If you look at the ever-promised convergence of computing and consumer electronics, this makes a lot of sense. Starting with just a PS3, Sony can gradually induce you to buy all Sony equipment.
First, they sell you a 4-core PS3 that runs all of the 1st Gen PS3 games. Then, as the developers learn to use the platform, and the development tools get better, the games start requiring more processing power. Sony then starts selling 8-core or more PS3 consoles (and/or upgrade cards).
Second, Sony starts offering other electronics with CELL chips. E.g. televisions with built in MPEG-2 Decoders utilizing CELL processors. So, instead of buying a new PS3, you buy a Sony television with 4-core CELL, and plug in the P3 via Fiber optic for a total of 8-cores. And when you aren't playing games, the TV can use the PS3 for additional decoding power (e.g. for multiple channel DVR functionality etc.).
Then, buy a Sony PC with "media center" functionality, and it has additionall CELLs on board (along with the regular x86), and thereby boosts the whole home "network" if connected via fiber (some propriatary interface Sony will no doubt make big bucks on).
Fiber isn't necessarily new in the home for this type of application. My stereo already has fiber-interconnects for digital audio (DVD, HDTV Cable Box, PS2).
Final stage: all of your entertainment devices are CELL based. Sony starts selling "modules" which do nothing but add additional CELLs to the network. Plug in an additional 4-Core CELL module and you can play PS3 games that won't run on just the console. Sony doesn't need to come out with new consoles anymore, just better development tools, and more consumer stuff that interconnects. ("Sure, you can buy the other toaster, but if you buy the SONY CELL toaster you can play the newest games!")
It's the ultimate in market lock-in, and unlike Betamax, it just may work if the PS3 is widely adopted as just the newest console. If they port Linux and OO to it, they may even give MS a run for their money in the general home-OS market! Wow, it's diabolical.
First, when I first saw the headlines my left-wing conspiracy-nut side immediately suspected the Republicans of faking these, since the documents overall support Bush's story that he didn't break any rules (at least, that was what the Wash. Post seemed to imply this morning, and if they couldn't twist them into a scandal then I don't think anyone could.)
In any case, there are a few reasons why I don't think they are fake:
1. Zoom in on the PDF scans that are available, and the characters seem to support typewriter more than laser printer. First, it seems that there are different ink-levels that one would expect from a ribbon. Compare like letters in different words and you will see that they are darker in some places, or have extra pixels representing "blobs" hanging off of them (bottom serif on the lowercase "n" is a good one). That may be scanning artifact, but it would indicate typewriter.
2. Everyone is making a big deal about the superscript 'th', but IIRC the IBM "golfball" typewriters had the superscripts as special characters (I'm not the first to point this out either). The connectedness of the "th," the fact that they have the same "ink level," and the fact that the entire "th" is no wider than the widest character seems to indicate to me that they were stroked by a typewriter.
3. If the superscript "th" was a function of Word's Auto Format, why didn't it happen in the "111th" in the letterhead?
4. Some of the letters, notably the lowercase "e", look too imprecise to have been laserwritten. Again, very well could be a scanning artifact.
I don't think the issue is so much about the advantages of CLI over GUI as much as it is about being overwhelmed with options.
For most users like "Aunt Tillie" there are only 2 or three "tasks" that they use their computer for (e-mail, chat, web, word processing). The problem with sitting down in front of the computer is discerning how to do just those things without getting lost in the clutter. The author's users liked the CLI because they were not being bombarded by other processes while they focused on the task at hand.
One place we are going to see the type of simplified GUI that these users would like is in the MediaPC arena. In the review of the OS-Optional MB yesterday, the screen shot showed a very simplified interface consistent with the limited functions the computer was aimed at: "Play DVD", "Watch TV" etc. In other words, the only options presented by the GUI were the 4 or 5 that the user is going to need 99% of the time.
When my mother first started using computers in her office 15 years ago, they had a "programmer" come in and put together a startup menu in Dos that presented just the 4 or 5 options the users needed. Apple tried this with the GUI in "AtEase" and the "Panels" interface of OS9 and limited interface of OSX. The trouble with the limited GUI interfaces (in my opinion) has always been administering them. I would like to set up a GUI for my 3 year old son that allows him to instantly click on the games he plays, or URLs to the websites he likes. However, whenever I try to install a new game for him, I have to torture myself to get everything working correctly in the restricted mode. If someone could do "Panels" right, that would resolve all of the complaints the author's users had.
I won't speak to the rest of WirelessMike's comment, but his statement that
LEC, by the way, stands for
Line Exchange Carrier or "service provider"
is inaccurate.
LEC actually stands for Local Exchange Carrier (according to Federal Standard 1037C which is the government's canonical glossary of telecommunications terms.
Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) are the "baby-bells", your local phone company (Verizon, SBC, Ameritech (do they still exist?) etc.). The other half of the coin is IXCs, which stands for Inter eXchange Carriers, i.e. long-distance telcos like AT&T. Of course, with deregulation, it is all confused now as to who does what. Typically, when you get a phone line, you get it from a LEC, and when you place an interstate call it is carried by an IXC (even if you pay someone else for the long distance service).
I don't own an iPod, and haven't examined all the details of the case, but here is a point that I haven't seen made yet.
Why did Apple choose to design the iPod without a user accessible battery compartment?
Obviously, Apple is a company that spends a lot of time and money on industrial design - it is one of their selling points, and one of the reasons they are so well liked. However, in achieving the particular design of the iPod, they had to make certain design choices relating to the package. A decision was made at some point to eliminate a user-accessible battery compartment. We can't say for sure why this decision was made, but it is a fair speculation (at this point), that it was part of a comprimise for size and weight (and perhaps durability). Other companies have chosen differently (see, e.g., Creative's Nomad Zen players which are slightly larger than the iPod, not as elegant, but have an easily accessible battery).
When companies make design choices that compromise one feature for another, they run the risk that they will later be found to have been unreasonable, or made the wrong choice. However the criteria that they are judged by is not purely public opinion. Apple had a right to choose size and weight over battery replaceability - the only problem would be if they fraudulently masked that decision (or the implications of it) from the public. An extreme example would be the Ford Pinto: Ford chose to put the gas tank outside the frame for cost/size/weight reasons with the specific knowledge that it would comprimise safety. Ford was found liable in the Pinto case not because they designed a bad car, but because they knowingly compromised safety for cost/size/weight on the premise that the lawsuits would be cheaper than changing the design - a premise that proved untrue when the jury (a facsimile of "the public") found that to have been an unreasonable choice.
