Much like the unintended consequences of the ethanol disaster, people who want to go paperless to save the trees have to look at the non-trivial task of supplying energy needs to a data center. When you realize this, the importance of green IT becomes apparent. Whether or not global warming is indeed the threat that they say it is, developing energy solutions that don't rely on fossil fuels is imperative. Basically, we need to use more nuclear power!
What do you consider to be broadband? I'm surprised every time I see a company up the ante. Even before I started to work for an invest in these companies, I actually regarded their actions as more generous than necessary...
Disclosure: I am an employee and shareholder of Comcast.
No, but I bring up these points because I think they are valid. I've had Verizon DSL in three separate locations and I can tell you that they have nothing on Comcast.
Disclosure: I am an employee and shareholder of Comcast.
"PowerBoost(r) makes fast even faster! PowerBoost(r) helps power downloads of large files like videos, music, and games at speeds up to 12 Mbps!"
Now, do I see a "boost" of speed when downloading videos, music, and games (legal ones) from BitTorrent? NO! I NEVER even get a good connection! And at the bottom of the flyer, in that long list of fine print, it says "PowerBoost(r) provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5MB of a file, respectively. So I don't even get PowerBoost for longer than a second! Theres one fraud.
This is absurd. PowerBoost does in fact work, but I doubt that it is designed to be able to work in every circumstance. What if you connect to a slow server? How can it even work then? Are you going to sue because the server can't serve fast enough? BitTorrent is peer-to-peer and considering most connections are asymmetrical to begin with, expecting PowerBoost to let you download really fast to begin with is unreasonable.
"McAfee(r) Security Suite featuring a series of tools to help keep you, your family, and your home computers safe, protected, and virus-free. A $120 value."
I have McAfee, provided by Comcast, installed on my Windows OS (I use Linux most of the time). Guess what? ANOTHER LIE! Sure, it's free now, but in a year EVERY DAMN time you turn your computer on, McAfee nags you to buy a $120 dollar subscription. MORE FRAUD!
So you got a year's subscription for free. I'm sure there's fine print that says that exactly.
And for their phone service: "Utilizes Comcast's own secure network, not the public Intedrnet, for secure VoIP phone service". So your saying the NSA can't listen in? More fraud...
So 3 counts of fraud on ONE ad! Comcast are going to have a problem defending themselves this time...
Quit being so sensationalist. Their claim is that they don't use the public internet for voice communications. This makes a man-in-the-middle attack that much harder as it would probably have to be an inside job. As for the NSA claim, it is purely conjecture. I'm also sure they don't claim that they secure their customers so much as to break the law by violating a court order.
Stop hating companies. If they really were making false or deceptive claims, the vulture lawyers would have tried to rake the company over for all that they are worth. If your position is right, it would be too easy!
Disclosure: I am an employee and shareholder of Comcast.
This has a wide range of implications, mainly how exchanges charge for their data. This will probably help NASDAQ to continue to put more pressure on the NYSE. It may be a good step though as I'd like to see the futures exchanges allow for their data services to be more freely available.
It also helps to empower the individual investor as the gap between the institutions and in the individuals closes. This can have unintended consequences though in terms of volatility as the retail money may get more fidgety with this more timely data. Either way, it should be interesting to watch this develop.
Already tells you something about the candidates, doesn't it? It tells us that Obama's web team picked GoDaddy, which happens to use LAMP, and Clinton's web team picked Rackspace, which happens to run Windows/IIS. Why is this such a story?
"According to court documents, Californian Michael Largent used an automated script to open 58,000 such accounts, collecting many thousands of these small payments into a few personal bank accounts.
Largent also performed the same trick with Google's Checkout service, cashing more than $8,000 alone from the service." [emphasis added]
I'd be careful to give the "left-wingers" such a pass. I think that this is more of a function of your perspective than what really goes on. Just look at what happened to Joe Lieberman. Overall though, I really dislike how dissenters within a party are viewed as turncoats. It seems as though a great majority of the problems in the parties are caused by dogmatic adherence to the party line!
Let me start off by saying that I am not here to mercilessly defense Bush. He's not perfect and I think he has his advantages and disadvantages. To blame him though for economic woes is both unwarranted and wrong.
