If you think that two prominent lines going across the screen is better than a slightly unstable picture... Most people are more tolerant of random noise than something more obvious.
No. That would be the opposite of what I meant to say. A proponent is someone who is in favour.
I meant what I said. The main opponents to the GPL appear to be Microsoft. They have never claimed it to be invalid, and their behaviour suggests they're convinced it is very valid. The only place I ever see comments that it needs to be tested in court are slashdot comments.
I mean why reverse my argument and then say it's wrong? Of course it's wrong! you just reversed it!
Seems the only people who claim it's never been tested in court are its proponents. Most legal opinions, including that of the IBM, and Microsoft, seem quite convinced that the GPL is valid.
American colonists were paying considerably lower taxes than the British.
Actually, at the time, a lot of major cities in England that had no representation in parliament. As the major world power at the Time, Great Britain was pretty screwed up.
There's a cultural problem here. People can't disassociate video games from kids' toys. In England, GTA has an '18'[1] certificate. This is not a guideline. It is illegal to sell anyone under the age of 18 this game. But people still don't seem to believe that a game is unsuitable for children. Admittedly, most teenagers consider the law to have a year or so of leeway, but parents seem to be a lot happier with 14 year olds playing an 18 certificate game than seeing an 18 certificate film.
[1] From the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification). Film makers are required to have movies classified by this organisation. The law is a little more fuzzy when it comes to games.
Put yourself in the thief's position - You're a thief. You see a laptop. You also see that its owner isn't looking, so you steal it. Normally you'd just sell it to a fence who would format it and resell it. You already know the guy. You've sold him dozens of pieces of electrical equipment. He takes it apart and sells it as components.
However, instead you hear that a laptop that has lots of personal information useful for identity theft has been stolen, and somehow you realise tis the one you stole. You take it to the fence. He doesn't know anyone who is into anything above petty crime, so will only pay you the usual rate.
How do you find any bidders who want this information? They don't advertise and aren't going to trust you since you could easily be a cop.
So come up with a more detailed scenario. Perhaps the fence knows people, but why would he know them? How is it that he often gets hold of lists of SSNs?
Identity information is only useful to people who know how to perpetrate identity theft. If this crook knew how to do this the chances are he'd already have looked. And he has to realise that it is the laptop he stole.
It's a problem if he knows this and knows someone who knows what to do with the data, but at least with disclosure the victims know they are at risk.
Some people think that lawsuit happy companies are behaving unethically. These people usually also feel that it's worth their while to boycott the companies in order to punish them, or think it would be hypocritical to do business with a company they consider unethical.
And they'll be able to get a lot more money than that as well.
There are a lot of uses for a tether with a better strength to weight ratio. Climbers want to reduce the weight they have to carry and will pay a premium to save sufficient weight, so just that market will be worth a lot more than $50 000.
It's a telephone service! Your toaster is not a telephone service. Your email is not a telephone service. VOIP is a telephone service. Where does the law on telehpone services make an exception for VOIP? Considering the FCC has passed various regulations concerning VOIP, I'd say its regulated.
I find your lawsuit against Vonage to be incredibly frivolous. First, Vonage is NOT traditional telephone service. It is VoIP. VoIP is NOT regulated, nor is it required to provide 911 service. Vonage has found a way to offer 911 service to consumer by redirecting them to their PSAP, however this can only be done AFTER the consumer has told Vonage where the unit will be used (as you can take it anywhere).
This should not be a problem. At the very least, 911 could default to contacting a national call centre that can then ask for your address and connect yuou to your local emergency service. Or alternatively it can make the assumption that the billing address and calling address are the same. A more complete solution would be to prevent any calls until 911 had been set up.
Second, saying you 'want 911' on your VoIP line, is like saying you want your car to be able to move large trees from the country road you live on. It's simply not the same thing. You need a tow truck, or other large vehicle to move the trees.... Likewise, VoIP is NOT traditional land line service, and as a result some things are different. I see no one complaining about FREE 3-way calling, FREE voice mail, and FREE caller-ID... these are certainly NOT services offered by traditional land-line companies.