At the end of the day, the Apple case should turn on what decisions and compromises Apple made, and whether they were entitled to make them. Since safety isn't really an issue here, I would think that there is almost unlimited freedom on Apple's part in the design as long as they didn't misrepresent the product.
Unfortunately, the problem with class actions today is that they are essentially sanctioned blackmail. The attorneys bring these suits for their own sake - these firms do nothing but bring class actions, many of dubious merit - with the knowledge that it will be ultimately cheaper for Apple to settle the case than to litigate it. The lawyers walk away with $millions and the consumers (the supposed victims) will get some token (like one free download from iTunes). It is a sad fact that the class action system is broken.
Further explanation about the Canadian crack, since I was asked:
The problem has to do with confusing ratios with percentages. If you go to the rest area, they have (used to have? I haven't gone in 10 years) a sign that says something like "Exchange rate: $1.00 CD = $_.__US" and have a little adjustable number. For instance, it might say $1.00CD = $0.75US. This indicates a conversion ratio of 4:3.
So, say you have an order that totals $10CD. When you say that you want to use $US the employee looks at the sign and says (to themselves) "OK, the $US is 75% of the $CD, so subtract 25% from the $CD to get the $US." They punch into their calculator "10 - 25% =" and get $7.50(US), which is correct. This logic is induced by the sign's using $1.00CD as the base, and the fact that both currencies have 100 cents to the dollar, making it easy to (incorrectly)think in percentages.
You hand over a $10US. Now you are owed $2.50US change, but since they only return change in $CD, they have to convert the $2.50US back to $CD. The correct way to calculate that would be to multiply it by the 4/3 (1.33) ratio, yielding $3.33CD.
Unfortunately, the McEmployees figure "I subtracted 25% going one way, I just add 25% going the other" This results in them reversing the transaction on the calculator thusly: "2.5 + 25% = ". So, instead of $3.33CD, you get $3.13CD (2.50 + 0.625). The fundamental flaw is that the sign reflects a ratio not a percentage. You end up being shortchanged $0.20CD, which is $0.15US (or 6% of the total change owed in that example).
Depending on the current conversion rate, and therefore the numbers on the sign, the stronger the $US is against the $CD, the worse it becomes. For instance, if the sign says $1.00CD = $0.62US, for $2.50 US change you should get back $4.03CD. Instead you get $3.45CD (2.50 + 38%), which is $0.58US less than you are owed(or 23% of the value of your change).
Of course, if the $CD is stronger than the $US than it works to the $US currency user's advantage, but that rarely happens. Also, I haven't driven the 401 for 10 years, so maybe they have figured it out.
GOM charges 1% of the total amount deposited as an in-game deposit fee. The fee is payable in the currency being deposited and will be automatically deducted from your deposit upon delivery. For example, if you deposit 101,000 UO gold with a GOM in-game associate, you will be charged 1% (1,000 UO gold) and your GOM account will be credited 100,000 UO gold.
I may be a lawyer because I failed math, but even I know that 1% of 101,000 is 1010, not 1000. So, if you deposit 101,000 you should be credited with 99,990. A better (more accurate) example would be: deposit 100,000 and we will credit you 99,000 (100,000 less 1%).
Incidentally, this is exactly the same incorrect application of percentages that is used in Candadian rest stops along Route 401 in Ontario.
I hope they clear that up before any regulators get involved!
OK, I'm bored, since my office is dead due to the little wind storm going on, so I'll take a long walk of this short intellectual pier for fun...
Let me start by saying: (1) Yes, I am a lawyer; (2) yes I think these lawsuits are silly; (3) I don't believe the parents have a very good chance of winning.
Whenever this issue comes up, there is the inevitable deluge of virulent "where were the parents!" and "why weren't you teaching your kids values" type posts/comments/rants. Despite the mind numbing banality of most of these, people seem to continue to harp on about it over and over.
What I find particularly interesting is the attempt to ascribe these types of lawsuits to "liberals" and "the left", and the rabid conservative mantra that liberals have "destroyed personal responsibility." (Like fiscal responsibility? largest deficit in history)
I am wary of these "where were the parents" type simplifications. It seems to me that these are all based on a mythical image of the American Family that is taken straight from 1950's television, and has little (or no) bearing on today's society. Where were the parents? Working two jobs that require 60+ hours a week so they can continue to enjoy the "middle class" life in some suburban development near a semi-decent school. By the time Mom & Dad have come home at 6:00 or 7:00 pm and made dinner, they are probably way too strung out from a 14 hour day to be providing much useful moral guidance.
Don't get me wrong, I support working Mom's and Dads. My family is a two-job deal, but we are lucky in that, because I have a high-priced legal education, we can afford full time child care for our tots. Most parents in the U.S. can't do that.
Meanwhile the kids are sitting around at home from 3pm when schools let out, thanks to shorter school days brought about by reduced budgets. There aren't too many organized, safe after school programs anymore (especially for kids who aren't athletic, or aren't into sports, which I'd be a large number of/.'ers can relate to).
Sure, 99% of the people smart enough to read this site were smart enough to separate fact from fancy at a pretty young age. But ask yourself: didn't you do anything stupid at the age of 14 (or 24) that you now look back on and go "whoa...I was an idiot..." The thing maturity brings is an ability to think through the potential consequences of your actions. That's what "learning from experience" is all about. Now, none of us (hopefully) ever decided to shoot at trucks on the highway. But I'll bet a few people here tossed things off an overpass...or put things on the train tracks...or stole a stop sign (guilty)...or any of a hundred things that could have caused serious injury. The kids involved in the GTA case are probably particularly sub-par in the brains department, but they didn't set out to hurt people, they just didn't consider that if you shoot at the side of a truck (a supposedly destructive but not dangerous act) it might have dire consequences if you MISS. (After all, how many of us miss all that often using the sniper rifle in GTA?) So, bad decision on their part.
People are incensed that TakeTwo and Sony are sued. It is descried as evidence of the out of control courts. However, what conservatives never seem to point out is that almost all of these suits are dismissed early on (and if you dig into the ones that aren't, like the infamous McDonald's coffee case, you find the facts aren't as cut-and-dried as you think). In other words, the courts aren't out of control; they are doing exactly what they are designed to do: adjudicate the rights of parties who feel they have been wronged.
