Nice one--that is scary. The only way around that one would be to keep both drives electrically separate, maybe using a switch like the Trios (warning, link has Flash). Now they have a selling point!
Well, one obvious reason would be in order to get new attorneys to represent chronically-under-represented groups, but of course that's not a requirement.
I dare say that the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, says nothing about supplying attorneys to underrepresented groups. Although that's a big piece of law, and I could easily be wrong. Not that it isn't a worthy goal. When I was younger and more naïve, I thought I would like being a lawyer. Fortunately, people like Lessig have stepped up and I can admire them rather than taking three years off to go to law school.
In fact, student loans are available for nearly all accredited post-secondary educational programs, including fields like art history, which have extremely high percentages of graduates who can't find work in their speciality.
So why pick on Computer Science? The point I was trying to good-naturedly (honest) make is that while you feel there is a glut of programmers, other people of good will feel that there is a glut of lawyers.
Finally, aren't programmers a dime a dozen right now? Why would anyone want to subsidize education of programmers (other than through loans), if there are already many programmers who are not employed?
Because a leading industry lobbying organization, the ITAA, says we need more programmers to keep up with demand. Now we know that means "We need seasoned Solaris admins and Oracle DBA's who'll work eighty hour weeks for $18,000/year" but apparently Congress doesn't, or at least is getting enough in "contributions" not to notice.
<OBLawyerCheapshot> By your logic, why would law students have been eligible for federal loans when you earned your J.D.?</OBLawyerCheapShot>
No, I'm not a brainwashed consumer, and do understand that clock speed is not the sole arbiter of performance. However, you and are are not the ones that AMD is trying to fool by making "model numbers" that look a lot like clock speeds to the untrained eye. Those people are the "good brainwashed consumers" of which you speak.
I would have supported AMD had they made a legitimate effort to educate the public, and called their CPUs, say, Athlon Mark III, Athlon Mark IV, or something. But instead, they chose to take the low, deceptive road of faking clock speeds. You can be in denial about it all you want, but that's what they've done.
If the name's deceptive and disingenuous, which it is, he's doing the right thing. It's not our fault that AMD decided to copy Cyrix PR ratings in an attempt to fool people into thinking their clock speeds were as high as Intel's.
So it looks as if they just stagger the limits, based on something like second letter of last name or last digit of student ID, they'll have something.
That was my point--suggesting that someone get a T-1 and walk a mile in Comcast's shoes is fallacious in the face of the fact that Comcast pays (in your words) virtually nothing for bandwidth, as opposed to $1,000/1.5MB/month used in the original poster's illustration.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter--if the in-ter-net isn't all you can eat, it's as dead as CB radio as a mainstream phenomenon in the United States.
Does that week start and end at the same time for everyone? If so, does the pipe get clogged pretty badly near the end as everyone tries to get their 2-3GB in?
They're not "abusing the system," they're just throwing off the provider's statistical model by having the sheer audacity to use what was advertised to them and for what the cable company is collecting a fee.
But they won't do that--they want to have their cake and eat it, too. One danger they might not have considered is that those who aren't using bandwidth up to a monthly cap will suddenly start being motivated to do so once the cap is in place. So while they get rid of (or gouge) the heaviest users, they may find themselves buying even more capacity as the (previously) light users cram in downloads of anything and everything to get the rest of the 5GB they paid for each month.
You could test that hypothesis for $2. You buy one, and have a friend buy one. Compare the two files byte for byte. If they're the same, they aren't marking them. If they're different, they might be.
I'd do it myself, but the thought of giving $2 to the DMCA-wielding assmasters at Vivendi is too much for my frail stomach to take, no matter how noble the cause of science.
I bet there's a good chance they got some nice phat contracts from the federal government in return for making PGP go away as a product. They don't need to eradicate it; just to make it look like a tool of fringe weirdos and/or terrorists. That'll keep encryption from becoming sufficiently ubiquitous to forestall a surveillance society.