Adding 911 service is simple and a legal requirement. The ability for a car to move a tree is not simple and is not a legal requirement. If Vonage do not wish to provide this service, then they are entitled to lobby for an exception to be made in the law.
Are you going to sue Ford because they failed to mention that the car you are purchasing does NOT have side air bags? Are you going to sue Ford because they didn't have a sticker on the car clearly indicating you could be injured more severely in car B then in car A because it didn't have side air bags?
Warnings are not the issue here. I would sue ford if they didn't provide seatbelts whether there was a warning or not since these are a legal requirement.
Mr. Abbott, the time has come for American's to take responsibility for their actions. This is clearly a case of negligence (the persons involved failed to setup their 911 service), or ignorance (persons involved failed to read the NUMEROUS warnings that Vonage gives.. even the periodical e-mails if 911 service is not activated, and the BIG RED LETTERS at the top of the dashboard page if 911 is not activated).
Indeed. The persons involved were negligent. This does not absolve Vonage of any responsibility.
Further, in signing up for service, these persons agreed to the Terms of Service, which clearly state that traditional 911 is not offered, and there are limitations to VoIP 911. Additionally, it MUST BE ACTIVATED!Terms of service do not absolve them of legal responsibilities. If someone is injured as a result of their failure to provide something that a reasonable person may expect to be provided, then they are responsible.
I am asking you, Mr. Abbott, to stop this frivolous lawsuit and move on to more important things, like educating the people of Texas about VoIP, rather then trying to stifle its growth.
If the cost of consumer safetly is slower growth for this market, then this is a price that must be paid. But I consider the ability to make emergency calls an essential improvementy to the service. Hence this lawsuit will direct growth and not stifle it.
But there is a limit. Ultra cheap low quality cable is not going to be as good as decent quality branded cable. Most people will agree with this to some extent.
More expensive cables may be better still, or they may just be a marketting thing, but there is a point where no human ear will be able to tell the difference. Once you're at this point, it doesn't matter what scientific tests show about noise or audio quality. If you can't tell the difference by using them then there is no worthwhile difference.
So just get some decent quality branded cables. Preferably from more oscure brands.
It is a telephone service. Vonage call themselves the broadband phone company. It is a service that allows and is intended to let people make voice calls to other people connected to a telephone network. This sounds like a phone service to me. Or should POTS be exempt from regulations because they too use packet switched networks?
and SHOULD NOT be required to provide services that POTS offers.
Why should POTS be required to provide these services then? What is the difference? A far as I can see, telephone providers are required to provide 911 because they are an essential emergency resource. If Vonage don't want to provide a part of an emergency service then they should stop providing a voice communication service and go for a less regulated market.
Telephone services are regulated. They are regulated for very good reason. In the case of 911 calls, it is because people could die if they don't reach the emergency services.
Given that these regulations exist, it is not unreasonable to assume that your new telephone service complies with these regulations. Why should they be exempt just because their service uses a different technology?
What's likely to change? I mean I could email him and congratulate him on using the law to make VoIP providers to offer the services that might reasonably be expected, but he's already doing this so I don't see how my email will help.
So, in your opinion, which is best, or are tin and aliminium both optimal for certain specific metal foil hat applications? How well would copper foil work?
Slashdot Mirror
If you think that two prominent lines going across the screen is better than a slightly unstable picture... Most people are more tolerant of random noise than something more obvious.
I think it's for large scale direct commercial infringement rather than the more typical kids swapping pirate copies.
I don't give a damn to be honest. Since when has a licence to offer certain rights within limitations ever needed to be tested?
And stop whining about "theft". Would you also claim ownership of fire?
No. That would be the opposite of what I meant to say. A proponent is someone who is in favour.
