. Neighborhoods around me are getting wired for it and receiving it. We aren't... and believe me, it's not because we're a poor neighborhood (probably has more to do with our being an older subdivision that still has above-ground lines). I've called Verizon a few times and the response I always get when I ask for a date is, "We can't give you a date because that would commit us." Duh! That's the point of my asking for a date or time frame! Verizon first sticks it to us with FITL, so we can't get any form of DSL other than IDSL/ISDN, unless you go with a T-1 or other dedicated line like that... then they stick it to us by not wiring up the neighborhood... and they further stick it to us by being the only telco that can do so, and limit the service to themselves. I'm sure there are other companies that could be wiring up neighborhoods too, and would love a shot at doing it... if they were legally allowed to do so.
Basically, like you said... the ones who maintain the lines should not be allowed to sell the services. Give the line maintainers one responsibility: infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. Everyone else, including Verizon, would have to "buy" their time and space on the lines.
If you prefer the Readers' Digest version with your helping of crow:
AndThis indicates that the problem is in Windows' parsing of URIs... as stated in the article. It's the handling of the NULL (%00) byte.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Firefox, but kudos to the Mozilla developers for trying to block the opening of null-byted URIs.
Just as he misspelled "513g"...
While trying to find that quote, I found this little gem:
"I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master." --Thomas Jefferson
I guess he didn't realize that eventually people in power would come to relish that power even more, only to start that spiral of creating a variant of the same ruling class he and so many of the founding fathers despised.