So isn't this the angle of the problem that should be attacked? You're locked into a monopoly with only 2 providers who won't give you the service you want, and who keep other providers locked out through underhanded practices.
Attack the problem on that angle, instead of going after the right of the ISP to use its network as it sees fit.
What I don't mention above is that the smaller ISP costs twice as much. That's how life works. The article seems to assume that $40/month for a 500K pipe is a god-given right, when it's not.
(I personally think libertarians should be precluded from use of the internet until they can reasonably explain to me how it would have come to exist in a libertarian controlled society. Thanks anyway, though)
The classic net.geek blunder is at work here in this article, as it assumes that we're the majority, instead of the minority.
Cablemodem has sucked for a while now if you're a user like the typical/. reader. AT&T uses port scanners to make sure you don't run services on their pipes. The neighborhood scheme is flawed, leading to saturated bandwidth, and frankly, it sucks for what I want. A side effect of this is that users like me are unhappy, but their continued efforts to work around restrictions placed on them by the ISP has made cablemodem suck for mom & pop web surfer, too.
There's a lot more mom & pops than there are net.geeks. Cable ISP's that survive on volume see more money in providing service to mom & pop websurfer, so they're taking steps to make the network suck more for people like me, and less for mom & pop.
Eventually, the very-lucrative-for-AT&T-Broadband mom & pop will be all that's left on their networks, and that's fine by me.
There's other providers waiting to pick up the slack that cable ISP's leave behind. I've already given my business to a DSL provider who lets me do whatever I want with my line, including hosting web/game/email/dns servers from it.
This looks like a win-win for everyone. Cable ISP's get the market they want (e-mail & websurfers), I get the service I want from another provider (gaming, running http / ftp servers, etc.), the other providor carves a profitable niche serving me & those like me, and everyone's happy.
Paul Oakenfold owes a debt then to Clint Mansell (former Pop Will Eat Itself frontman) and the Kronos Quartet, who originally composed and performed all of the themes used in Requiem for a Dream. Oakenfold used their music, they didn't use his.
In fact, there's a remix album for Requiem For A Dream's soundtrack coming out this October, which features a track by Oakenfold.
As an aside: The original promotional website for Requiem for a Dream is one of the best flash sites ever produced, and it's still up as of this writing.
since I'm fascinated with his tale, I'd like to point out the work of jorm, who's currently writing a (superhero?) story told episodically via livejournal.
Some of us still use SCSI just because of the extremely low CPU overhead it requires. The offboard controller can take care of burning a disc for me in the background while I play a quake 3 engine game, without any fear of buffer underruns. I'd like to look into cheaper hardware and Serial ATA certainly fulfills the speed & hotswap needs I have, but what about keeping overhead low? Anybody have any figures on this?
Odds are good that if you're anywhere near a metropolitan area, there's a place that will recycle your old PC. Further, in many states it's illegal to just throw an old PC out on the curb. It's not only your ethical duty, it's your legal obligation to make sure this stuff doesn't wind up landfilled.
There's several good resources on the net to help locate computer recycling centers. My favorite though, by far, are the good folks at the Alameda County Computer Recycling Center. The only bad thing I can say about them is that their front page won't render under Netscape 4.7 because of bad table code.
If you're looking for a list, there's a good one buried in the shitty graphics at this site.
--"However, data transmission SHOULD NOT be considered as long as you're paying the correct price for the bandwidth (perferrably per K-packet)."
There is competition based on acceptable use policies and what kind of data may be transmitted. There's certainly more than enough spam-endorsing ISP's out there. Forcing Qwest to transmit data they don't agree with isn't the right way to deal with the situation.
--"I believe that isn't the case when the company is a monopoly, and possibly discriminating against you on speech. Yes, it could get that nasty."
It could get that nasty, but it isn't in this case. Qwest isn't the only provider of Internet access available. Assume we stipulate one has a right to an Internet connection. That does not mean that one has a right to anything faster than 300baud. Certainly it shouldn't obligate Qwest into allocating this guy a high-speed line, or even any line at all, as there are plenty of dial-up ISP's out there just waiting for his business.
--"Does the same analogy hold true for the snail mail industry? NO."