How about a link to a scan of that letter (with your details blanked out, of course)? It'd also be educational to see the original license agreement, to determine if it even contained an out like that for NAI (providing that it's enforcable to begin with, which is probably a stretch in a non-UCITA state anyway). IANAL, etc.
In the beginning, telephone companies sold lines to banks of telemarketers, and saw that it was good. Telephone subscribers were interrupted at dinner for decades. Then the telephone companies sold Caller-ID. For a short time, the telemarketers were frustrated. But then they learned to block caller-id. Shortly afterward, customers learned not to answer calls for which caller-id was blocked. But then the telephone companies sold the boiler-room operators service that provided no caller-ID information, but did not show up as anonymous calls (the infamous "UNKNOWN"). Customers picked up on this, but couldn't very well risk blowing off Aunt-Mable that lived in an area that still had a crossbar switch and couldn't transmit Caller-ID information. And, again, the telephone company comes to the rescue--with "Privacy Guard" or a similarly named call screening service.
Now what do all these services the telephone company is offering to seemingly conflicting ends have in common? You guessed it--they ALL MAKE MONEY FOR THE PHONE COMPANY.
The antidote? Quit paying $7-$10/month for caller-id, anonymous call rejection, privacy guard, what-have-you, hook up a good old tape-based answering machine, and quit answering the phone. The people who really want to talk to you will leave a message. Those that don't, who cares? While there are times you'll need to be a slave to the phone (job-hunting comes to mind), this is a perfect solution most of the time.
I had opened up 3 separate trouble tickets with VeriSign in an attempt to get them to release the domain so I could buy it.
Thus letting them know of your intense interest and that the domain must be valuable, motivating them to make a backdoor deal with someone who would pay more. You'd have been better off writing a script to beat on their server until it became available, and immediately email or page you.
By hitting the body you can puncture a lung or other organ it won't be fatal instantly. This will give the creature time to crawl off before dieing. If the kill is instant the owners of the creature can generally tell where the animal died and who shot it.
That's good, because if I thought you shot an animal because the noise bothered you, I'd shoot you in the lung because your cruel, inhumane attitude bothers me.
That only works for monopolies or oligopolies like phone companies (pass on a corporate tax as a $2 "universal service charge" and blame it on the FCC, for example).
The first ISP to start doing this would hemmorage customers, unless it could get the others to go along--which we all know is illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
~~~
I dare say that the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, says nothing about supplying attorneys to underrepresented groups. Although that's a big piece of law, and I could easily be wrong. Not that it isn't a worthy goal. When I was younger and more naïve, I thought I would like being a lawyer. Fortunately, people like Lessig have stepped up and I can admire them rather than taking three years off to go to law school.
In fact, student loans are available for nearly all accredited post-secondary educational programs, including fields like art history, which have extremely high percentages of graduates who can't find work in their speciality.
So why pick on Computer Science? The point I was trying to good-naturedly (honest) make is that while you feel there is a glut of programmers, other people of good will feel that there is a glut of lawyers.
Because a leading industry lobbying organization, the ITAA, says we need more programmers to keep up with demand. Now we know that means "We need seasoned Solaris admins and Oracle DBA's who'll work eighty hour weeks for $18,000/year" but apparently Congress doesn't, or at least is getting enough in "contributions" not to notice.
<OBLawyerCheapshot> By your logic, why would law students have been eligible for federal loans when you earned your J.D.?</OBLawyerCheapShot>
I would have supported AMD had they made a legitimate effort to educate the public, and called their CPUs, say, Athlon Mark III, Athlon Mark IV, or something. But instead, they chose to take the low, deceptive road of faking clock speeds. You can be in denial about it all you want, but that's what they've done.
If the name's deceptive and disingenuous, which it is, he's doing the right thing. It's not our fault that AMD decided to copy Cyrix PR ratings in an attempt to fool people into thinking their clock speeds were as high as Intel's.