The fact of the matter is that economies are cyclic. Both Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress of the 90's benefited greatly from both an upturn in the economy and the technology boom. To blame Bush for the economy at the beginning of his term is wrong as he and the rest of his administration has had to deal with both an economy that was slowing and the aftermath of 9/11.
We've actually been doing pretty well since the recovery of the technology bust and the rebuilt after 9/11, but the recent credit bust is another challenge. Likewise, it is not his fault as the bulk of the blame can be place squarely on both people irresponsibly taking loans and banks irresponsibly lending loans, both of which were facilitated by the Federal Reserve driving rates so low for as long as they did.
As for your point on food and energy, this is a mixed bag for Bush. Bush wants to get the drilling companies to work, but that is politically unfeasible and too unpopular in general. So we can't drill off of some of our coasts or in ANWR where we have plenty of oil and natural gas. This is a remedy to the energy problem that we have now, but people don't want it. He has also worked to push ethanol, which I think is a disaster. Corn-based ethanol is simply not viable because it doesn't really work from multiple perspectives. It's too hard to make from corn. Ethanol works so well in Brazil because they use sugarcane. Corn-based ethanol also takes food from the food supply for obvious reasons, causes farmers to plant corn instead of other crops, and then that drives up the cost of the other crops. This is a total mess and we need to do something about it.
If you want to cheer against the Republicans for this, don't bother. Both Clinton and Obama support corn-based ethanol. McCain is thankfully against it. Truthfully, I don't really have a problem with gasoline and diesel fuel being this high. I am able to afford it for the amount that I drive in and around Philadelphia. It's starting to get harder, but living in a city is just so much better because the amount of driving you need to do is drastically cut down. High fuel prices are fit punishments for decades of suburbanization and disregard of mass transit and freight systems like rail. Don't get me wrong, I love to drive, but we don't need to be so spread out. I do worry about how the high price of crude is going to squeeze people when the winter comes because of how expensive heat is going to be.
We can fix these problems though. The main issues are going to be whether or not we can fight a special interest groups and change our lifestyles. The reality is though that doing the right thing isn't easy typically. We need to make our choices better now so that we don't have bigger problems down the road.
Let me first say that I agree with you on many levels, probably more than I would be given credit for. I just think that it's too easy to blame companies when there are relatively simple solutions to many of the issues we face. Whether or not we have the inclination to resolve these issues is another matter entirely.
They have a wider view of what constitutes an asset and the lengths to which they should be able to go to protect them than a lot of people think is good for society. Is it ok for us to become a police state in order to protect their assets? Or do we draw the line somewhere?
I think that there should be a line that is drawn, but you can't blame a company for taking all steps necessary and allowed to protect its employees and shareholders. Why isn't the government drawing the line? That's their job. It's hard for a company to draw the line in the copyright arena because they would wind up taking out their own business objectives. As you reference in the next point, CSS is a annoying when dealing with DVDs. But when you consider you could otherwise make one-to-one copies of a DVD with no issue were CSS to not be used, I think that the company's position is most definitely defensible.
There's that. Then there's the legislation like the DMCA which criminalises things like DVD decoding on unlicensed devices.
Well, I'd have to assume that by buying the DVD, you enter into a license agreement, similar to a software license. If you don't like the terms of the agreement, then you have to stop supporting the agreement. As much as I hate the fact that playing DVDs is a major hassle or an small expense, we all have to play by their rules or stop giving them our money. As much as I'd like to see more freely available content, I do acknowledge that the transfer of information is so easy now that you almost have to have stricter controls. Imagine how easy it would be to copy copyrighted material if CSS wasn't used. When threats become more significant, countermeasures must as well. As a consumer, I don't like it, but you have to recognize that it's a necessary business decision.
They do more than uphold, they try everything they can to extend copyright and other law in ways that are detrimental to society. See the treaty discussed on slashdot earlier today which would allow border guards to take copies of people's private data stores in order to check for noncompliance. I would like some ethics from them. But this isn't about what I expect from them, it's about giving your electoral mandate to someone who aligns with their interests.
I agree, but I also think that we shouldn't be so trusting of politicians in general.