The snail mail metaphor breaks down when compared to electronic spam, because snail mail is an economy of scale (larger print runs mean lower per-unit cost), and the burden of the price is on the sender ($.34 per parcel, until next week). In the case of electronic spam, there is no economy of scale (one e-mail costs as much to make as a million identical pieces), and the burden of the price is on the service provider, not the sender. This is what makes it so attractive for spammers, and why it is Qwest's right to refuse service.
--"I dont like either solution. Either result sets a precident I DONT LIKE."
Shareholder lawsuits to protect fiduciary interest are right and correct. When a customer is violating the terms of use and the service provider doesn't terminate the business relationship with the customer, who then goes on to cost the service provider an unreasonable amount of money, that's not looking out for shareholder interests. Corporations have an obligation to the shareholders to Increase Shareholder Value by Doing Stuff. That's the only reason all corporations in the entire world exist. When Doing Stuff actually LOSES money, they need to answer to shareholders. The mechanism in place for dealing with gross violations of this arrangement is the shareholder lawsuit. It wouldn't be setting a precedent; it would be following long standard precedent to file a shareholder lawsuit against a corporation and its chief for taking incorrect action.
'NPR also recognizes that the majority of the linking on the Web is not infringement."
Wrong. A link is NEVER infringement, it's simply a pointer to a piece of information already publicly available. If they don't want their information referenced, don't put it online, it's just that simple.
I'm glad they're re-considering the policy, but until they do away with it altogether, and realize that the only viable linking policy is to have no linking policy, we shouldn't let up the pressure.
They forgot about The Mummy Returns. As Roger Ebert points out in his Full review:
4. I have written before of the ability of movie characters to outrun fireballs. In "The Mummy Returns," there is a more amazing feat. If the rising sun touches little Alex while he is wearing the magical bracelet, he will die (it is written). But Rick, carrying Alex in his arms, is able to outrace the sunrise; we see the line of sunlight moving on the ground right behind them. It is written by Eratosthenes that the Earth is about 25,000 miles around, and since there are 24 hours in a day, Rick was running approximately 1,041 miles an hour.
Closed-format music that I can't play in non-Windows operating systems or in a dvd or car cd deck that can decode mp3 CD's doesn't interest me in the slightest. MP3 succeeds because it's portable and small. Liquid audio files may not be very large, but they're not portable at all (except to Rio players).
By the time I've converted to CD and then ripped to mp3 again, I've spent way more than $1 worth of time, and I'm inclined to just go get an mp3 rip of the song and have done with it.
Sorry guys, try again. They're halfway there, but it's got to be MP3, or bust. The really depressing part of all this is that when this fails, it will fail because the dirty thieves on the internet want something for nothing, not because they tied themselves to a wrongheaded proprietary format that nobody asked for and nobody needs.
I did my college internships with a company in Colorado called IntegWare. They made at the time a very good (if fairly ugly) PDM solution that tied directly into Pro/E as well as many of the then-popular document markup programs. I'd imagine it's only gotten better in the last few years, as they've still got the same people heading up the company.
Now, through bankruptcy court, StarBand intends to restructure our debt, bring in an infusion of new equity, remove any impediments created by existing shareholders and emerge with a plan to achieve profitability.
Those pesky shareholders, always wanting a return on their investment. If management takes the attitude that the shareholders are the enemy, it's no wonder they're going under restructuring.
getting off way too easy? WTF are you on? Do you even know what an injunction is? What the hell else do you expect at this point?
As someone who received one of these notices and saw them for the scam they are, I'm incensed. I want a class-action lawsuit to join, or failing that, I want a class-action lawsuit my registrar can join so that I can provide a copy of the notice I received as evidence.
I want criminal charges filed against Verisign, if indeed criminal penalties are provided for. IANAL.
I want the book thrown at these assholes. This is about 4 straws beyond the last straw when it comes to Verisign.
Many of the shots in the trailer are clearly identifiable as having been shot at the former airbase in Alameda, CA., an island off the coast of Oakland, across the bay from San Francisco. The view of San Francisco is breathtaking from the airbase end of the island.
The shots are:
Trinity stopping the shot up car at the 47-48 second time marker
flipping car at 51 seconds
Morpheus with sword at 52-53 seconds
jump stunt followed by rolling SUV at 55 seconds (quick flashes)
Morpheus with gun and explosion at 56 seconds
There's some large soundstages there, built from old airplane hangars, all owned by EON Productions, the Wachowski's company. During the Matrix 2 shoot they had the logo for Burlyman, the Matrix films' working title, emblazoned on them, and signs sprang up around town that simply said "BURLY" on them, followed by an arrow.