That was good. Now can we say "washed-up has been?" Sure we can.
Now, now, it's not nice to go calling Mr. Ashcroft a turkey. And that is a little alarmist to say he regulated it out of existence.
Not to bash law enforcement, but those among them who aren't completely ignorant of technology often know just enough to be dangerous.
Because 1215, 1776 and 1787 don't mean much in the technological world anymore, thanks to the intellectual "property" cartel?
Somebody mod that up--and before anyone asks, no, it isn't me!
So it looks as if they just stagger the limits, based on something like second letter of last name or last digit of student ID, they'll have something.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter--if the in-ter-net isn't all you can eat, it's as dead as CB radio as a mainstream phenomenon in the United States.
Does that week start and end at the same time for everyone? If so, does the pipe get clogged pretty badly near the end as everyone tries to get their 2-3GB in?
They're not "abusing the system," they're just throwing off the provider's statistical model by having the sheer audacity to use what was advertised to them and for what the cable company is collecting a fee.
But they won't do that--they want to have their cake and eat it, too. One danger they might not have considered is that those who aren't using bandwidth up to a monthly cap will suddenly start being motivated to do so once the cap is in place. So while they get rid of (or gouge) the heaviest users, they may find themselves buying even more capacity as the (previously) light users cram in downloads of anything and everything to get the rest of the 5GB they paid for each month.
Uh, because they aren't providing discounts to those who are using it less?
Puh-lease. Like Comcast is paying $1K per T-1.
Isn't that what we thought about the original Hollings bill?
I'd do it myself, but the thought of giving $2 to the DMCA-wielding assmasters at Vivendi is too much for my frail stomach to take, no matter how noble the cause of science.
I bet there's a good chance they got some nice phat contracts from the federal government in return for making PGP go away as a product. They don't need to eradicate it; just to make it look like a tool of fringe weirdos and/or terrorists. That'll keep encryption from becoming sufficiently ubiquitous to forestall a surveillance society.
How about a link to a scan of that letter (with your details blanked out, of course)? It'd also be educational to see the original license agreement, to determine if it even contained an out like that for NAI (providing that it's enforcable to begin with, which is probably a stretch in a non-UCITA state anyway). IANAL, etc.
In the beginning, telephone companies sold lines to banks of telemarketers, and saw that it was good. Telephone subscribers were interrupted at dinner for decades. Then the telephone companies sold Caller-ID. For a short time, the telemarketers were frustrated. But then they learned to block caller-id. Shortly afterward, customers learned not to answer calls for which caller-id was blocked. But then the telephone companies sold the boiler-room operators service that provided no caller-ID information, but did not show up as anonymous calls (the infamous "UNKNOWN"). Customers picked up on this, but couldn't very well risk blowing off Aunt-Mable that lived in an area that still had a crossbar switch and couldn't transmit Caller-ID information. And, again, the telephone company comes to the rescue--with "Privacy Guard" or a similarly named call screening service.
Now what do all these services the telephone company is offering to seemingly conflicting ends have in common? You guessed it--they ALL MAKE MONEY FOR THE PHONE COMPANY.
The antidote? Quit paying $7-$10/month for caller-id, anonymous call rejection, privacy guard, what-have-you, hook up a good old tape-based answering machine, and quit answering the phone. The people who really want to talk to you will leave a message. Those that don't, who cares? While there are times you'll need to be a slave to the phone (job-hunting comes to mind), this is a perfect solution most of the time.
Thus letting them know of your intense interest and that the domain must be valuable, motivating them to make a backdoor deal with someone who would pay more. You'd have been better off writing a script to beat on their server until it became available, and immediately email or page you.
That's good, because if I thought you shot an animal because the noise bothered you, I'd shoot you in the lung because your cruel, inhumane attitude bothers me.
The first ISP to start doing this would hemmorage customers, unless it could get the others to go along--which we all know is illegal.