Notice how this NY Times articles is careful to associate each of this poisonous trio of ID Theft-ChildPorn-Terrorism with...WiFi.
And what a coincidence that just as this article is being published, that all over America, state governments are trying to decide whether to outlaw municipal wifi. Of course, this drive to outlaw municipal wifi is in NO WAY connected to this article that tends to associate wifi with THEFT, CHILD PORN, and TERRORISM. And in no way would the telco and cable TV lobbies that stand to lose BILLIONS (if municipal wifi takes off) try to get the NY Times to help make wifi look bad.
No way the media would do that! They have integrity. They would never sell out to the telco-cableTV lobby like that. Would they?
OK, Anonymous Coward, let's get it on! (BTW, are you are a lobbyist for the telco/cable industry? Is that why you post anonymously?)
you wrote: Prove it. You always make these unfounded claims with nothing to back it up.
I cannot PROVE it. I do not have a complete audio-video record of every waking moment of everyone who is in control of the NY Times. But I don't HAVE to prove it. All I have to do is show that there is a LIKELIHOOD that the this article and others are biased in favor of established industry players. Really, it should be obvious to anyone who is unbiased.
You can't even show that there is a pattern of industry favortism in the NY Times' articles, but even if I showed you numerous articles that praised wireless access, you'd try to claim (again, with no proof) its just another conspiracy to make people think that they aren't in cahoots.
Oh, so, in order to point out that this article unquestioningly cites opinions that demonize wifi, I have to FIRST be able to go back through the archives and show a pattern? Look, the evidence is right in front of us. We ALL know that established corporate lobbies want to shut competition. We ALL know that they manipulate the media to do so. With that in mind, why, oh, WHY does this article NOT take that into account? Why doesn't the reporter acknowledge the huge industtry that stands to profit from demonizing wifi as this article does? Isn't that what fair journalism is all about?
In short, there is nothing NY Times can do to be good in your eyes unless they say exactly what fits your own socialist agenda.
I am not a socialist. Period. I am a Leftist. But Rush Limbaugh and the Wall St Journal did not provide you with the information to make that distinction, did they? How unfortunate for you...
Anything that deviates from this must be some sort of Republican conspiracy to consolidate corporations and oppress the people.
The Democrats are only marginally better then the Republicans.
Notice that this NY Times article quotes "anonymous" government sources in their attempt to associate wifi with terrorism. This is the typical attempt to use terrorism to demonize a competitor. THe telcos and cable companies lobbies almost certainly paid off someone at the NY Times to get them to write this article. Now they will use this article when thieir lobbyists meet with state governments trying to get them to pass laws that make municipal wifi illegal. This is just the first step in manufacturing consent for shutting down cheap competition. This is American "free market" capitalism in action. Really, it is corporate socialism--socialism for the big corporations and their billionaires; free market cpapitalism for all of us peons. Or, rather, feudalism for us, as we are essentially being sold as consumers to the telcos and cable companies.
Notice that this article goes out of its way to associate the following practices with wifi: --theft --child porn --terrorism
And the article here never even questions whether associating these practices with wifi could be a subterfuge by the telcos and cable companies to demonizes wifi so as to be able to outlaw municipal wifi through legislation, which is what they are afraid of, as that will cause them to cut their broadband prices.
This whole article is a propaganda piece, bought and paid for by the vested interests, such as telcos and cable companies.
What a sham is the NY Times. Just another cog in the CorpGovMedia propaganda machine...
Notice that the NY Times NEVER questions whether there could be an ulterior motive to associating wifi with theft, child porn, and terrorism. This TImes articles is a propaganda piece aimed to associating wifi with Bad Things. This propaganda piece is likely bought and paid for by the telcos and cable lobbies who are using propaganda like this to shut dowm possible competition.
If the big online print media outlets band together and start charging for access, that would give an opening to small time Internet upstarts, which would likely just be meatspace extensions of major forums and blogs, like slashdot, fark, democraticunderground, freerepublic, etc. They would pay indie reporters to do stories by showing up at local events with their digital cameras. They could not pay much, but they could pay SOME small fee. This would be paid out of ad revenue generated from the sites.
IANAL, however, this seems like something that Harvard should get sued over. You read something on a bulletin board, telling you a URL and telling you to type in your user name and password, and see whether you were accepted, and because of that, you get rejected? No Fucking Way!
But, even though I think they should get sued, likely no one will, because all these applicants are likely top of the line, with admissions to other top B schools, and this lawsuit could mess up their careers....
What is really important about wifi is that it will give a really low cost alternative to basic broadband service. Especially when if municipal wifi is implemented. Once there broadband competition is there, it will drive down dsl and cable and phone prices.
So, it doesn't have to replace what we already have--all we need from it is to break the chokehold the big telcos and cable companies have on broadband.
once you get licenses in the picture, you disempower the smaller entities and empower the larger entities. And I think that most Americans are starting to see that whenever larger entities gain power over small entities and citizens, then things start to go sour...
This cell damage shit just keeps coming up. I have to wonder when it is going to impact cell phone purchases....but it does not seem to have done that yet.
