... while the American one concentrated on fantasizing about free, high-quality scientific education, free health-care, guarranteed employment and no fear of not being able to provide for you family, absense of discrimination, media without a single advertisement, absense of tricky laws and threat that almost anyone can sue and bankrupt you for almost anything you do, the list goes on and on... it works both ways, you know
They, most certainly, wanted to protect themselves from the risk of it getting reverse-engineered and adapted to make a competing product or some other such corporate paranoia.:)
I started using Telocity in about August of 2000. And at that time they did have a clause in the agreement saying that upon termination of service by the customer within a year of opening the service, the customer is obliged to return the box or pay $500.
Also, it wasn't clear from the post whether Telocity wants ALL their gateways back, regardless of whether you are a current customer of now DirectTV, or whether you've since switched to some other ISP. Which, upon reading the heading initially, sent me into a panick. But then I realized that it only applied to people who are no longer subscribed. So, a clarification for the anwary may be in order.
Max
Yep, 95% of all physics research done in this country is military-related. All so that the us could protect its oil interests in the arab countries, right?
I have an alternative view: all so that advances in the US military technology spurred leaders like Saddam to devote more to military to catch up. Thus creating a never-ending cycle that profits the military interests, but does it profit you? Do you really think anyone would want to assault the us, with it's current fire power, in the form of nukes and other nice things. You know, nobody has for what, 200 years?
All the while such areas of physics research as optics doesn't get the nesessary funding to free you from such inconveniences as contact lenses (if you are vain) or glasses (if you are not). Or, in other areas, save you some dollars by coming up with a viable alternative to gasoline. But you know, that would make the argument that we need military to protect our oil interests irrelevant. And since about 70% of all physics research funding comes from the government/military, do you really think they'd want to fund a project like that? Could it be the reason we still don't have viable alternative fuel developed?
I don't want you to agree, I just want you to ask yourself these questions from time to time. And counter-questions are more than welcome. But please, don't give me statements of fact without proof, or with one-sided proof. Thanks.
Alright, guys. We've all played toy soldires and are now playing Quake and such. Society took care of that. But do we really need to support, or even acknowledge a new technological development by the military complex? And why do we need to discuss almost 0 efficiency high-altitude military missions that took place far from the shores of the us and were never in any danger of hitting our own house (instead of a serbian truck wreck that was masquaraded as a tank)? And why should we support millions spent on military research while the scientists that work on more socially meaningful research have to scramble for pennies?
The same thing that gives employees an opportunity to keep in touch with their friends and family while they are at work, do their shopping while they are at work and read the news while they are at work, now is blamed for depression.
Here's a question, what do you do when after having lived in a suburban house for some time, you have to move to a downtown appartment opening onto a major interstate artery? How do you cope with the noise? Do you suffer every minute of it, or do you learn to cope with its new level?
Yes, definitely some people won't be able to adjust to the new level of noise, but I don't think the percentage here would be any different than that reported in the article. Which is to say, it would be a similarly low percentage.
Also, it would be nice to have some figures for similar statistics for the pre-internet years for comparison. Without the comparison the numbers are pretty meaningless.
Is there an ulterior motive here? Perhaps an economic one?
The above says a lot about your own mentality/motives, btw.
The thing is, I would bet that you never have experienced what it is like to be poor. And you are led to believe, by the media primarily, that everyone's aspiration is to become rich. And you think that poor people would be especially striving to prosper.
Not nesessarily true. There are many societies who are not very much "richer" than the primitive people of stone age. I come from one. However, none of them envy the rich america. In fact, most of them scorn it for its greediness. Only if they get exposed to the corruptive influence of mass media (invariably sponsored by big bucks) do they start mistakenly thinking they need more in terms of "wealth".
Also, being an American you probably haven't experienced what it is like to NOT be free, have a police regime in your country and/or be politically and/or phisically opressed. From my own experience and observations of my fellow-immigrants to this country, the ones who are most happy here are the ones who came here in search of freedom, and found it. The most unhappy ones are invariably those who came here to materially better their lives, which was not hard to do once you are in the states. Compared to their "middle-class" income in their native country, flipping burgers at mcdonalds provided them with everything they didn't have back home. But once that was achieved, they didn't have anything else to strive for.
