There shouldn't be any screening on domestic flights, just as there's no screening if I drive my car cross-country (and then drive it into a Federal Reserve and blow it up). We have to maintain at least SOME of our rights, including the right to travel wherever we wish internal to the U.S. border.
Never mind. It appears AT&T didn't obey the rules:
"In late 2008, the FCC required that providers certify that callers are eligible for the program by verifying the userâ(TM)s name and mailing address before issuing a 10-digit telephone number, according to the lawsuit. AT&T implemented a plan that mailed postcards to the addresses of users. Those who returned the card received a 10- digit number.
"Between April 2009 and September 2009, AT&T had registered just 20 percent of its existing users. AT&T managers were concerned they would fall short of company projections for program minutes and related revenue, according to the lawsuit. "We are expecting a serious decline in [internet relay] traffic because fraud will go to zero (at least temporarily) and we havenâ(TM)t registered nearly enough customers to pick up the slack," Burt Bossi, a manager of AT&Tâ(TM)s technical team.
Sounds like deliberate fraud to me. But then that is standard practive for government & government-paid contractors.:-|
"The case is Lyttle v. AT&T Communications of Pennsylvania." Who is Lyttle and why is is being prosecuted in Pittsburgh?
I can't help wondering if this is really AT&T's fault? They were tasked to provide this service by the government. Were they then supposed to filter-out the overseas hearing-impaired? Doesn't that violate the Common Carrier requirement that phone calls not be monitored for content or restricted? (ponder). I'm curious to see how this turns-out.
According to the Supreme Court it could be 1000 years and still be constitutional. That is why Jefferson advised Madison to include a fixed number of years in the Bill of Rights -- that no monopoly should last longer than an author's lifetime.
(And once again Jefferson demonstrated an uncanny ability to predict future events... that the monopoly for artists/media companies would be extended to insanely long terms.)
We need to take down these terrorists, and if that means ignoring the Bill of Rights and throwing Americans into concentration camps, like we did in WW2, then so be it. As Santorum said, "We must be united in this war. We cannot allow any criticism."
P.S. The price premium on Blurays reminds me of the price premium on CDs. Cassettes cost $8-9 while CDs cost $12 minimum. Now we're seeing the same thing with DVDs versus BDs.
It was eventually discovered (circa 2001) that the companies had formed an illegal cartel to collude with one another & keep CDs at $12, and to cutoff sellers like Walmart if they sold for less than that. The punishment against the record companies was to return $25 to any customer that requested a refund, to compensate them for having been overcharged.
I view DVDs/Blurays as a convenient backup for my media. (DVD-Rs self-erase and HDDs stop spinning eventually.)
And yes companies are "forced" to lower their prices because of pressure from the customers (the "invisible hand"). If we think $20 for a Bluray is outrageous, we'll buy it somewhere else (like the DVD for $5). That forces companies to lower their Bluray prices to remain competitive.
The difference between a $500,000 city home versus a $150,000 suburb home will buy a LOT of gasoline for the daily commute. I'll stick with the suburb.
Also I've frequently heard that the U.S. only has enough oil under the ground to survive 60 days w/o outside imports, and then the wells will be dry. We really don't have the ability to become independent (despite what many politicians believe).
I view DVDs/Blurays as a convenient backup for my media. (DVD-Rs self-erase and HDDs stop spinning eventually.)
>>>A Blu-ray player may well be $42, but the accompanying 1080p TV and speaker system are considerably more >>> You don't need an HDTV. I have an old standard-def CRT, and even there you can see a marked improvement in Bluray video quality (no more DVD artifacts/mosquitos/blocking).
And frankly I'm surprised you don't have a speaker system. Even in the days of VHS and Laserdisc, buying a 5.1 surround system was worthwhile because it improved the movie experience. I've had mine since 1997.