One last (semi-random) point. Someone raised a first amendment issue below. That isn't really relevant here. Whether TakeTwo has a right to publish GTAIII is different from whether they can be held responsible for consequences that naturally flow from their decision to do so. (I'm not saying that shooting at trucks is a natur
As a professional in a "traditional" profession (I'm an attorney), I find this post to basically sum up why our generation (Gen-X and younger) is looked upon with such scorn.
Let me ask you this: When you took the job, did you agree to get paid for (a) results; (b) for showing up? If the former, then suck it up; if the latter, you should relinquish your salary (and all the juicy benefits that usually accompany it), and go hourly.
Essentially what you are saying is that you have no pride in your work, feel no responsibility or comittment to advancing the interests of the company that signs your paycheck, and are looking to do the bare minimum to getyour paycheck so you can scamper off.
In my profession, we are expected to bill around 2000 hours a year (40 hrs a week for 50 weeks). That may not sound like much until you consider that one generally has to work about 2500/hrs (or more) to actually produce that much billable time. During crunch times (trials, deals etc.) it is not unheard of for an attorney to bill 400 hours in a single month, and no, that is not inflated. Truth is, we work like dogs all the time, and many people can't take it and quit.
You took a salaried job. Now you are complaining because your managers did a poor job and made your life difficult. My advice: do your damndest to succeed. If you do, you are a hero. If you try hard and fail, it is your manager's fault. Bad managment is universal, the only way to prove it is to make a good faith effort. If your company is consistantly plagued by poor managing, then it won't survive anyway, so start looking for a new job.
Anyway, my point (if I have one): suck it up, some people are actually expected to work for a living.
As a parent and a technophile (who's married to a scientist), I have to chime in and say that I think people are worrying over nothing.
First, the first few generations of GM technology are/will be devoted to curing what are currently perceived as "genetic defects" (Downs etc.). Just like medicine puts a lot more effort/time/money into researching organ transplants, which potentially benefit a fraction of the population, compared to cosmetic surgery, which potentially applies to all.
Second, more importantly, I don't care how much you tweak your kid's genes, heck, import him from Krypton if you want, the "Nurture" part of "Nature vs. Nurture" will always win. If you have a kid GMd to be "smarter", it won't matter if you ignore her and don't provide stimulation, affection etc. If you GM your kid to be stronger, he won't become an Olympic Champion unless he enjoys average or better nutrition, and encouragement to succeed (even when he fails).
Would I "buy" GM for my next kid (on the way already, too late!). Sure, why not; but that wouldn't give me an excuse to slack off and be a poor parent.
Finally, people are right to fear the creation of a caste system, and economic divisions. However, the rich seem to ignore their kids at the same rate (if not greater) as the poor, so I think it will even out. Rich people who are vain enough to pay $zillions for superbaby will probably also hire an endless string of nannies, ignore little Jarel, and raise a right bastard of a brat with no self-confidence. (George Bush?)
I take the long view toward human behavior: It all seems to work itself out in the end (give or take a global war or pandemic once in a while, but those are just reboots);)
This is particularly ironic, given that Apple Computer once claimed that it would never do anything that might compete with Apple Records (the label the Beatles were on). At the time Apple Computer was created, sound capabilities were so rudimentary on computers (essentially the bell), Jobs & Co. felt confident assuring Apple Records that they would not be competing with them in any form.
When the Macintosh II came out with greatly expanded sound capabilities built in (not as an add-on MIDI card), Apple performed one of the most famous corporate "jokes" of all time, naming one of the new, high-quality system alert sounds "Sosumi" (Pronounced "So, sue me"). I don't think Apple Records (if they are even still around) ever took them up on it.
Is it just me, or is this quote from the Microsoft press release utterly meaningless?
"Microsoft's 64-bit Windows operating systems represent an inflection point leading to higher performance and greater efficiency for businesses and consumers."
Can someone please tell me what the fsck an "inflection point" is?
The number one speed improvement on WinXP I've found is to prohibit paging the kernel to VM. I don't have a specific cite right now, but this is a very common tweak which you should be able to find easily. I think there is even a way to do this through the control panels, but I never managed to make it "stick" after reboot without manually editing the registry.
A great resource is www.winguides.com. They have a good app you can demo for free that has lots of Win Registry tweaks it will apply for you. The program also does "live update" from their site, so you get new tweaks people figure out.
I echo many of the other statements below: turn off all non-essential services/programs/tray extensions etc. (unless you like the functionality more than performance).
One of the biggest performance suckers is the "Sytem Restore" crap that takes "snapshots" of the system everytime you change anything. It eats hard drive space too. Unless you are a compulsive fiddler, and don't want to have to reinstall a driver manually, turn that right off.
Finally, in XP, you absolutely must turn off all the crappy eye-candy. Go to "System->Advanced->Performance Settings" and select "Fastest" or whatever. That turns off all the dumb GUI effects. Using the old Windows "theme" also seems to improve GUI performance significantly.
Finally, run AdAware, and keep careful track of what is getting installed on your system. (e.g. turn off Google Computing if you run the toolbar!) In the Windows world, everyone is always trying to put their junk on your box.
What do you think the odds of a US jury convicting a freenet user of trafficking KP are, if the defence provides convincing evidence that it was virtually for the defendant to have known what was passing through their node?
It is a valid question, and without examining the specific statute that the crime was charged under, I cannot say for sure. You are correct that it is somewhat of a dis-analogy. The question of scienter (knowledge) may not even be a question for the jury. For instance, in the drugs in the car example, the jury would be asked to decide (1) was defendant in control of the car; (2) was the substance found in the car; (3) is the substance drugs. There is no issue of whether the defendant knew that the substance was drugs and was in the car. Yes, you really can be guilty for things you don't know about. If I drink two beers and drive my car under the assumption that I am sober, I can still be found guilty if it turns out that my blood alcohol level was.09 (slightly over the legal limit). I may not have known that I was legally impaired, but I should have known that I might be, and acted accordingly.
To connect that to the freenet issue, if I make a large hard drive space available for file transfer by anonymous parties to a certain degree the law might expect me to know that people might abuse that. I don't know if the statute has such a standard or not, but given today's legal climate (what, with the "Patriot Act" and all), that isn't a risk I would want to take.
geeklawyer made a big issue about Mens Rea, but there are many crimes that are judged on a negligence standard. If you negligently provide the opportunity to others to commit a crime, society may hold you criminally responsible (it is a policy question. In certain instances there is criminal liability (e.g. drunk driving), while in others there is only civil liability). The individual who sold guns to the Columbine High School killers was charged with a crime, not because he knew they would kill, but because the state (and a jury) thought he should have known.