Near the hangar soundstages, a set was built on a vacant paved area next to the coast of the island. A mock freeway, sturdy enough to drive many cars on, pointed towards downtown San Francisco but ended hanging in space at an incline. (you can see the Bay Bridge in the background of some of the aforementioned shots) When standing on the freeway set, it would appear to lead straight into downtown San Francisco. To add the appearance of "realism," there was a highway sign proclaiming, "Palo Alto 7 miles." Palo Alto's about 30 miles from San Francisco. Whatever.
Anyway, the set was really amazing to see, and since it was right next to public property (the local skate park) you could walk out and take pictures of the set, and the various prop cars (including most of the ones in the trailer) parked in the lot around it. There were always a few guys out firing off cameras when I went by. The set was taken down very quickly, shortly after filming completed and all the "Burly" signs came down.
Also interesting to note is that some of the car chases were filmed in downtown Oakland and in the tunnel between Alameda & Oakland (causing a nasty traffic snarl one Saturday morning). The tunnel is notorious for being covered in grime, and is in fact so filthy that grafitti artists will come in with squeegies and start cleaning their tags into the walls. Even after the truck comes through and washes the walls off once every quarter, the tags are always just a little cleaner than the rest of the walls.
The most prolific of these taggers is apparently known as "wetso," and on Friday night before filming he had his name writ large toward one end of the (fairly recently cleaned) tunnel. I'm very curious to see if it survives into any of the final shots in the finished film. Go Wetso.
I'm with you, man. This guy's a total fuckhead for spoiling that. Why is it when the editors do it, it's called spoiling and everyone's pissed, but when this guy does it, it's a funny.sigline?
First, we have to recognize exactly what this bill would do. It would quite simply regulate the ability of youngsters to obtain video games that contain the kind of thing we already don't let them observe in movies or talk about in public. That is, it doesn't take away any rights.
You're wrong.
The ESRB and MPAA ratings and the enforcement of their ratings are not currently mandated by law. They're self-regulated, ultimately voluntary systems.
Enforcement of the MPAA ratings is done mostly through economic means and trade association pressure, and not by law.
There's a big step between a voluntary, self-censorship system and a legislated restriction on access to speech.
(I originally posted this back in February on this thread, but it's appropriate now as well)
Saying that film A made more money than film B is in the end a meaningless metric for determining how much overall success a film has enjoyed. The reason I say this is that ticket prices increase over time. This means that Titanic's $601 million, while impressive, is in the end less impressive than E.T.'s $435 million.
Tickets cost roughly $5, if not less, in 1982. This means that roughly 87 million tickets were sold to E.T.
Tickets cost roughly $8, if not more, in 1997. This means that Titanic sold only approximately 78 million tickets, 9 million less than E.T. did fifteen years prior.
(obviously these are very rough numbers, and don't take into account many other factors such as matinee prices, 2nd run theaters, etc. but they give you the idea)
Following a gross, without accounting for inflation in ticket prices, is ultimately meaningless. It would be much more meaningful to pay attention to how many actual tickets were sold, but 87 million is a much less impressive number than 601 million, so it'll never happen.
**If you value your privacy, don't give it up for small discounts, or extra convenience, or anything!**
Or even better, just lie to them.
When my grocery store raised the prices 10% and then offered me a 5% discount if I'd get a membership card, I just lied on the application. According to my card, my 20something white male self is actually a 60-year-old black mother of 6 grown children named Frieda.
The best way to sabatoge that kind of invasive system is to simply feed it bad data. Enough bad data in the database, and it becomes useless for predicting the buying habits of my demographic.
Here's the transcript of a conversation I had with Gateway a year or so ago. The chats at the beginning were conducted with a piece of software called "e-Gain" that's designed to help techs be more professional in online chat and allow them to type less. The net effect is that the customer feel patronized and like they're talking to a bot.
http://www.fahrvergnugen.net/journal/index.php?y ea r=2001&month=03&day=19
In 1999, and again in 2001, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., introduced legislation to force spyware distributors to get permission and notify people with a detailed description of the information they're collecting. No committee has picked up the bill, but broader consumer notice and privacy concerns are showing up in a compromise Internet privacy legislation soon to be introduced by Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C.