I meant what I said. The main opponents to the GPL appear to be Microsoft. They have never claimed it to be invalid, and their behaviour suggests they're convinced it is very valid. The only place I ever see comments that it needs to be tested in court are slashdot comments.
I mean why reverse my argument and then say it's wrong? Of course it's wrong! you just reversed it!
Why does it need court cases?
Seems the only people who claim it's never been tested in court are its proponents. Most legal opinions, including that of the IBM, and Microsoft, seem quite convinced that the GPL is valid.
Google aren't an internet provider? Why do I keep seeing ads from them telling me to sign up to broadband then?
Yeah, great, because we all know that AOL, MSN and Google are pure in heart epitomies of goodness.
American colonists were paying considerably lower taxes than the British.
Actually, at the time, a lot of major cities in England that had no representation in parliament. As the major world power at the Time, Great Britain was pretty screwed up.
There's a cultural problem here. People can't disassociate video games from kids' toys. In England, GTA has an '18'[1] certificate. This is not a guideline. It is illegal to sell anyone under the age of 18 this game. But people still don't seem to believe that a game is unsuitable for children. Admittedly, most teenagers consider the law to have a year or so of leeway, but parents seem to be a lot happier with 14 year olds playing an 18 certificate game than seeing an 18 certificate film.
[1] From the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification). Film makers are required to have movies classified by this organisation. The law is a little more fuzzy when it comes to games.
I want details. A complete scenario.
Put yourself in the thief's position - You're a thief. You see a laptop. You also see that its owner isn't looking, so you steal it. Normally you'd just sell it to a fence who would format it and resell it. You already know the guy. You've sold him dozens of pieces of electrical equipment. He takes it apart and sells it as components.
However, instead you hear that a laptop that has lots of personal information useful for identity theft has been stolen, and somehow you realise tis the one you stole. You take it to the fence. He doesn't know anyone who is into anything above petty crime, so will only pay you the usual rate.
How do you find any bidders who want this information? They don't advertise and aren't going to trust you since you could easily be a cop.
So come up with a more detailed scenario. Perhaps the fence knows people, but why would he know them? How is it that he often gets hold of lists of SSNs?
Identity information is only useful to people who know how to perpetrate identity theft. If this crook knew how to do this the chances are he'd already have looked. And he has to realise that it is the laptop he stole.
It's a problem if he knows this and knows someone who knows what to do with the data, but at least with disclosure the victims know they are at risk.
That's no reason not to apply pressure to change the rules.
How many people stab in D&D? Any decent combat munchkin will use a sword or battleaxe. And nobody stabs with those. They'll try to get a decent swing.
Interesting, but canthey still file suit for infringements at a time when the patent was still valid?
They'll point to their TOS. Unless you actually take them to court, there's no way to convince them this is breach of contract.
I've had experience with this sort of thing. Some people will refuse to consider that they might be wrong.
You mean you're a time meddler!? Why, I should strand you in 11th century England for that!
Some people think that lawsuit happy companies are behaving unethically. These people usually also feel that it's worth their while to boycott the companies in order to punish them, or think it would be hypocritical to do business with a company they consider unethical.
And they'll be able to get a lot more money than that as well.
There are a lot of uses for a tether with a better strength to weight ratio. Climbers want to reduce the weight they have to carry and will pay a premium to save sufficient weight, so just that market will be worth a lot more than $50 000.
It's a telephone service! Your toaster is not a telephone service. Your email is not a telephone service. VOIP is a telephone service. Where does the law on telehpone services make an exception for VOIP? Considering the FCC has passed various regulations concerning VOIP, I'd say its regulated.
I find your lawsuit against Vonage to be incredibly frivolous. First, Vonage is NOT traditional telephone service. It is VoIP. VoIP is NOT regulated, nor is it required to provide 911 service. Vonage has found a way to offer 911 service to consumer by redirecting them to their PSAP, however this can only be done AFTER the consumer has told Vonage where the unit will be used (as you can take it anywhere).