This is not a big mystery, or even all that new. If I ran an anonymous FTP server, and let anyone in the world log in and download copyrighted works, I could be held liable for facilitating their theft.
That is exactly the problem. Since the advent of the "war on drugs" in the U.S., the government has passed all sorts of laws eliminating the Mens Rea requirement. Not all crimes require intent - some are strict liabilty. Also, in many situations knowledge is presumed, and it is the responsibility of the defendant to prove their ignorance (an impossible task). Hence the "drugs under the seat" example, which is an all-to-common occurance in the U.S.
Inferences about knowledge are drawn all the time in criminal cases. If you have a picture of a small child being forced to perform a sex act, it is no defense to say "I don't really know her/his age." You are presumed to know that the person in the picture is a child, a presumption that a jury of your peers will decide the reasonableness of. (E.g. whether they think it is obvious).
Yes, I really am a lawyer. Criminal isn't my field of practice, but I am familiar enough with it to know what I am talking about. Please don't take on the criminal defense of anyone in the U.S. until you read up on the law here.:)
Bloodshot's comments, while obviously well intentioned, are dead wrong.
good lawyer could probably successfully argue you have no way of knowing what's being stored on your computer as it is part of an anonymous network.
Actually, you can be held liable for it regardless of whether you "know" it is there or not. For instance, if you are driving a car, and your passenger puts their crack cocaine under the seat, you can be held liable for it even if you had no idea since you are in control of the car. Ignorance is not an excuse to allowing others to use your property to commit a crime.
It would be like a bank being held liable for criminals stashing money from the drug trade in it.
This is precisely why there are long and complex laws pertaining to money laundering. All financial institutions are required to implement strong procedural safeguards to prevent abuse. Failure to do so can result in prosecution of the bank for culpability in the depositor's crime. Another area this is becoming "hot" is in the market for expensive consumer and industrial goods. The latest scheme used by narcotics traffikers is to take their drug money in South America, and use it to purchase expensive goods (like appliences) from compaines like GE. GE recently sponsored a DOJ initiative to combat this, and many of the computer manufacturers (like Dell) were included. The anonymous nature of web commerce makes this method possible.
In short, you are lible for what's on your computer, so make sure you know what people are sticking in there!
Interesting, but the Article is wrong in at least one respect: the Platypus is not the only mammal that produces venom.
According to this website, certain shrews produce venom. Also, the Cuban shrew-like animal Solenodons also produces venom in its mouth.
And, just to set the record straight, only male Platypii have venomous spurs. Lastly, Platypii are one of three still-living members of the mammalian subgroup known as "monotremes."
An excellent online resource for information about the animal kingdon is the University of Michgan's Animal Diversity Web.
I opened this discussion with full expectation of being deluged with cliche anti-lawyerisms, so I am pleasently surprised that the responses thus far have been so well thought out.
The author of the article is half right, but she is blaming the wrong people. All public information, including prior decisions and the supporting case files (briefs, orders, motions etc.) should be a matter of public record (i.e. publicly accessible) unless filed under seal for a particular reason (privacy, national security etc.) In fact, as has been pointed out, most of the information is publicly accessible...just not online. If you go to the courthouse you can request copies of briefs, orders, and opinions for the cost of reproduction. If you go to a public law library (statehouse, courthouse, university, etc.) you will be able to access the print versions of the reporters (the books that hold the case law).
However, the failure of public agencies (courts, legislatures, regulatory bodies) to make their information easily accessible is not the fault of West and LexisNexis, who merely profit on the need for a public service the government is not providing. The government should take the blame, and people should advocate more (and better) online government resources. As an attorney, I am constantly frustrated by even the best publicly available government websites. (A notoriously bad one is the Gov't Printing Office (GPO) which offers the entire U.S. Code (statutes) and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) on gpoaccess.gov). Attorneys hunger for better public free (as in beer) tools as well, since we don't like having to charge our clients the high rates West and Lexis set (and some clients refuse to pay for electronic research too).
West and Lexis do add significant value to the raw text of the case law and statutes. The added value is incredibly expensive to create, maintain and offer, so West and Lexis deserve to charge for the information they add (and prior cases have held that West cannot claim copyright to the actual text of the opinions. Also, contrary to previous post, West has been unable to enforce a copyright on page numbers in citations, what they have a copyright on is the pagination itself, so you cannot xerox a West book, pdf it and call it "free." However Lexis can cite to cases by their page number in the West reporters. The only exception is documents that are in Westlaw that are not in the print versions. There is an arbitrary page numbering West uses called "star numbering" because the numbers are proceeded by an asterix. Since those numbers are entirely the product of West's electronic database, they cannot be reprinted in other sources -- but no one uses them anyway).
Finally, the author seems to criticize the "monopoly" lawyers have in the law (even though, as she points out, in some courts a majority of people represent themselves). Law, just like a highly complex programming language, or a hardware architecture, is a body of knowledge that is neither straight-forward, nor easy to acquire. Lawyers spend 3 years in lawschool (at great cost), and take a comprehensive bar exam to earn their credentials. The reason this is necessary is that the law is not something you can "just look up," any more than you could learn to write English by using a dictionary, learn to program by using a programmers reference to a specific language, or learn to be a civil engineer by looking in a building code. Practicing law involves the application of particular facts to a set of rules, regulations and prior cases (or lack thereof), coupled with a knowledge of the system, and how it works.
Re:This relates to my theory on lawyers, and why t
on
Democracy in the Dark?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Only $100 an hour? Most IT consultants I know already get more than that. I've never met a lawyer that billed less than $150, and even that is ridiculously low. A first year associate, two months out of law school, is billed out at around $200 an hour by large firms.
...that this was Columbia's first flight after being returned to service following extensive upgrades. NASA has been upgrading the avionics and other systems aboard the Shuttle fleet for the last several years, and Columbia was the most recent upgrade. Thus, even though everyone is harping about Columbia being "the oldest" shuttle, it is actually the oldest airframe, many parts of it (including engines and flight control) were actually the newest in the fleet.
Interesting facts aside, this is a terrible tragedy. After an appropriate period of introspection and mourning, I hope that our government has the foresight to use this as the impetus to rethink the space program from the ground up, and reinvest in the types of endeavors that made the U.S. recognized leaders in the advancement of science and human exploration in the 1960s. It is time for NASA to be completely redesigned, and a new human space initiative begun with the bold, risk-taking nature that Americans have always been known for.