I suggest you get to know a couple recent immigrants and talk with them about their life. You will be surprised...
Slashdot Mirror
the choice seems obvious. or india could just dole itself out to its neighbours, province by province.
... while the American one concentrated on fantasizing about free, high-quality scientific education, free health-care, guarranteed employment and no fear of not being able to provide for you family, absense of discrimination, media without a single advertisement, absense of tricky laws and threat that almost anyone can sue and bankrupt you for almost anything you do, the list goes on and on ... it works both ways, you know
The same seems to be the case with Telocity.
Also, it wasn't clear from the post whether Telocity wants ALL their gateways back, regardless of whether you are a current customer of now DirectTV, or whether you've since switched to some other ISP. Which, upon reading the heading initially, sent me into a panick. But then I realized that it only applied to people who are no longer subscribed. So, a clarification for the anwary may be in order. Max
Yep, 95% of all physics research done in this country is military-related. All so that the us could protect its oil interests in the arab countries, right? I have an alternative view: all so that advances in the US military technology spurred leaders like Saddam to devote more to military to catch up. Thus creating a never-ending cycle that profits the military interests, but does it profit you? Do you really think anyone would want to assault the us, with it's current fire power, in the form of nukes and other nice things. You know, nobody has for what, 200 years? All the while such areas of physics research as optics doesn't get the nesessary funding to free you from such inconveniences as contact lenses (if you are vain) or glasses (if you are not). Or, in other areas, save you some dollars by coming up with a viable alternative to gasoline. But you know, that would make the argument that we need military to protect our oil interests irrelevant. And since about 70% of all physics research funding comes from the government/military, do you really think they'd want to fund a project like that? Could it be the reason we still don't have viable alternative fuel developed? I don't want you to agree, I just want you to ask yourself these questions from time to time. And counter-questions are more than welcome. But please, don't give me statements of fact without proof, or with one-sided proof. Thanks.
Alright, guys. We've all played toy soldires and are now playing Quake and such. Society took care of that. But do we really need to support, or even acknowledge a new technological development by the military complex? And why do we need to discuss almost 0 efficiency high-altitude military missions that took place far from the shores of the us and were never in any danger of hitting our own house (instead of a serbian truck wreck that was masquaraded as a tank)? And why should we support millions spent on military research while the scientists that work on more socially meaningful research have to scramble for pennies?
what do you say? :)
The same thing that gives employees an opportunity to keep in touch with their friends and family while they are at work, do their shopping while they are at work and read the news while they are at work, now is blamed for depression.
Here's a question, what do you do when after having lived in a suburban house for some time, you have to move to a downtown appartment opening onto a major interstate artery? How do you cope with the noise? Do you suffer every minute of it, or do you learn to cope with its new level?
Yes, definitely some people won't be able to adjust to the new level of noise, but I don't think the percentage here would be any different than that reported in the article. Which is to say, it would be a similarly low percentage.
Also, it would be nice to have some figures for similar statistics for the pre-internet years for comparison. Without the comparison the numbers are pretty meaningless.
The above says a lot about your own mentality/motives, btw.
The thing is, I would bet that you never have experienced what it is like to be poor. And you are led to believe, by the media primarily, that everyone's aspiration is to become rich. And you think that poor people would be especially striving to prosper.
Not nesessarily true. There are many societies who are not very much "richer" than the primitive people of stone age. I come from one. However, none of them envy the rich america. In fact, most of them scorn it for its greediness. Only if they get exposed to the corruptive influence of mass media (invariably sponsored by big bucks) do they start mistakenly thinking they need more in terms of "wealth".
Also, being an American you probably haven't experienced what it is like to NOT be free, have a police regime in your country and/or be politically and/or phisically opressed. From my own experience and observations of my fellow-immigrants to this country, the ones who are most happy here are the ones who came here in search of freedom, and found it. The most unhappy ones are invariably those who came here to materially better their lives, which was not hard to do once you are in the states. Compared to their "middle-class" income in their native country, flipping burgers at mcdonalds provided them with everything they didn't have back home. But once that was achieved, they didn't have anything else to strive for.
I suggest you get to know a couple recent immigrants and talk with them about their life. You will be surprised...