Does anyone know what this paragraph is referring to? Is this more unadulterated evil, a "compromise" version of the SSSCA-type bills, or is this (*snort*) something that could actually be beneficial? Can someone point me to more information about this legislation-to-be?
Slashdot Mirror
So isn't this the angle of the problem that should be attacked? You're locked into a monopoly with only 2 providers who won't give you the service you want, and who keep other providers locked out through underhanded practices.
Attack the problem on that angle, instead of going after the right of the ISP to use its network as it sees fit.
What I don't mention above is that the smaller ISP costs twice as much. That's how life works. The article seems to assume that $40/month for a 500K pipe is a god-given right, when it's not.
(I personally think libertarians should be precluded from use of the internet until they can reasonably explain to me how it would have come to exist in a libertarian controlled society. Thanks anyway, though)
The classic net.geek blunder is at work here in this article, as it assumes that we're the majority, instead of the minority.
/. reader. AT&T uses port scanners to make sure you don't run services on their pipes. The neighborhood scheme is flawed, leading to saturated bandwidth, and frankly, it sucks for what I want. A side effect of this is that users like me are unhappy, but their continued efforts to work around restrictions placed on them by the ISP has made cablemodem suck for mom & pop web surfer, too.
Cablemodem has sucked for a while now if you're a user like the typical
There's a lot more mom & pops than there are net.geeks. Cable ISP's that survive on volume see more money in providing service to mom & pop websurfer, so they're taking steps to make the network suck more for people like me, and less for mom & pop.
Eventually, the very-lucrative-for-AT&T-Broadband mom & pop will be all that's left on their networks, and that's fine by me.
There's other providers waiting to pick up the slack that cable ISP's leave behind. I've already given my business to a DSL provider who lets me do whatever I want with my line, including hosting web/game/email/dns servers from it.
This looks like a win-win for everyone.
Cable ISP's get the market they want (e-mail & websurfers), I get the service I want from another provider (gaming, running http / ftp servers, etc.), the other providor carves a profitable niche serving me & those like me, and everyone's happy.
So what's the big deal?
Digex mnages hosting for a key service my employer provides, and they're in and out intermittently.
Our VPN link keeps going up, down, down in one direction, around in circles, several times per minute.
http://www.internettrafficreport.com has some fun results for you, too.
Paul Oakenfold owes a debt then to Clint Mansell (former Pop Will Eat Itself frontman) and the Kronos Quartet, who originally composed and performed all of the themes used in Requiem for a Dream. Oakenfold used their music, they didn't use his.
In fact, there's a remix album for Requiem For A Dream's soundtrack coming out this October, which features a track by Oakenfold.
As an aside: The original promotional website for Requiem for a Dream is one of the best flash sites ever produced, and it's still up as of this writing.
It's a little rough, but Fwink is a great replacement for webcam32 that runs on Windows. It's even packaged in a nicely polished msi installer.
since I'm fascinated with his tale, I'd like to point out the work of jorm, who's currently writing a (superhero?) story told episodically via livejournal.
He's left me chomping at the bit for more.
Some of us still use SCSI just because of the extremely low CPU overhead it requires. The offboard controller can take care of burning a disc for me in the background while I play a quake 3 engine game, without any fear of buffer underruns. I'd like to look into cheaper hardware and Serial ATA certainly fulfills the speed & hotswap needs I have, but what about keeping overhead low? Anybody have any figures on this?
Odds are good that if you're anywhere near a metropolitan area, there's a place that will recycle your old PC. Further, in many states it's illegal to just throw an old PC out on the curb. It's not only your ethical duty, it's your legal obligation to make sure this stuff doesn't wind up landfilled.
There's several good resources on the net to help locate computer recycling centers. My favorite though, by far, are the good folks at the Alameda County Computer Recycling Center. The only bad thing I can say about them is that their front page won't render under Netscape 4.7 because of bad table code.
If you're looking for a list, there's a good one buried in the shitty graphics at this site.
--"However, data transmission SHOULD NOT be considered as long as you're paying the correct price for the bandwidth (perferrably per K-packet)."
There is competition based on acceptable use policies and what kind of data may be transmitted. There's certainly more than enough spam-endorsing ISP's out there. Forcing Qwest to transmit data they don't agree with isn't the right way to deal with the situation.
--"I believe that isn't the case when the company is a monopoly, and possibly discriminating against you on speech. Yes, it could get that nasty."