Probably the cops will take this opportunity to arrest a few people for various "crimes" like looking at nude images ("This website may say the girl is 18, but she LOOKS like a child to me. That's a crime in Australia") or downloading movies/songs or whatever else they see you doing on your Wifi internet.
>>>Is it just me, or is it that if someone doesn't like what you're doing, they don't care if the charges stick so long as they get to hurt you financially?
This is the preferred method used in Russia. Accuse an anti-government or anti-Putin website of copyright infringement (unlicensed software), grab all the computers, and then shut them down for a year. At the end of the year they say, "Oh you're not guilty" and return the equipment but it's too late by then. It's interesting to see the U.S. is now using the Russian method.
This kind of thing wouldn't work with the "right wing" of the U.S. That's because these types of laws end-up targeting people with pocket Constitutions and Campaign for Liberty bumper stickers. I'm amazed that Sarkozy's proposal would work with France's right wing.
My company uses Firefox as its default browser. And they are extremely anal-retentive about security (you can't insert a USB or floppy without IT taking it & scanning it to make sure you didn't steal anything). Apparently they think open-source is safe.
Because it is. As long as it's from a known-safe source (and Netscape/Mozilla certainly fits the bill). Your IT guy is just a brainwashed Microsoft lackey if he thought IE6 was safer than Firefox 4. Similar to that teacher who flipped-out & punished a kid who was making copies of Linux CDs for classmates.
Yes, Microsoft's and Apple's bottom lines will be decimated by the loss of revenues from lower sales of [Microsoft Office, Microsoft Security, Silverlight, Printshop, Flux, iWork, etc].
"Open source software is often less polished than its proprietary alternatives; version proliferation and poor usability are two often-reported problems [Nichols and Twidale, 2003,Krishnamurthy, 2005,Viorres et al., 2007]. Highly-paid employees, like knowledge workers, may argue that the fit of the OSS [Thompson et al., 1991], the service quality it offers [DeLone and McLean, 2003], or the perceived behavioral control they have over it [Ajzen, 1991] is worse than that of its proprietary alternative. The key factors for resisting such change can be classified into people-oriented, system-oriented, and interaction theories [Jiang et al., 2000]. As the cost of the software used by highly productive workers forms a small percentage of their total employment cost and the software's quality reflects a lot on their productivity, spending on industry-standard proprietary software may be a rational decision. Consequently, we could expect that the relative advantage of OSS viewed as an innovation [Moore and Benbasat, 1991,Rogers, 2003] will be marginal. As an example, traders with seven figure incomes are unlikely to skimp on the operating system running on their PCs.
--> "Conversely, in Fortune 1000 companies with numerous but less productive employees adoption of cheaper though less polished OSS can offer significant cost advantages, and therefore management can easier mandate its use. For instance, we can easily imagine the cost savings associated with thousands of service desks running Linux and the Thunderbird mail client."
I think this is the best way to convert people to OSS. Start slowly by showing them how can run free, non-Microsoft, non-Apple software. Then after a year or two, transition them to Linux.
And even if they never abandon Windows or MacOS, they're still hurting those corporations by not buying their major products, and using free altenatives instead.
The creditors took his storage shed. That left him with nothing but his house (mostly empty). Of course he could have sold his house, paid off his cards, and then lived in an apartment. But some people don't want to give-up the house. (We're seeing that right now with people unable to pay their mortgages but refusing to leave.)
Oh I see. You're one of those who think Clinton and Obama are angels on earth. I suspected. In reality they are no better than the Republicans (puppets of their corporate funders). Especially Obama who I think is a pro-war, pro-corporatist neocon.
Slashdot Mirror
There shouldn't be any screening on domestic flights, just as there's no screening if I drive my car cross-country (and then drive it into a Federal Reserve and blow it up). We have to maintain at least SOME of our rights, including the right to travel wherever we wish internal to the U.S. border.
You can't have my password no more.....