Straw man, and not one of my opinions.
It was an assumption on my part, but I'd still like to know what you think about this. If a media company can't control its content distribution, then what's the point? The whole point of a media company is to monetize content. The knee-jerk reaction by media companies was too harsh and I think they have suffered for it, but you can't blame them for protecting their established means of business. Letting them get cut to shreds by piracy isn't right. If their business model needs to change, then they should be allowed the time to do so.
Thanks, I have a good understanding of IP law, perhaps you ought to check up on it yourself if you feel the need to illustrate a copyright example by using patents.
It was just a quick example. I put this point in another post that was lambasting media companies' reliance on old assets. What would happen if Disney couldn't control Mickey Mouse. It could not only fact loss of an important revenue stream, but it could also face corruption of the brand it has spent decades building. I think it's irresponsible to say that companies need to set their own standards for how their content should illegally abused. That's one of the reasons for why the government is there, to regulate commerce to make sure that there is a b
Do you even understand how media companies work? What would happen to Disney if they couldn't control Mickey Mouse?
It's easy to blame companies for society's problems. Perhaps we should look to ourselves before looking entertainment companies that we don't have to give out money to.
What about the Democratic love affair with John McCain? It wasn't uncommon to hear Democrats talk about how much they liked him and how they would even possibly vote for him. Now that it's game time, it's interesting to listen to the silence.
I think people need to be careful about falling in love with politicians. To his credit, Obama is an excellent orator, but this can be dangerous as well. Just because he says things you want to here in such a way that makes you feel hopeful don't really mean much. You have to look at what people have done. Quite frankly, it worries me that he is running for the presidency at such a young age with such little experience on both a national and executive level. Ambition can be a good trait when kept in check, but dangerous when it is not.
That was my primary worry about Clinton since it appeared that she thought she deserved the nomination. I thought that Obama wouldn't be as bad, but at this point, I think that you can't afford to let your guard down.
I love the villianization companies such as Time Warner, who has the fiduciary responsibility to protect their assets, which in turn protects their employees and shareholders. I'd have to assume you reference their music and film divisions and how they "criminalise" people who illegally copy copyrighted material. If upholding copyright law and defending their property is "suppressive", "anti-progress", "anti-freedom", and "anti-privacy", then what do you expect from them? Close a up shop because you deem their business model to be "obsolete"? It's opinions like this that I find so disturbing. It seems as though most people don't understand the point of copyright law. It's to make sure that people know that they will be backed up, which in turn encourages innovation. If the pharmaceutical companies didn't have patent protection from the government, they would not be able to stay in business. Although this isn't quite the same as protection of things like music and film, the idea is similar. Why should a company spend all of the time promoting an artist, who are mutually bound by contracts, if you can just go download the music? Do I like how big business operates with regard to art? Not particularly, but artists need to make the change. Don't blame the companies for doing what they have the fiduciary responsibility of doing.
I'm all for free market capitalism, but I'm not so laissez-faire that I think anarchy is the way to go. Let the market decide if Time Warner's media component is the right business model going forward. Things tend to not change overnight, so don't be impatient. Some of the worst decisions are made with haste.
I have to agree. I think it's absurd that people expect elected officials to understand microscopic issues. The problem is when the think they know what they are talking about and they make laws that, while well intentioned, are extremely hard to execute. The more important thing is that they are able to let the experts take charge to determine feasible solutions that maximize a cost-benefit analysis.
I think this is just a pretty good example of how litigious our society is. The courts are more like a lottery, not a justice system.
This guy has been BROADCASTING his Social Security Number for a long time and it was finally compromised. That seems pretty good to me. Maybe this wouldn't have happened if he wasn't BROADCASTING his Social Security Number nationally and daring identity thieves to do their worst. For a normal person, I think this service would probably do a good job so long as you aren't giving everyone your Social Security Number.
The Experian story is interesting, but I think we need more information before making any judgments on that.
We seriously need tort reform in this country. That's the real story.
Hold the phone. I meant inbound use of Port 80. This means that if you want to run a little website (that would actually affect your bandwidth since you have to upload to users), you simply can't without specifying the port that you want to use. Sure, Port 8080 is a workaround, but come on. I pay for the service. Let me run a website with pictures for my family that hardly anyone is ever going to visit!