It could get that nasty, but it isn't in this case. Qwest isn't the only provider of Internet access available. Assume we stipulate one has a right to an Internet connection. That does not mean that one has a right to anything faster than 300baud. Certainly it shouldn't obligate Qwest into allocating this guy a high-speed line, or even any line at all, as there are plenty of dial-up ISP's out there just waiting for his business.
--"Does the same analogy hold true for the snail mail industry? NO."
The snail mail metaphor breaks down when compared to electronic spam, because snail mail is an economy of scale (larger print runs mean lower per-unit cost), and the burden of the price is on the sender ($.34 per parcel, until next week). In the case of electronic spam, there is no economy of scale (one e-mail costs as much to make as a million identical pieces), and the burden of the price is on the service provider, not the sender. This is what makes it so attractive for spammers, and why it is Qwest's right to refuse service.
--"I dont like either solution. Either result sets a precident I DONT LIKE."
Shareholder lawsuits to protect fiduciary interest are right and correct. When a customer is violating the terms of use and the service provider doesn't terminate the business relationship with the customer, who then goes on to cost the service provider an unreasonable amount of money, that's not looking out for shareholder interests. Corporations have an obligation to the shareholders to Increase Shareholder Value by Doing Stuff. That's the only reason all corporations in the entire world exist. When Doing Stuff actually LOSES money, they need to answer to shareholders. The mechanism in place for dealing with gross violations of this arrangement is the shareholder lawsuit. It wouldn't be setting a precedent; it would be following long standard precedent to file a shareholder lawsuit against a corporation and its chief for taking incorrect action.
Wrong. A link is NEVER infringement, it's simply a pointer to a piece of information already publicly available. If they don't want their information referenced, don't put it online, it's just that simple.
I'm glad they're re-considering the policy, but until they do away with it altogether, and realize that the only viable linking policy is to have no linking policy, we shouldn't let up the pressure.
uhhhh yeah. Boy, glad that sarcasm's not lost on you, man.
It's regrettable, because this is a step in the right direction, but this won't fly.
The article mentions that the tracks discussed by Universal are to be in Liquid Audio format.
(More about them is available here)
Closed-format music that I can't play in non-Windows operating systems or in a dvd or car cd deck that can decode mp3 CD's doesn't interest me in the slightest. MP3 succeeds because it's portable and small. Liquid audio files may not be very large, but they're not portable at all (except to Rio players).
By the time I've converted to CD and then ripped to mp3 again, I've spent way more than $1 worth of time, and I'm inclined to just go get an mp3 rip of the song and have done with it.
Sorry guys, try again. They're halfway there, but it's got to be MP3, or bust. The really depressing part of all this is that when this fails, it will fail because the dirty thieves on the internet want something for nothing, not because they tied themselves to a wrongheaded proprietary format that nobody asked for and nobody needs.
I did my college internships with a company in Colorado called IntegWare. They made at the time a very good (if fairly ugly) PDM solution that tied directly into Pro/E as well as many of the then-popular document markup programs. I'd imagine it's only gotten better in the last few years, as they've still got the same people heading up the company.
From Starband's press release:
Now, through bankruptcy court, StarBand intends to restructure our debt, bring in an infusion of new equity, remove any impediments created by existing shareholders and emerge with a plan to achieve profitability.
Those pesky shareholders, always wanting a return on their investment. If management takes the attitude that the shareholders are the enemy, it's no wonder they're going under restructuring.
getting off way too easy? WTF are you on? Do you even know what an injunction is? What the hell else do you expect at this point?
As someone who received one of these notices and saw them for the scam they are, I'm incensed. I want a class-action lawsuit to join, or failing that, I want a class-action lawsuit my registrar can join so that I can provide a copy of the notice I received as evidence.
I want criminal charges filed against Verisign, if indeed criminal penalties are provided for. IANAL.
I want the book thrown at these assholes. This is about 4 straws beyond the last straw when it comes to Verisign.
The shots are:
There's some large soundstages there, built from old airplane hangars, all owned by EON Productions, the Wachowski's company. During the Matrix 2 shoot they had the logo for Burlyman, the Matrix films' working title, emblazoned on them, and signs sprang up around town that simply said "BURLY" on them, followed by an arrow.