Unfortunately, our current governemnt is led by what is most likely the most short-sighted administration of the past 100 years. The chances of this President using this tragedy constructively as a catalyst for postive change are about the same as one of the Shuttle astronauts phoning in from a payphone in East Texas.
Yeah, right. Maybe if Mickey and Goofy were alcholic, steroid-taking, gluttons who liked to bash Romans. I think that Asterix and Obelix serve a much different audience than Micky and Goofy. It's more like Looney Tunes, with historical undertones and more puns than anyone should have to bear. I'm proud to own the complete set.
The lease is probably enforceable, unless there are unusual laws in the local jurisdiction. The landlord owns the apartment complex, and can choose to allow or disallow any company access to the common areas (i.e. the hallways, stairwells, roofs etc. All parts not inside your actual unit). So, the landlord can choose not to allow the local cable company to run wires around the complex, or to bring their service in from the street.
We have a choice of two cable companies in Washington D.C. (Comcast and Starpower), but our building decided not to make a contract with Starpower because they refused to share distribution lines with Comcast. This means we would have had to allow them to run a second (redundant) set of cables from each stairway junction box to every unit. They won't even share cabletrays. Comcast might offer us a better pricing package, but they will insist on exclusive access. The only other option would be for the building to install its own wiring system between the apartments and the stairways (expensive, especially in a historic building), so we stick with the tyranny of Comcast for now.
Slashdot Mirror
First, they sell you a 4-core PS3 that runs all of the 1st Gen PS3 games. Then, as the developers learn to use the platform, and the development tools get better, the games start requiring more processing power. Sony then starts selling 8-core or more PS3 consoles (and/or upgrade cards).
Second, Sony starts offering other electronics with CELL chips. E.g. televisions with built in MPEG-2 Decoders utilizing CELL processors. So, instead of buying a new PS3, you buy a Sony television with 4-core CELL, and plug in the P3 via Fiber optic for a total of 8-cores. And when you aren't playing games, the TV can use the PS3 for additional decoding power (e.g. for multiple channel DVR functionality etc.).
Then, buy a Sony PC with "media center" functionality, and it has additionall CELLs on board (along with the regular x86), and thereby boosts the whole home "network" if connected via fiber (some propriatary interface Sony will no doubt make big bucks on).
Fiber isn't necessarily new in the home for this type of application. My stereo already has fiber-interconnects for digital audio (DVD, HDTV Cable Box, PS2).
Final stage: all of your entertainment devices are CELL based. Sony starts selling "modules" which do nothing but add additional CELLs to the network. Plug in an additional 4-Core CELL module and you can play PS3 games that won't run on just the console. Sony doesn't need to come out with new consoles anymore, just better development tools, and more consumer stuff that interconnects. ("Sure, you can buy the other toaster, but if you buy the SONY CELL toaster you can play the newest games!")
It's the ultimate in market lock-in, and unlike Betamax, it just may work if the PS3 is widely adopted as just the newest console. If they port Linux and OO to it, they may even give MS a run for their money in the general home-OS market! Wow, it's diabolical.
In any case, there are a few reasons why I don't think they are fake:
1. Zoom in on the PDF scans that are available, and the characters seem to support typewriter more than laser printer. First, it seems that there are different ink-levels that one would expect from a ribbon. Compare like letters in different words and you will see that they are darker in some places, or have extra pixels representing "blobs" hanging off of them (bottom serif on the lowercase "n" is a good one). That may be scanning artifact, but it would indicate typewriter.
2. Everyone is making a big deal about the superscript 'th', but IIRC the IBM "golfball" typewriters had the superscripts as special characters (I'm not the first to point this out either). The connectedness of the "th," the fact that they have the same "ink level," and the fact that the entire "th" is no wider than the widest character seems to indicate to me that they were stroked by a typewriter.
3. If the superscript "th" was a function of Word's Auto Format, why didn't it happen in the "111th" in the letterhead?
4. Some of the letters, notably the lowercase "e", look too imprecise to have been laserwritten. Again, very well could be a scanning artifact.
"By Toutatis! The Sky is falling on our heads!"
For most users like "Aunt Tillie" there are only 2 or three "tasks" that they use their computer for (e-mail, chat, web, word processing). The problem with sitting down in front of the computer is discerning how to do just those things without getting lost in the clutter. The author's users liked the CLI because they were not being bombarded by other processes while they focused on the task at hand.
One place we are going to see the type of simplified GUI that these users would like is in the MediaPC arena. In the review of the OS-Optional MB yesterday, the screen shot showed a very simplified interface consistent with the limited functions the computer was aimed at: "Play DVD", "Watch TV" etc. In other words, the only options presented by the GUI were the 4 or 5 that the user is going to need 99% of the time.
When my mother first started using computers in her office 15 years ago, they had a "programmer" come in and put together a startup menu in Dos that presented just the 4 or 5 options the users needed. Apple tried this with the GUI in "AtEase" and the "Panels" interface of OS9 and limited interface of OSX. The trouble with the limited GUI interfaces (in my opinion) has always been administering them. I would like to set up a GUI for my 3 year old son that allows him to instantly click on the games he plays, or URLs to the websites he likes. However, whenever I try to install a new game for him, I have to torture myself to get everything working correctly in the restricted mode. If someone could do "Panels" right, that would resolve all of the complaints the author's users had.
is inaccurate.
LEC actually stands for Local Exchange Carrier (according to Federal Standard 1037C which is the government's canonical glossary of telecommunications terms.
Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) are the "baby-bells", your local phone company (Verizon, SBC, Ameritech (do they still exist?) etc.). The other half of the coin is IXCs, which stands for Inter eXchange Carriers, i.e. long-distance telcos like AT&T. Of course, with deregulation, it is all confused now as to who does what. Typically, when you get a phone line, you get it from a LEC, and when you place an interstate call it is carried by an IXC (even if you pay someone else for the long distance service).
Why did Apple choose to design the iPod without a user accessible battery compartment?
Obviously, Apple is a company that spends a lot of time and money on industrial design - it is one of their selling points, and one of the reasons they are so well liked. However, in achieving the particular design of the iPod, they had to make certain design choices relating to the package. A decision was made at some point to eliminate a user-accessible battery compartment. We can't say for sure why this decision was made, but it is a fair speculation (at this point), that it was part of a comprimise for size and weight (and perhaps durability). Other companies have chosen differently (see, e.g., Creative's Nomad Zen players which are slightly larger than the iPod, not as elegant, but have an easily accessible battery).