Perhaps if you hate their "monopoly" so much and there is money to be made in these rural markets, you should do something about it. Go build your own network and profit since Comcast is so clearly doing a disservice to those people.
Having any kind of utility is a privilege that an electric company, telephone company, or Comcast paid for themselves. It is not a right. If you don't like not having the amenities that centralized urban living offers, then do something about it. Move!
Disclosure: I am a CMCSA shareholder and will be working for CMCSA in June.
Be careful what you wish for. I had Verizon DSL in Germantown and my parents in Buckingham have it now. In Germantown, they had a habit of losing synchronization frequently at night. Apparently this may have been due to fault equipment, but I have no idea since I think I switched to Comcast in 2001. Right now my parents have Verizon DSL in Buckingham and it cuts out when you pick up the phone. How can they sell service like this? Also, Verizon blocks certain ports such as Port 80. I'd rather have a bandwidth cap that I will probably never have a problem than actual functionality restrictions.
I switched to Comcast and never looked back. In my experience, their service is phenomenal and I have no desire to switch.
Disclosure: I am a CMCSA shareholder and will being working for CMCSA in June.
Let me just be clear about my post here before it gets ruthlessly attacked. I wasn't taking a side in the ID debate or anything else as my point actually was meant to refer to scientists who discredited theories that eventually became accepted. I'm just saying that we should be calling out the arrogant scientists who refuse to listen to opposing viewpoints and their belittle others' with differing theories with condescending language.
I think this post makes the point. I'm pretty sure that throughout history, the scientific majority has constantly derided challengers as being idiotic, comical, and just plain wrong. Even though I love the site, just read Slashdot for a while and it becomes obvious. It's this intellectual arrogance that stifles intellectual creativity, which further impedes the strive towards truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Much like the unintended consequences of the ethanol disaster, people who want to go paperless to save the trees have to look at the non-trivial task of supplying energy needs to a data center. When you realize this, the importance of green IT becomes apparent. Whether or not global warming is indeed the threat that they say it is, developing energy solutions that don't rely on fossil fuels is imperative. Basically, we need to use more nuclear power!
What do you consider to be broadband? I'm surprised every time I see a company up the ante. Even before I started to work for an invest in these companies, I actually regarded their actions as more generous than necessary...
Disclosure: I am an employee and shareholder of Comcast.
No, but I bring up these points because I think they are valid. I've had Verizon DSL in three separate locations and I can tell you that they have nothing on Comcast.
Disclosure: I am an employee and shareholder of Comcast.
- "PowerBoost(r) makes fast even faster! PowerBoost(r) helps power downloads of large files like videos, music, and games at speeds up to 12 Mbps!"
This is absurd. PowerBoost does in fact work, but I doubt that it is designed to be able to work in every circumstance. What if you connect to a slow server? How can it even work then? Are you going to sue because the server can't serve fast enough? BitTorrent is peer-to-peer and considering most connections are asymmetrical to begin with, expecting PowerBoost to let you download really fast to begin with is unreasonable.Now, do I see a "boost" of speed when downloading videos, music, and games (legal ones) from BitTorrent? NO! I NEVER even get a good connection! And at the bottom of the flyer, in that long list of fine print, it says "PowerBoost(r) provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5MB of a file, respectively. So I don't even get PowerBoost for longer than a second! Theres one fraud.
"McAfee(r) Security Suite featuring a series of tools to help keep you, your family, and your home computers safe, protected, and virus-free. A $120 value."
So you got a year's subscription for free. I'm sure there's fine print that says that exactly.I have McAfee, provided by Comcast, installed on my Windows OS (I use Linux most of the time). Guess what? ANOTHER LIE! Sure, it's free now, but in a year EVERY DAMN time you turn your computer on, McAfee nags you to buy a $120 dollar subscription. MORE FRAUD!
And for their phone service: "Utilizes Comcast's own secure network, not the public Intedrnet, for secure VoIP phone service".