Near the hangar soundstages, a set was built on a vacant paved area next to the coast of the island. A mock freeway, sturdy enough to drive many cars on, pointed towards downtown San Francisco but ended hanging in space at an incline. (you can see the Bay Bridge in the background of some of the aforementioned shots) When standing on the freeway set, it would appear to lead straight into downtown San Francisco. To add the appearance of "realism," there was a highway sign proclaiming, "Palo Alto 7 miles." Palo Alto's about 30 miles from San Francisco. Whatever.
Anyway, the set was really amazing to see, and since it was right next to public property (the local skate park) you could walk out and take pictures of the set, and the various prop cars (including most of the ones in the trailer) parked in the lot around it. There were always a few guys out firing off cameras when I went by. The set was taken down very quickly, shortly after filming completed and all the "Burly" signs came down.
Also interesting to note is that some of the car chases were filmed in downtown Oakland and in the tunnel between Alameda & Oakland (causing a nasty traffic snarl one Saturday morning). The tunnel is notorious for being covered in grime, and is in fact so filthy that grafitti artists will come in with squeegies and start cleaning their tags into the walls. Even after the truck comes through and washes the walls off once every quarter, the tags are always just a little cleaner than the rest of the walls.
The most prolific of these taggers is apparently known as "wetso," and on Friday night before filming he had his name writ large toward one end of the (fairly recently cleaned) tunnel. I'm very curious to see if it survives into any of the final shots in the finished film. Go Wetso.
I'm with you, man. This guy's a total fuckhead for spoiling that. Why is it when the editors do it, it's called spoiling and everyone's pissed, but when this guy does it, it's a funny .sigline?
Someone mod this guy troll. His sig's offensive and a spoiler.
First, we have to recognize exactly what this bill would do. It would quite simply regulate the ability of youngsters to obtain video games that contain the kind of thing we already don't let them observe in movies or talk about in public. That is, it doesn't take away any rights.
You're wrong.
The ESRB and MPAA ratings and the enforcement of their ratings are not currently mandated by law. They're self-regulated, ultimately voluntary systems.
Enforcement of the MPAA ratings is done mostly through economic means and trade association pressure, and not by law.
There's a big step between a voluntary, self-censorship system and a legislated restriction on access to speech.
(I originally posted this back in February on this thread, but it's appropriate now as well)
Saying that film A made more money than film B is in the end a meaningless metric for determining how much overall success a film has enjoyed. The reason I say this is that ticket prices increase over time. This means that Titanic's $601 million, while impressive, is in the end less impressive than E.T.'s $435 million.
Tickets cost roughly $5, if not less, in 1982.
This means that roughly 87 million tickets were sold to E.T.
Tickets cost roughly $8, if not more, in 1997. This means that Titanic sold only approximately 78 million tickets, 9 million less than E.T. did fifteen years prior.
(obviously these are very rough numbers, and don't take into account many other factors such as matinee prices, 2nd run theaters, etc. but they give you the idea)
Following a gross, without accounting for inflation in ticket prices, is ultimately meaningless. It would be much more meaningful to pay attention to how many actual tickets were sold, but 87 million is a much less impressive number than 601 million, so it'll never happen.
I can dream, though.
Or even better, just lie to them.
When my grocery store raised the prices 10% and then offered me a 5% discount if I'd get a membership card, I just lied on the application. According to my card, my 20something white male self is actually a 60-year-old black mother of 6 grown children named Frieda.
The best way to sabatoge that kind of invasive system is to simply feed it bad data. Enough bad data in the database, and it becomes useless for predicting the buying habits of my demographic.
Here's the transcript of a conversation I had with Gateway a year or so ago. The chats at the beginning were conducted with a piece of software called "e-Gain" that's designed to help techs be more professional in online chat and allow them to type less. The net effect is that the customer feel patronized and like they're talking to a bot.
y ea r=2001&month=03&day=19
http://www.fahrvergnugen.net/journal/index.php?
(be gentle, it's only a K6-3)
In 1999, and again in 2001, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., introduced legislation to force spyware distributors to get permission and notify people with a detailed description of the information they're collecting. No committee has picked up the bill, but broader consumer notice and privacy concerns are showing up in a compromise Internet privacy legislation soon to be introduced by Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C.
Does anyone know what this paragraph is referring to? Is this more unadulterated evil, a "compromise" version of the SSSCA-type bills, or is this (*snort*) something that could actually be beneficial? Can someone point me to more information about this legislation-to-be?