When companies make design choices that compromise one feature for another, they run the risk that they will later be found to have been unreasonable, or made the wrong choice. However the criteria that they are judged by is not purely public opinion. Apple had a right to choose size and weight over battery replaceability - the only problem would be if they fraudulently masked that decision (or the implications of it) from the public. An extreme example would be the Ford Pinto: Ford chose to put the gas tank outside the frame for cost/size/weight reasons with the specific knowledge that it would comprimise safety. Ford was found liable in the Pinto case not because they designed a bad car, but because they knowingly compromised safety for cost/size/weight on the premise that the lawsuits would be cheaper than changing the design - a premise that proved untrue when the jury (a facsimile of "the public") found that to have been an unreasonable choice.
At the end of the day, the Apple case should turn on what decisions and compromises Apple made, and whether they were entitled to make them. Since safety isn't really an issue here, I would think that there is almost unlimited freedom on Apple's part in the design as long as they didn't misrepresent the product.
Unfortunately, the problem with class actions today is that they are essentially sanctioned blackmail. The attorneys bring these suits for their own sake - these firms do nothing but bring class actions, many of dubious merit - with the knowledge that it will be ultimately cheaper for Apple to settle the case than to litigate it. The lawyers walk away with $millions and the consumers (the supposed victims) will get some token (like one free download from iTunes). It is a sad fact that the class action system is broken.
I helped set up a whole university in Nigeria, and all I had to do was send them my bank account number....
The problem has to do with confusing ratios with percentages. If you go to the rest area, they have (used to have? I haven't gone in 10 years) a sign that says something like "Exchange rate: $1.00 CD = $_.__US" and have a little adjustable number. For instance, it might say $1.00CD = $0.75US. This indicates a conversion ratio of 4:3.
So, say you have an order that totals $10CD. When you say that you want to use $US the employee looks at the sign and says (to themselves) "OK, the $US is 75% of the $CD, so subtract 25% from the $CD to get the $US." They punch into their calculator "10 - 25% =" and get $7.50(US), which is correct. This logic is induced by the sign's using $1.00CD as the base, and the fact that both currencies have 100 cents to the dollar, making it easy to (incorrectly)think in percentages.
You hand over a $10US. Now you are owed $2.50US change, but since they only return change in $CD, they have to convert the $2.50US back to $CD. The correct way to calculate that would be to multiply it by the 4/3 (1.33) ratio, yielding $3.33CD.
Unfortunately, the McEmployees figure "I subtracted 25% going one way, I just add 25% going the other" This results in them reversing the transaction on the calculator thusly: "2.5 + 25% = ". So, instead of $3.33CD, you get $3.13CD (2.50 + 0.625). The fundamental flaw is that the sign reflects a ratio not a percentage. You end up being shortchanged $0.20CD, which is $0.15US (or 6% of the total change owed in that example).
Depending on the current conversion rate, and therefore the numbers on the sign, the stronger the $US is against the $CD, the worse it becomes. For instance, if the sign says $1.00CD = $0.62US, for $2.50 US change you should get back $4.03CD. Instead you get $3.45CD (2.50 + 38%), which is $0.58US less than you are owed(or 23% of the value of your change).
Of course, if the $CD is stronger than the $US than it works to the $US currency user's advantage, but that rarely happens. Also, I haven't driven the 401 for 10 years, so maybe they have figured it out.
I may be a lawyer because I failed math, but even I know that 1% of 101,000 is 1010, not 1000. So, if you deposit 101,000 you should be credited with 99,990. A better (more accurate) example would be: deposit 100,000 and we will credit you 99,000 (100,000 less 1%).
Incidentally, this is exactly the same incorrect application of percentages that is used in Candadian rest stops along Route 401 in Ontario.
I hope they clear that up before any regulators get involved!
Let me start by saying: (1) Yes, I am a lawyer; (2) yes I think these lawsuits are silly; (3) I don't believe the parents have a very good chance of winning.
Whenever this issue comes up, there is the inevitable deluge of virulent "where were the parents!" and "why weren't you teaching your kids values" type posts/comments/rants. Despite the mind numbing banality of most of these, people seem to continue to harp on about it over and over.
What I find particularly interesting is the attempt to ascribe these types of lawsuits to "liberals" and "the left", and the rabid conservative mantra that liberals have "destroyed personal responsibility." (Like fiscal responsibility? largest deficit in history)
I am wary of these "where were the parents" type simplifications. It seems to me that these are all based on a mythical image of the American Family that is taken straight from 1950's television, and has little (or no) bearing on today's society. Where were the parents? Working two jobs that require 60+ hours a week so they can continue to enjoy the "middle class" life in some suburban development near a semi-decent school. By the time Mom & Dad have come home at 6:00 or 7:00 pm and made dinner, they are probably way too strung out from a 14 hour day to be providing much useful moral guidance.
Don't get me wrong, I support working Mom's and Dads. My family is a two-job deal, but we are lucky in that, because I have a high-priced legal education, we can afford full time child care for our tots. Most parents in the U.S. can't do that.
Meanwhile the kids are sitting around at home from 3pm when schools let out, thanks to shorter school days brought about by reduced budgets. There aren't too many organized, safe after school programs anymore (especially for kids who aren't athletic, or aren't into sports, which I'd be a large number of /.'ers can relate to).
Sure, 99% of the people smart enough to read this site were smart enough to separate fact from fancy at a pretty young age. But ask yourself: didn't you do anything stupid at the age of 14 (or 24) that you now look back on and go "whoa...I was an idiot..." The thing maturity brings is an ability to think through the potential consequences of your actions. That's what "learning from experience" is all about. Now, none of us (hopefully) ever decided to shoot at trucks on the highway. But I'll bet a few people here tossed things off an overpass...or put things on the train tracks...or stole a stop sign (guilty)...or any of a hundred things that could have caused serious injury. The kids involved in the GTA case are probably particularly sub-par in the brains department, but they didn't set out to hurt people, they just didn't consider that if you shoot at the side of a truck (a supposedly destructive but not dangerous act) it might have dire consequences if you MISS. (After all, how many of us miss all that often using the sniper rifle in GTA?) So, bad decision on their part.