Quit being so sensationalist. Their claim is that they don't use the public internet for voice communications. This makes a man-in-the-middle attack that much harder as it would probably have to be an inside job. As for the NSA claim, it is purely conjecture. I'm also sure they don't claim that they secure their customers so much as to break the law by violating a court order.So your saying the NSA can't listen in? More fraud...
So 3 counts of fraud on ONE ad! Comcast are going to have a problem defending themselves this time...
Stop hating companies. If they really were making false or deceptive claims, the vulture lawyers would have tried to rake the company over for all that they are worth. If your position is right, it would be too easy!
Disclosure: I am an employee and shareholder of Comcast.
What's your point? Google Finance won't be executing your trades. It's just giving you a number, the stock's price quote.
This does have at least one good facet though. It's going to be easier (and less obvious to your employer) to monitor the market at work!
Assuming Google quotes NASDAQ directly, the difference is that Yahoo! quotes ECNs instead as the managing editor over at CNBC explains:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/24927068/site/14081545/
This has a wide range of implications, mainly how exchanges charge for their data. This will probably help NASDAQ to continue to put more pressure on the NYSE. It may be a good step though as I'd like to see the futures exchanges allow for their data services to be more freely available.
It also helps to empower the individual investor as the gap between the institutions and in the individuals closes. This can have unintended consequences though in terms of volatility as the retail money may get more fidgety with this more timely data. Either way, it should be interesting to watch this develop.
The third and fourth paragraphs read:
"According to court documents, Californian Michael Largent used an automated script to open 58,000 such accounts, collecting many thousands of these small payments into a few personal bank accounts.
Largent also performed the same trick with Google's Checkout service, cashing more than $8,000 alone from the service. " [emphasis added]
Am I (and the submitter) missing something?
I'd be careful to give the "left-wingers" such a pass. I think that this is more of a function of your perspective than what really goes on. Just look at what happened to Joe Lieberman. Overall though, I really dislike how dissenters within a party are viewed as turncoats. It seems as though a great majority of the problems in the parties are caused by dogmatic adherence to the party line!
Let me start off by saying that I am not here to mercilessly defense Bush. He's not perfect and I think he has his advantages and disadvantages. To blame him though for economic woes is both unwarranted and wrong.
The fact of the matter is that economies are cyclic. Both Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress of the 90's benefited greatly from both an upturn in the economy and the technology boom. To blame Bush for the economy at the beginning of his term is wrong as he and the rest of his administration has had to deal with both an economy that was slowing and the aftermath of 9/11.
We've actually been doing pretty well since the recovery of the technology bust and the rebuilt after 9/11, but the recent credit bust is another challenge. Likewise, it is not his fault as the bulk of the blame can be place squarely on both people irresponsibly taking loans and banks irresponsibly lending loans, both of which were facilitated by the Federal Reserve driving rates so low for as long as they did.
As for your point on food and energy, this is a mixed bag for Bush. Bush wants to get the drilling companies to work, but that is politically unfeasible and too unpopular in general. So we can't drill off of some of our coasts or in ANWR where we have plenty of oil and natural gas. This is a remedy to the energy problem that we have now, but people don't want it. He has also worked to push ethanol, which I think is a disaster. Corn-based ethanol is simply not viable because it doesn't really work from multiple perspectives. It's too hard to make from corn. Ethanol works so well in Brazil because they use sugarcane. Corn-based ethanol also takes food from the food supply for obvious reasons, causes farmers to plant corn instead of other crops, and then that drives up the cost of the other crops. This is a total mess and we need to do something about it.
If you want to cheer against the Republicans for this, don't bother. Both Clinton and Obama support corn-based ethanol. McCain is thankfully against it. Truthfully, I don't really have a problem with gasoline and diesel fuel being this high. I am able to afford it for the amount that I drive in and around Philadelphia. It's starting to get harder, but living in a city is just so much better because the amount of driving you need to do is drastically cut down. High fuel prices are fit punishments for decades of suburbanization and disregard of mass transit and freight systems like rail. Don't get me wrong, I love to drive, but we don't need to be so spread out. I do worry about how the high price of crude is going to squeeze people when the winter comes because of how expensive heat is going to be.