Never mind. It appears AT&T didn't obey the rules:
"In late 2008, the FCC required that providers certify that callers are eligible for the program by verifying the userâ(TM)s name and mailing address before issuing a 10-digit telephone number, according to the lawsuit. AT&T implemented a plan that mailed postcards to the addresses of users. Those who returned the card received a 10- digit number.
"Between April 2009 and September 2009, AT&T had registered just 20 percent of its existing users. AT&T managers were concerned they would fall short of company projections for program minutes and related revenue, according to the lawsuit. "We are expecting a serious decline in [internet relay] traffic because fraud will go to zero (at least temporarily) and we havenâ(TM)t registered nearly enough customers to pick up the slack," Burt Bossi, a manager of AT&Tâ(TM)s technical team.
Sounds like deliberate fraud to me. :-|
But then that is standard practive for
government & government-paid contractors.
"The case is Lyttle v. AT&T Communications of Pennsylvania." Who is Lyttle and why is is being prosecuted in Pittsburgh?
Don't be an ATT customer.
I can't help wondering if this is really AT&T's fault? They were tasked to provide this service by the government. Were they then supposed to filter-out the overseas hearing-impaired? Doesn't that violate the Common Carrier requirement that phone calls not be monitored for content or restricted? (ponder). I'm curious to see how this turns-out.
According to the Supreme Court it could be 1000 years and still be constitutional. That is why Jefferson advised Madison to include a fixed number of years in the Bill of Rights -- that no monopoly should last longer than an author's lifetime.
(And once again Jefferson demonstrated an uncanny ability to predict future events... that the monopoly for artists/media companies would be extended to insanely long terms.)
an early 2007 debate. He was telling Congressman Paul that he should be quiet (Paul is pro-defense but against preemptive wars of aggression).
Stopped for doing what? Traveling? Is that now illegal too? (Oh yes of course it is; you can't fly domestically without the SA's permission.)
We need to take down these terrorists, and if that means ignoring the Bill of Rights and throwing Americans into concentration camps, like we did in WW2, then so be it. As Santorum said, "We must be united in this war. We cannot allow any criticism."
P.S. The price premium on Blurays reminds me of the price premium on CDs. Cassettes cost $8-9 while CDs cost $12 minimum. Now we're seeing the same thing with DVDs versus BDs.
It was eventually discovered (circa 2001) that the companies had formed an illegal cartel to collude with one another & keep CDs at $12, and to cutoff sellers like Walmart if they sold for less than that. The punishment against the record companies was to return $25 to any customer that requested a refund, to compensate them for having been overcharged.
I view DVDs/Blurays as a convenient backup for my media.
(DVD-Rs self-erase and HDDs stop spinning eventually.)
And yes companies are "forced" to lower their prices because of pressure from the customers (the "invisible hand"). If we think $20 for a Bluray is outrageous, we'll buy it somewhere else (like the DVD for $5). That forces companies to lower their Bluray prices to remain competitive.
The difference between a $500,000 city home versus a $150,000 suburb home will buy a LOT of gasoline for the daily commute. I'll stick with the suburb.
Also I've frequently heard that the U.S. only has enough oil under the ground to survive 60 days w/o outside imports, and then the wells will be dry. We really don't have the ability to become independent (despite what many politicians believe).
Sounds like the women were doing all the work.
LOL
I view DVDs/Blurays as a convenient backup for my media.
(DVD-Rs self-erase and HDDs stop spinning eventually.)
>>>A Blu-ray player may well be $42, but the accompanying 1080p TV and speaker system are considerably more
>>>
You don't need an HDTV. I have an old standard-def CRT, and even there you can see a marked improvement in Bluray video quality (no more DVD artifacts/mosquitos/blocking).
And frankly I'm surprised you don't have a speaker system. Even in the days of VHS and Laserdisc, buying a 5.1 surround system was worthwhile because it improved the movie experience. I've had mine since 1997.
I had a woman boss who could chat-up a storm, but I wasn't getting any work done during that ~3 hours wasted per week.