People are incensed that TakeTwo and Sony are sued. It is descried as evidence of the out of control courts. However, what conservatives never seem to point out is that almost all of these suits are dismissed early on (and if you dig into the ones that aren't, like the infamous McDonald's coffee case, you find the facts aren't as cut-and-dried as you think). In other words, the courts aren't out of control; they are doing exactly what they are designed to do: adjudicate the rights of parties who feel they have been wronged.
One last (semi-random) point. Someone raised a first amendment issue below. That isn't really relevant here. Whether TakeTwo has a right to publish GTAIII is different from whether they can be held responsible for consequences that naturally flow from their decision to do so. (I'm not saying that shooting at trucks is a natur
As a professional in a "traditional" profession (I'm an attorney), I find this post to basically sum up why our generation (Gen-X and younger) is looked upon with such scorn.
Let me ask you this: When you took the job, did you agree to get paid for (a) results; (b) for showing up? If the former, then suck it up; if the latter, you should relinquish your salary (and all the juicy benefits that usually accompany it), and go hourly.
Essentially what you are saying is that you have no pride in your work, feel no responsibility or comittment to advancing the interests of the company that signs your paycheck, and are looking to do the bare minimum to getyour paycheck so you can scamper off.
In my profession, we are expected to bill around 2000 hours a year (40 hrs a week for 50 weeks). That may not sound like much until you consider that one generally has to work about 2500/hrs (or more) to actually produce that much billable time. During crunch times (trials, deals etc.) it is not unheard of for an attorney to bill 400 hours in a single month, and no, that is not inflated. Truth is, we work like dogs all the time, and many people can't take it and quit.
You took a salaried job. Now you are complaining because your managers did a poor job and made your life difficult. My advice: do your damndest to succeed. If you do, you are a hero. If you try hard and fail, it is your manager's fault. Bad managment is universal, the only way to prove it is to make a good faith effort. If your company is consistantly plagued by poor managing, then it won't survive anyway, so start looking for a new job.
Anyway, my point (if I have one): suck it up, some people are actually expected to work for a living.
First, the first few generations of GM technology are/will be devoted to curing what are currently perceived as "genetic defects" (Downs etc.). Just like medicine puts a lot more effort/time/money into researching organ transplants, which potentially benefit a fraction of the population, compared to cosmetic surgery, which potentially applies to all.
Second, more importantly, I don't care how much you tweak your kid's genes, heck, import him from Krypton if you want, the "Nurture" part of "Nature vs. Nurture" will always win. If you have a kid GMd to be "smarter", it won't matter if you ignore her and don't provide stimulation, affection etc. If you GM your kid to be stronger, he won't become an Olympic Champion unless he enjoys average or better nutrition, and encouragement to succeed (even when he fails).
Would I "buy" GM for my next kid (on the way already, too late!). Sure, why not; but that wouldn't give me an excuse to slack off and be a poor parent.
Finally, people are right to fear the creation of a caste system, and economic divisions. However, the rich seem to ignore their kids at the same rate (if not greater) as the poor, so I think it will even out. Rich people who are vain enough to pay $zillions for superbaby will probably also hire an endless string of nannies, ignore little Jarel, and raise a right bastard of a brat with no self-confidence. (George Bush?)
I take the long view toward human behavior: It all seems to work itself out in the end (give or take a global war or pandemic once in a while, but those are just reboots) ;)
Don't you feel more comfortable knowing John Ashcroft is in charge of firearms now?
When the Macintosh II came out with greatly expanded sound capabilities built in (not as an add-on MIDI card), Apple performed one of the most famous corporate "jokes" of all time, naming one of the new, high-quality system alert sounds "Sosumi" (Pronounced "So, sue me"). I don't think Apple Records (if they are even still around) ever took them up on it.
"Microsoft's 64-bit Windows operating systems represent an inflection point leading to higher performance and greater efficiency for businesses and consumers."
Can someone please tell me what the fsck an "inflection point" is?
A great resource is www.winguides.com. They have a good app you can demo for free that has lots of Win Registry tweaks it will apply for you. The program also does "live update" from their site, so you get new tweaks people figure out.
I echo many of the other statements below: turn off all non-essential services/programs/tray extensions etc. (unless you like the functionality more than performance).
One of the biggest performance suckers is the "Sytem Restore" crap that takes "snapshots" of the system everytime you change anything. It eats hard drive space too. Unless you are a compulsive fiddler, and don't want to have to reinstall a driver manually, turn that right off.
Finally, in XP, you absolutely must turn off all the crappy eye-candy. Go to "System->Advanced->Performance Settings" and select "Fastest" or whatever. That turns off all the dumb GUI effects. Using the old Windows "theme" also seems to improve GUI performance significantly.
Finally, run AdAware, and keep careful track of what is getting installed on your system. (e.g. turn off Google Computing if you run the toolbar!) In the Windows world, everyone is always trying to put their junk on your box.
It is a valid question, and without examining the specific statute that the crime was charged under, I cannot say for sure. You are correct that it is somewhat of a dis-analogy. The question of scienter (knowledge) may not even be a question for the jury. For instance, in the drugs in the car example, the jury would be asked to decide (1) was defendant in control of the car; (2) was the substance found in the car; (3) is the substance drugs. There is no issue of whether the defendant knew that the substance was drugs and was in the car. Yes, you really can be guilty for things you don't know about. If I drink two beers and drive my car under the assumption that I am sober, I can still be found guilty if it turns out that my blood alcohol level was .09 (slightly over the legal limit). I may not have known that I was legally impaired, but I should have known that I might be, and acted accordingly.
To connect that to the freenet issue, if I make a large hard drive space available for file transfer by anonymous parties to a certain degree the law might expect me to know that people might abuse that. I don't know if the statute has such a standard or not, but given today's legal climate (what, with the "Patriot Act" and all), that isn't a risk I would want to take.
geeklawyer made a big issue about Mens Rea, but there are many crimes that are judged on a negligence standard. If you negligently provide the opportunity to others to commit a crime, society may hold you criminally responsible (it is a policy question. In certain instances there is criminal liability (e.g. drunk driving), while in others there is only civil liability). The individual who sold guns to the Columbine High School killers was charged with a crime, not because he knew they would kill, but because the state (and a jury) thought he should have known.
This is not a big mystery, or even all that new. If I ran an anonymous FTP server, and let anyone in the world log in and download copyrighted works, I could be held liable for facilitating their theft.