We can fix these problems though. The main issues are going to be whether or not we can fight a special interest groups and change our lifestyles. The reality is though that doing the right thing isn't easy typically. We need to make our choices better now so that we don't have bigger problems down the road.
Let me first say that I agree with you on many levels, probably more than I would be given credit for. I just think that it's too easy to blame companies when there are relatively simple solutions to many of the issues we face. Whether or not we have the inclination to resolve these issues is another matter entirely.
They have a wider view of what constitutes an asset and the lengths to which they should be able to go to protect them than a lot of people think is good for society. Is it ok for us to become a police state in order to protect their assets? Or do we draw the line somewhere?
I think that there should be a line that is drawn, but you can't blame a company for taking all steps necessary and allowed to protect its employees and shareholders. Why isn't the government drawing the line? That's their job. It's hard for a company to draw the line in the copyright arena because they would wind up taking out their own business objectives. As you reference in the next point, CSS is a annoying when dealing with DVDs. But when you consider you could otherwise make one-to-one copies of a DVD with no issue were CSS to not be used, I think that the company's position is most definitely defensible.
There's that. Then there's the legislation like the DMCA which criminalises things like DVD decoding on unlicensed devices.
Well, I'd have to assume that by buying the DVD, you enter into a license agreement, similar to a software license. If you don't like the terms of the agreement, then you have to stop supporting the agreement. As much as I hate the fact that playing DVDs is a major hassle or an small expense, we all have to play by their rules or stop giving them our money. As much as I'd like to see more freely available content, I do acknowledge that the transfer of information is so easy now that you almost have to have stricter controls. Imagine how easy it would be to copy copyrighted material if CSS wasn't used. When threats become more significant, countermeasures must as well. As a consumer, I don't like it, but you have to recognize that it's a necessary business decision.
They do more than uphold, they try everything they can to extend copyright and other law in ways that are detrimental to society. See the treaty discussed on slashdot earlier today which would allow border guards to take copies of people's private data stores in order to check for noncompliance. I would like some ethics from them. But this isn't about what I expect from them, it's about giving your electoral mandate to someone who aligns with their interests.
I agree, but I also think that we shouldn't be so trusting of politicians in general.
Straw man, and not one of my opinions.
It was an assumption on my part, but I'd still like to know what you think about this. If a media company can't control its content distribution, then what's the point? The whole point of a media company is to monetize content. The knee-jerk reaction by media companies was too harsh and I think they have suffered for it, but you can't blame them for protecting their established means of business. Letting them get cut to shreds by piracy isn't right. If their business model needs to change, then they should be allowed the time to do so.
Thanks, I have a good understanding of IP law, perhaps you ought to check up on it yourself if you feel the need to illustrate a copyright example by using patents.
It was just a quick example. I put this point in another post that was lambasting media companies' reliance on old assets. What would happen if Disney couldn't control Mickey Mouse. It could not only fact loss of an important revenue stream, but it could also face corruption of the brand it has spent decades building. I think it's irresponsible to say that companies need to set their own standards for how their content should illegally abused. That's one of the reasons for why the government is there, to regulate commerce to make sure that there is a b
Do you even understand how media companies work? What would happen to Disney if they couldn't control Mickey Mouse?
It's easy to blame companies for society's problems. Perhaps we should look to ourselves before looking entertainment companies that we don't have to give out money to.
I guess I am calling out Democrats to a certain extent, but I am curious what their stance is on this. Thank you.
What about the Democratic love affair with John McCain? It wasn't uncommon to hear Democrats talk about how much they liked him and how they would even possibly vote for him. Now that it's game time, it's interesting to listen to the silence.
I think people need to be careful about falling in love with politicians. To his credit, Obama is an excellent orator, but this can be dangerous as well. Just because he says things you want to here in such a way that makes you feel hopeful don't really mean much. You have to look at what people have done. Quite frankly, it worries me that he is running for the presidency at such a young age with such little experience on both a national and executive level. Ambition can be a good trait when kept in check, but dangerous when it is not.
That was my primary worry about Clinton since it appeared that she thought she deserved the nomination. I thought that Obama wouldn't be as bad, but at this point, I think that you can't afford to let your guard down.