This should not be a problem. At the very least, 911 could default to contacting a national call centre that can then ask for your address and connect yuou to your local emergency service. Or alternatively it can make the assumption that the billing address and calling address are the same. A more complete solution would be to prevent any calls until 911 had been set up.
Second, saying you 'want 911' on your VoIP line, is like saying you want your car to be able to move large trees from the country road you live on. It's simply not the same thing. You need a tow truck, or other large vehicle to move the trees.... Likewise, VoIP is NOT traditional land line service, and as a result some things are different. I see no one complaining about FREE 3-way calling, FREE voice mail, and FREE caller-ID... these are certainly NOT services offered by traditional land-line companies.
Adding 911 service is simple and a legal requirement. The ability for a car to move a tree is not simple and is not a legal requirement. If Vonage do not wish to provide this service, then they are entitled to lobby for an exception to be made in the law.
Are you going to sue Ford because they failed to mention that the car you are purchasing does NOT have side air bags? Are you going to sue Ford because they didn't have a sticker on the car clearly indicating you could be injured more severely in car B then in car A because it didn't have side air bags?
Warnings are not the issue here. I would sue ford if they didn't provide seatbelts whether there was a warning or not since these are a legal requirement.
Mr. Abbott, the time has come for American's to take responsibility for their actions. This is clearly a case of negligence (the persons involved failed to setup their 911 service), or ignorance (persons involved failed to read the NUMEROUS warnings that Vonage gives.. even the periodical e-mails if 911 service is not activated, and the BIG RED LETTERS at the top of the dashboard page if 911 is not activated).
Indeed. The persons involved were negligent. This does not absolve Vonage of any responsibility.
Further, in signing up for service, these persons agreed to the Terms of Service, which clearly state that traditional 911 is not offered, and there are limitations to VoIP 911. Additionally, it MUST BE ACTIVATED!Terms of service do not absolve them of legal responsibilities. If someone is injured as a result of their failure to provide something that a reasonable person may expect to be provided, then they are responsible.
I am asking you, Mr. Abbott, to stop this frivolous lawsuit and move on to more important things, like educating the people of Texas about VoIP, rather then trying to stifle its growth.
If the cost of consumer safetly is slower growth for this market, then this is a price that must be paid. But I consider the ability to make emergency calls an essential improvementy to the service. Hence this lawsuit will direct growth and not stifle it.
But there is a limit. Ultra cheap low quality cable is not going to be as good as decent quality branded cable. Most people will agree with this to some extent.
More expensive cables may be better still, or they may just be a marketting thing, but there is a point where no human ear will be able to tell the difference. Once you're at this point, it doesn't matter what scientific tests show about noise or audio quality. If you can't tell the difference by using them then there is no worthwhile difference.
So just get some decent quality branded cables. Preferably from more oscure brands.
VoIP is NOT phone service.
It is a telephone service. Vonage call themselves the broadband phone company. It is a service that allows and is intended to let people make voice calls to other people connected to a telephone network. This sounds like a phone service to me. Or should POTS be exempt from regulations because they too use packet switched networks?
and SHOULD NOT be required to provide services that POTS offers.
Why should POTS be required to provide these services then? What is the difference? A far as I can see, telephone providers are required to provide 911 because they are an essential emergency resource. If Vonage don't want to provide a part of an emergency service then they should stop providing a voice communication service and go for a less regulated market.
Telephone services are regulated. They are regulated for very good reason. In the case of 911 calls, it is because people could die if they don't reach the emergency services.
Given that these regulations exist, it is not unreasonable to assume that your new telephone service complies with these regulations. Why should they be exempt just because their service uses a different technology?
What's likely to change? I mean I could email him and congratulate him on using the law to make VoIP providers to offer the services that might reasonably be expected, but he's already doing this so I don't see how my email will help.
So, in your opinion, which is best, or are tin and aliminium both optimal for certain specific metal foil hat applications? How well would copper foil work?