I live in Seattle and fully disagree with your comments. TCI has just upgraded their network (at least in Ballard, i'm sure in many other places) so now I get about twice as many channels and am eligable for a cable modem.
I've had USWorst DSL for a few months and it works great. I get 640kbps up/270kbps down for $40 (soon to be $30) a month + $20 for my isp. Its true that you have to be ~15000 feet from the CO, but this is just a limitation of DSL and nothing bad about the phone company.
Covad also offers service in the Seattle area. They have many isps to choose from and a large coverage area. They can force USWorst to give you dry copper and offer iDSL (DSL over IDSN) if you are over 15000 feet away from the CO.
Basically it seems that anywhere in the city you should be able to get some sort of broadband connection for not much money.
I have no idea. It would be kinda of cool to be able to extradite them. But if they are unlucky and are in the US, I have the right to sue them for $500 for each piece of spam.
|This idea is complete bs. It's just going to create added work for authors and violates freedom of the press.
Maybe you didn't even bother read it properly because I never did say all sites were subject to these standards. I was refering to the authors that this would affect and you shouldn't of assumed that I was talking about everyone.
I'm not saying that the government dosen't have the right to make their pages accesible. But forcing companies that do business with the government (and there are a lot of them) shouldn't have to do this. Just because they do do business with the government dosen't mean that their pages are filled with information about the government. If they only forced government sites to do this, disabled people could still have access to their government.
This idea is complete bs. It's just going to create added work for authors and violates freedom of the press. You have the right to publish whatever you want and the government shouldn't tell you what format you need to use.
Television isn't even held to these standards even though it is much wider used. The government dosen't force the use of closed captioning and thats how it should be.
And to the idea that this will standardize HTML and put an end to the "This page is best viewed with" crap is also bs. All the article talked about is making disabled access more friendly. All of the unlucky webmasters are just going to have to add text to pictures and audio. It never said that the pages had to comply 100% to w3c standards. Even if 100% w3c compliance was forced, I'm sure that I'd still see all of the best viewed with crap.
I was messing around with the demo last night and was able to get it to play some Japanese games. One of the games was PAL and bleem actually ran it in widescreen mode.
Geez, if I burned about 1000 cds and took them to my computer upstairs, my LAN would have a bandwith of 640MB x 1000 = 640GB / 10 secs of walking = 64GB/sec. There would be no need to factor in burning and reading time because even if I transfered them over fiber, I would still have to read all of the cds to send the on one comp and burn all the cds to save the data on one comp.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in Seattle and fully disagree with your comments. TCI has just upgraded their network (at least in Ballard, i'm sure in many other places) so now I get about twice as many channels and am eligable for a cable modem.
I've had USWorst DSL for a few months and it works great. I get 640kbps up/270kbps down for $40 (soon to be $30) a month + $20 for my isp. Its true that you have to be ~15000 feet from the CO, but this is just a limitation of DSL and nothing bad about the phone company.
Covad also offers service in the Seattle area. They have many isps to choose from and a large coverage area. They can force USWorst to give you dry copper and offer iDSL (DSL over IDSN) if you are over 15000 feet away from the CO.
Basically it seems that anywhere in the city you should be able to get some sort of broadband connection for not much money.
I have no idea. It would be kinda of cool to be able to extradite them. But if they are unlucky and are in the US, I have the right to sue them for $500 for each piece of spam.
|This idea is complete bs. It's just going to create added work for authors and violates freedom of the press.
Maybe you didn't even bother read it properly because I never did say all sites were subject to these standards. I was refering to the authors that this would affect and you shouldn't of assumed that I was talking about everyone.
I'm not saying that the government dosen't have the right to make their pages accesible. But forcing companies that do business with the government (and there are a lot of them) shouldn't have to do this. Just because they do do business with the government dosen't mean that their pages are filled with information about the government. If they only forced government sites to do this, disabled people could still have access to their government.
This idea is complete bs. It's just going to create added work for authors and violates freedom of the press. You have the right to publish whatever you want and the government shouldn't tell you what format you need to use.
Television isn't even held to these standards even though it is much wider used. The government dosen't force the use of closed captioning and thats how it should be.
And to the idea that this will standardize HTML and put an end to the "This page is best viewed with" crap is also bs. All the article talked about is making disabled access more friendly. All of the unlucky webmasters are just going to have to add text to pictures and audio. It never said that the pages had to comply 100% to w3c standards. Even if 100% w3c compliance was forced, I'm sure that I'd still see all of the best viewed with crap.
I was messing around with the demo last night and was able to get it to play some Japanese games. One of the games was PAL and bleem actually ran it in widescreen mode.
Geez, if I burned about 1000 cds and took them to my computer upstairs, my LAN would have a bandwith of 640MB x 1000 = 640GB / 10 secs of walking = 64GB/sec. There would be no need to factor in burning and reading time because even if I transfered them over fiber, I would still have to read all of the cds to send the on one comp and burn all the cds to save the data on one comp.