I wonder if there are any studies on wifi/wimax antennas. I would not think they would have any effect...
Is it cost effective to become a mini-Vonage?
on
Build Your Own PBX
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
So, this is a PBX. So, I can hook this hardware up to the telco and take incoming calls from clients anywhere in the world over IP and make a call for them to a telco phone number, and let them talk over my PBX, correct?
OK, but what I do not know is what kind of connection to the telco do I need to do this? Can I do it using my standard phone connection? I would think you need multiple lines outgoing to the telco POTS (plain old telephone system), correct? So, if I have N lines to the telco, I can handle a max of N calls from clients on my IP to Telco PBX, correct?
So, would this be cost effective as a business model? Is a certain number of lines required, etc?
I have heard that some leftwing american online activists have been persecuted by rightwing Limbaugh-programmed protofascists who have, among other actions, stalked them online, found out details of their personal life, and contacted their employers, trying to get them fired. One such protofascist found a purported photo of me online and posted it as part of a response to one of my posts here on Slashdot. I have no doubt that if the rightwingbots here on Slashdot could find out where I work, they would persecute me there, too.
You say democracy is inferior to the market because in a democracy your vote does not count if you lose. Well, in the market, there is property. That is the essence of the market. However, most property in the market is jointly owned. And such property is controlled through VOTING. Ever heard of shareholders or owners VOTING? Happens all the time with publicly and privately owned entities. From corporations that sell their stock on the NYSE to condo homeowners' associations. Many such entities are organized to control jointly owned property. And guess what? Just as in democracy, there are winners and losers in such market-oriented VOTING procedures. You need to grow up and realize that your libertarian utopia is just a ideological canard promoted by powerful institutions in order to ideologically ensnare the naive. You are one of these naive, just as I used to be. Read. Learn. You can start here
Slashdot Mirror
Notice how this NY Times articles is careful to associate each of this poisonous trio of ID Theft-ChildPorn-Terrorism with...WiFi.
And what a coincidence that just as this article is being published, that all over America, state governments are trying to decide whether to outlaw municipal wifi. Of course, this drive to outlaw municipal wifi is in NO WAY connected to this article that tends to associate wifi with THEFT, CHILD PORN, and TERRORISM. And in no way would the telco and cable TV lobbies that stand to lose BILLIONS (if municipal wifi takes off) try to get the NY Times to help make wifi look bad.
No way the media would do that! They have integrity. They would never sell out to the telco-cableTV lobby like that.
Would they?
OK, Anonymous Coward, let's get it on! (BTW, are you are a lobbyist for the telco/cable industry? Is that why you post anonymously?)
you wrote:
Prove it. You always make these unfounded claims with nothing to back it up.
I cannot PROVE it. I do not have a complete audio-video record of every waking moment of everyone who is in control of the NY Times. But I don't HAVE to prove it. All I have to do is show that there is a LIKELIHOOD that the this article and others are biased in favor of established industry players. Really, it should be obvious to anyone who is unbiased.
You can't even show that there is a pattern of industry favortism in the NY Times' articles, but even if I showed you numerous articles that praised wireless access, you'd try to claim (again, with no proof) its just another conspiracy to make people think that they aren't in cahoots.
Oh, so, in order to point out that this article unquestioningly cites opinions that demonize wifi, I have to FIRST be able to go back through the archives and show a pattern? Look, the evidence is right in front of us. We ALL know that established corporate lobbies want to shut competition. We ALL know that they manipulate the media to do so. With that in mind, why, oh, WHY does this article NOT take that into account? Why doesn't the reporter acknowledge the huge industtry that stands to profit from demonizing wifi as this article does? Isn't that what fair journalism is all about?
In short, there is nothing NY Times can do to be good in your eyes unless they say exactly what fits your own socialist agenda.
I am not a socialist. Period. I am a Leftist. But Rush Limbaugh and the Wall St Journal did not provide you with the information to make that distinction, did they? How unfortunate for you...
Anything that deviates from this must be some sort of Republican conspiracy to consolidate corporations and oppress the people.
The Democrats are only marginally better then the Republicans.
Notice that this NY Times article quotes "anonymous" government sources in their attempt to associate wifi with terrorism. This is the typical attempt to use terrorism to demonize a competitor. THe telcos and cable companies lobbies almost certainly paid off someone at the NY Times to get them to write this article. Now they will use this article when thieir lobbyists meet with state governments trying to get them to pass laws that make municipal wifi illegal. This is just the first step in manufacturing consent for shutting down cheap competition. This is American "free market" capitalism in action. Really, it is corporate socialism--socialism for the big corporations and their billionaires; free market cpapitalism for all of us peons. Or, rather, feudalism for us, as we are essentially being sold as consumers to the telcos and cable companies.
Notice that this article goes out of its way to associate the following practices with wifi:
--theft
--child porn
--terrorism
And the article here never even questions whether associating these practices with wifi could be a subterfuge by the telcos and cable companies to demonizes wifi so as to be able to outlaw municipal wifi through legislation, which is what they are afraid of, as that will cause them to cut their broadband prices.