I love the villianization companies such as Time Warner, who has the fiduciary responsibility to protect their assets, which in turn protects their employees and shareholders. I'd have to assume you reference their music and film divisions and how they "criminalise" people who illegally copy copyrighted material. If upholding copyright law and defending their property is "suppressive", "anti-progress", "anti-freedom", and "anti-privacy", then what do you expect from them? Close a up shop because you deem their business model to be "obsolete"? It's opinions like this that I find so disturbing. It seems as though most people don't understand the point of copyright law. It's to make sure that people know that they will be backed up, which in turn encourages innovation. If the pharmaceutical companies didn't have patent protection from the government, they would not be able to stay in business. Although this isn't quite the same as protection of things like music and film, the idea is similar. Why should a company spend all of the time promoting an artist, who are mutually bound by contracts, if you can just go download the music? Do I like how big business operates with regard to art? Not particularly, but artists need to make the change. Don't blame the companies for doing what they have the fiduciary responsibility of doing.
I'm all for free market capitalism, but I'm not so laissez-faire that I think anarchy is the way to go. Let the market decide if Time Warner's media component is the right business model going forward. Things tend to not change overnight, so don't be impatient. Some of the worst decisions are made with haste.
I have to agree. I think it's absurd that people expect elected officials to understand microscopic issues. The problem is when the think they know what they are talking about and they make laws that, while well intentioned, are extremely hard to execute. The more important thing is that they are able to let the experts take charge to determine feasible solutions that maximize a cost-benefit analysis.
Well, if this is the case, that's another thing entirely.
I think this is just a pretty good example of how litigious our society is. The courts are more like a lottery, not a justice system.
This guy has been BROADCASTING his Social Security Number for a long time and it was finally compromised. That seems pretty good to me. Maybe this wouldn't have happened if he wasn't BROADCASTING his Social Security Number nationally and daring identity thieves to do their worst. For a normal person, I think this service would probably do a good job so long as you aren't giving everyone your Social Security Number.
The Experian story is interesting, but I think we need more information before making any judgments on that.
We seriously need tort reform in this country. That's the real story.
Hold the phone. I meant inbound use of Port 80. This means that if you want to run a little website (that would actually affect your bandwidth since you have to upload to users), you simply can't without specifying the port that you want to use. Sure, Port 8080 is a workaround, but come on. I pay for the service. Let me run a website with pictures for my family that hardly anyone is ever going to visit!
Perhaps if you hate their "monopoly" so much and there is money to be made in these rural markets, you should do something about it. Go build your own network and profit since Comcast is so clearly doing a disservice to those people.
Having any kind of utility is a privilege that an electric company, telephone company, or Comcast paid for themselves. It is not a right. If you don't like not having the amenities that centralized urban living offers, then do something about it. Move!
Disclosure: I am a CMCSA shareholder and will be working for CMCSA in June.
Be careful what you wish for. I had Verizon DSL in Germantown and my parents in Buckingham have it now. In Germantown, they had a habit of losing synchronization frequently at night. Apparently this may have been due to fault equipment, but I have no idea since I think I switched to Comcast in 2001. Right now my parents have Verizon DSL in Buckingham and it cuts out when you pick up the phone. How can they sell service like this? Also, Verizon blocks certain ports such as Port 80. I'd rather have a bandwidth cap that I will probably never have a problem than actual functionality restrictions.
I switched to Comcast and never looked back. In my experience, their service is phenomenal and I have no desire to switch.
Disclosure: I am a CMCSA shareholder and will being working for CMCSA in June.
Let me just be clear about my post here before it gets ruthlessly attacked. I wasn't taking a side in the ID debate or anything else as my point actually was meant to refer to scientists who discredited theories that eventually became accepted. I'm just saying that we should be calling out the arrogant scientists who refuse to listen to opposing viewpoints and their belittle others' with differing theories with condescending language.
I think this post makes the point. I'm pretty sure that throughout history, the scientific majority has constantly derided challengers as being idiotic, comical, and just plain wrong. Even though I love the site, just read Slashdot for a while and it becomes obvious. It's this intellectual arrogance that stifles intellectual creativity, which further impedes the strive towards truth.