On the other hand she did get me a promotion (+$5000 more per year). I doubt my old male boss would have bothered.
There are pros and cons.
Probably the cops will take this opportunity to arrest a few people for various "crimes" like looking at nude images ("This website may say the girl is 18, but she LOOKS like a child to me. That's a crime in Australia") or downloading movies/songs or whatever else they see you doing on your Wifi internet.
>>>Is it just me, or is it that if someone doesn't like what you're doing, they don't care if the charges stick so long as they get to hurt you financially?
This is the preferred method used in Russia. Accuse an anti-government or anti-Putin website of copyright infringement (unlicensed software), grab all the computers, and then shut them down for a year. At the end of the year they say, "Oh you're not guilty" and return the equipment but it's too late by then. It's interesting to see the U.S. is now using the Russian method.
This kind of thing wouldn't work with the "right wing" of the U.S. That's because these types of laws end-up targeting people with pocket Constitutions and Campaign for Liberty bumper stickers. I'm amazed that Sarkozy's proposal would work with France's right wing.
My company uses Firefox as its default browser. And they are extremely anal-retentive about security (you can't insert a USB or floppy without IT taking it & scanning it to make sure you didn't steal anything). Apparently they think open-source is safe.
Because it is. As long as it's from a known-safe source (and Netscape/Mozilla certainly fits the bill). Your IT guy is just a brainwashed Microsoft lackey if he thought IE6 was safer than Firefox 4. Similar to that teacher who flipped-out & punished a kid who was making copies of Linux CDs for classmates.
Weakening the duopoly is always a positive for the customer. (More choices in the future.)
>>>It was a joke
Oh.
Yes, Microsoft's and Apple's bottom lines will be decimated by the loss of revenues from lower sales of [Microsoft Office, Microsoft Security, Silverlight, Printshop, Flux, iWork, etc].
Fixed that for you.
This part surprised me, til I read this:
"Open source software is often less polished than its proprietary alternatives; version proliferation and poor usability are two often-reported problems [Nichols and Twidale, 2003,Krishnamurthy, 2005,Viorres et al., 2007]. Highly-paid employees, like knowledge workers, may argue that the fit of the OSS [Thompson et al., 1991], the service quality it offers [DeLone and McLean, 2003], or the perceived behavioral control they have over it [Ajzen, 1991] is worse than that of its proprietary alternative. The key factors for resisting such change can be classified into people-oriented, system-oriented, and interaction theories [Jiang et al., 2000]. As the cost of the software used by highly productive workers forms a small percentage of their total employment cost and the software's quality reflects a lot on their productivity, spending on industry-standard proprietary software may be a rational decision. Consequently, we could expect that the relative advantage of OSS viewed as an innovation [Moore and Benbasat, 1991,Rogers, 2003] will be marginal. As an example, traders with seven figure incomes are unlikely to skimp on the operating system running on their PCs.
--> "Conversely, in Fortune 1000 companies with numerous but less productive employees adoption of cheaper though less polished OSS can offer significant cost advantages, and therefore management can easier mandate its use. For instance, we can easily imagine the cost savings associated with thousands of service desks running Linux and the Thunderbird mail client."
I think this is the best way to convert people to OSS. Start slowly by showing them how can run free, non-Microsoft, non-Apple software. Then after a year or two, transition them to Linux.
And even if they never abandon Windows or MacOS, they're still hurting those corporations by not buying their major products, and using free altenatives instead.
The creditors took his storage shed. That left him with nothing but his house (mostly empty). Of course he could have sold his house, paid off his cards, and then lived in an apartment. But some people don't want to give-up the house. (We're seeing that right now with people unable to pay their mortgages but refusing to leave.)
Oh I see. You're one of those who think Clinton and Obama are angels on earth. I suspected. In reality they are no better than the Republicans (puppets of their corporate funders). Especially Obama who I think is a pro-war, pro-corporatist neocon.