This whole article is a propaganda piece, bought and paid for by the vested interests, such as telcos and cable companies.
What a sham is the NY Times. Just another cog in the CorpGovMedia propaganda machine...
Notice that the NY Times NEVER questions whether there could be an ulterior motive to associating wifi with theft, child porn, and terrorism. This TImes articles is a propaganda piece aimed to associating wifi with Bad Things. This propaganda piece is likely bought and paid for by the telcos and cable lobbies who are using propaganda like this to shut dowm possible competition.
They would not DARE do this.
But we do not have control of our politicians, our public servants. Why not?
wait'll you get your lips around a woman's nipple....and then, with your tongue, you feel chest hairs around the nipple....
...never mind... /emily latella
Yeah, it'll happen to ya. Oh, wait, I'm talking to a slashdot troll...
If the big online print media outlets band together and start charging for access, that would give an opening to small time Internet upstarts, which would likely just be meatspace extensions of major forums and blogs, like slashdot, fark, democraticunderground, freerepublic, etc. They would pay indie reporters to do stories by showing up at local events with their digital cameras. They could not pay much, but they could pay SOME small fee. This would be paid out of ad revenue generated from the sites.
Yep, the entertainment lobbyists are paying off the media to "manufacture" consent for a crooked kangaroo court to rape the p2p services.
If they pay to have enough lying, crooked twisted articles in the media, when they fuck them over in court, the public outcry will be muted.
actually a prestigious Australian law firm put out an article on the case saying that the law was essentially on Kazaa's side
Thanks for clueing us in, Doc Ruby. It is amazing that even here on slashdot, so many techies seem so clueless as to the real deal....
Whattaya bet there will be ALL KINDS of huge industries lined up to stop that sort of set-up you describe?
I note that mcnamee admits that he actually owns a part of Akimbo indirectly. I wonder of Andreasson was PAID for his comments here....
Yes, Houston is indeed looking at it. Dwight Silverman, tech writer for the Chron has written a column on it.
I kin hardly wait to dump both DSL AND phone by SBC and go VOIP over wifi....
IANAL, however, this seems like something that Harvard should get sued over. You read something on a bulletin board, telling you a URL and telling you to type in your user name and password, and see whether you were accepted, and because of that, you get rejected? No Fucking Way!
But, even though I think they should get sued, likely no one will, because all these applicants are likely top of the line, with admissions to other top B schools, and this lawsuit could mess up their careers....
What is really important about wifi is that it will give a really low cost alternative to basic broadband service. Especially when if municipal wifi is implemented.
Once there broadband competition is there, it will drive down dsl and cable and phone prices.
So, it doesn't have to replace what we already have--all we need from it is to break the chokehold the big telcos and cable companies have on broadband.
Your first comment, too! Weighing in on wireless networking, too. Interesting....welcome to /.
once you get licenses in the picture, you disempower the smaller entities and empower the larger entities. And I think that most Americans are starting to see that whenever larger entities gain power over small entities and citizens, then things start to go sour...
You would be better off with many other degrees. CS is now taught as a major part of most other science/engineering degrees.
This cell damage shit just keeps coming up. I have to wonder when it is going to impact cell phone purchases....but it does not seem to have done that yet.
I wonder if there are any studies on wifi/wimax antennas. I would not think they would have any effect...
So, this is a PBX. So, I can hook this hardware up to the telco and take incoming calls from clients anywhere in the world over IP and make a call for them to a telco phone number, and let them talk over my PBX, correct?
OK, but what I do not know is what kind of connection to the telco do I need to do this? Can I do it using my standard phone connection? I would think you need multiple lines outgoing to the telco POTS (plain old telephone system), correct? So, if I have N lines to the telco, I can handle a max of N calls from clients on my IP to Telco PBX, correct?
So, would this be cost effective as a business model? Is a certain number of lines required, etc?
TIA
I have heard that some leftwing american online activists have been persecuted by rightwing Limbaugh-programmed protofascists who have, among other actions, stalked them online, found out details of their personal life, and contacted their employers, trying to get them fired. One such protofascist found a purported photo of me online and posted it as part of a response to one of my posts here on Slashdot. I have no doubt that if the rightwingbots here on Slashdot could find out where I work, they would persecute me there, too.
You say democracy is inferior to the market because in a democracy your vote does not count if you lose. Well, in the market, there is property. That is the essence of the market. However, most property in the market is jointly owned. And such property is controlled through VOTING. Ever heard of shareholders or owners VOTING? Happens all the time with publicly and privately owned entities. From corporations that sell their stock on the NYSE to condo homeowners' associations. Many such entities are organized to control jointly owned property. And guess what? Just as in democracy, there are winners and losers in such market-oriented VOTING procedures. You need to grow up and realize that your libertarian utopia is just a ideological canard promoted by powerful institutions in order to ideologically ensnare the naive. You are one of these naive, just as I used to be. Read. Learn. You can start here
I have heard rumors that shareholders can vote. Guess what? I have also heard rumors that sometimes some shareholders don't get what they want!
2 of the 5 FCC members are Demcrats. 3 are Republicans.