Thanks for the lively discussion! --automandc
under the medieval criminal laws of the US
That is exactly the problem. Since the advent of the "war on drugs" in the U.S., the government has passed all sorts of laws eliminating the Mens Rea requirement. Not all crimes require intent - some are strict liabilty. Also, in many situations knowledge is presumed, and it is the responsibility of the defendant to prove their ignorance (an impossible task). Hence the "drugs under the seat" example, which is an all-to-common occurance in the U.S.
Inferences about knowledge are drawn all the time in criminal cases. If you have a picture of a small child being forced to perform a sex act, it is no defense to say "I don't really know her/his age." You are presumed to know that the person in the picture is a child, a presumption that a jury of your peers will decide the reasonableness of. (E.g. whether they think it is obvious).
Yes, I really am a lawyer. Criminal isn't my field of practice, but I am familiar enough with it to know what I am talking about. Please don't take on the criminal defense of anyone in the U.S. until you read up on the law here. :)
good lawyer could probably successfully argue you have no way of knowing what's being stored on your computer as it is part of an anonymous network.
Actually, you can be held liable for it regardless of whether you "know" it is there or not. For instance, if you are driving a car, and your passenger puts their crack cocaine under the seat, you can be held liable for it even if you had no idea since you are in control of the car. Ignorance is not an excuse to allowing others to use your property to commit a crime.
It would be like a bank being held liable for criminals stashing money from the drug trade in it.
This is precisely why there are long and complex laws pertaining to money laundering. All financial institutions are required to implement strong procedural safeguards to prevent abuse. Failure to do so can result in prosecution of the bank for culpability in the depositor's crime. Another area this is becoming "hot" is in the market for expensive consumer and industrial goods. The latest scheme used by narcotics traffikers is to take their drug money in South America, and use it to purchase expensive goods (like appliences) from compaines like GE. GE recently sponsored a DOJ initiative to combat this, and many of the computer manufacturers (like Dell) were included. The anonymous nature of web commerce makes this method possible.
In short, you are lible for what's on your computer, so make sure you know what people are sticking in there!
According to this website, certain shrews produce venom. Also, the Cuban shrew-like animal Solenodons also produces venom in its mouth.
And, just to set the record straight, only male Platypii have venomous spurs. Lastly, Platypii are one of three still-living members of the mammalian subgroup known as "monotremes."
An excellent online resource for information about the animal kingdon is the University of Michgan's Animal Diversity Web.
The author of the article is half right, but she is blaming the wrong people. All public information, including prior decisions and the supporting case files (briefs, orders, motions etc.) should be a matter of public record (i.e. publicly accessible) unless filed under seal for a particular reason (privacy, national security etc.) In fact, as has been pointed out, most of the information is publicly accessible...just not online. If you go to the courthouse you can request copies of briefs, orders, and opinions for the cost of reproduction. If you go to a public law library (statehouse, courthouse, university, etc.) you will be able to access the print versions of the reporters (the books that hold the case law).
However, the failure of public agencies (courts, legislatures, regulatory bodies) to make their information easily accessible is not the fault of West and LexisNexis, who merely profit on the need for a public service the government is not providing. The government should take the blame, and people should advocate more (and better) online government resources. As an attorney, I am constantly frustrated by even the best publicly available government websites. (A notoriously bad one is the Gov't Printing Office (GPO) which offers the entire U.S. Code (statutes) and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) on gpoaccess.gov). Attorneys hunger for better public free (as in beer) tools as well, since we don't like having to charge our clients the high rates West and Lexis set (and some clients refuse to pay for electronic research too).
West and Lexis do add significant value to the raw text of the case law and statutes. The added value is incredibly expensive to create, maintain and offer, so West and Lexis deserve to charge for the information they add (and prior cases have held that West cannot claim copyright to the actual text of the opinions. Also, contrary to previous post, West has been unable to enforce a copyright on page numbers in citations, what they have a copyright on is the pagination itself, so you cannot xerox a West book, pdf it and call it "free." However Lexis can cite to cases by their page number in the West reporters. The only exception is documents that are in Westlaw that are not in the print versions. There is an arbitrary page numbering West uses called "star numbering" because the numbers are proceeded by an asterix. Since those numbers are entirely the product of West's electronic database, they cannot be reprinted in other sources -- but no one uses them anyway).
Finally, the author seems to criticize the "monopoly" lawyers have in the law (even though, as she points out, in some courts a majority of people represent themselves). Law, just like a highly complex programming language, or a hardware architecture, is a body of knowledge that is neither straight-forward, nor easy to acquire. Lawyers spend 3 years in lawschool (at great cost), and take a comprehensive bar exam to earn their credentials. The reason this is necessary is that the law is not something you can "just look up," any more than you could learn to write English by using a dictionary, learn to program by using a programmers reference to a specific language, or learn to be a civil engineer by looking in a building code. Practicing law involves the application of particular facts to a set of rules, regulations and prior cases (or lack thereof), coupled with a knowledge of the system, and how it works.
Only $100 an hour? Most IT consultants I know already get more than that. I've never met a lawyer that billed less than $150, and even that is ridiculously low. A first year associate, two months out of law school, is billed out at around $200 an hour by large firms.
Interesting facts aside, this is a terrible tragedy. After an appropriate period of introspection and mourning, I hope that our government has the foresight to use this as the impetus to rethink the space program from the ground up, and reinvest in the types of endeavors that made the U.S. recognized leaders in the advancement of science and human exploration in the 1960s. It is time for NASA to be completely redesigned, and a new human space initiative begun with the bold, risk-taking nature that Americans have always been known for.
Unfortunately, our current governemnt is led by what is most likely the most short-sighted administration of the past 100 years. The chances of this President using this tragedy constructively as a catalyst for postive change are about the same as one of the Shuttle astronauts phoning in from a payphone in East Texas.
Yeah, right. Maybe if Mickey and Goofy were alcholic, steroid-taking, gluttons who liked to bash Romans. I think that Asterix and Obelix serve a much different audience than Micky and Goofy. It's more like Looney Tunes, with historical undertones and more puns than anyone should have to bear. I'm proud to own the complete set.
We have a choice of two cable companies in Washington D.C. (Comcast and Starpower), but our building decided not to make a contract with Starpower because they refused to share distribution lines with Comcast. This means we would have had to allow them to run a second (redundant) set of cables from each stairway junction box to every unit. They won't even share cabletrays. Comcast might offer us a better pricing package, but they will insist on exclusive access. The only other option would be for the building to install its own wiring system between the apartments and the stairways (expensive, especially in a historic building), so we stick with the tyranny of Comcast for now.