my favorite ""The most heavily trafficked sites are overwhelmingly devoted to commercial activities in one form or another, such as online shopping, financial services, investment, corporate-screened entertainment, travel deals and market research. ""
Any more commas and he would have covered 99% of what you can DO on the internet.
The internet has been sold as a means of buying stuff and finding information. It is pretty obvious to those who think for themselves that corporations are much better at selling themselves than individuals are. Nearly everyday I see the three companies he wrote about being mentioned in one form or another on different mediums. It is very hard to compete with entities that people encounter on the web, radio, tv, and print.
Is that bad? No, because as we have seen, no amount of advertising keeps a bad company on the net for long. People will go where they feel is suitable for their needs.
As for 50%+ of people's time being spent on only certain sites, I would like to see what constitutes "time spent". Are we refering to time actually using the resource of the site, or including idle time or just passing through time.
Last. People here and in the tech fields love to over estimate the intelligence and willingness of the common web surfer. Most would never know how to search, let alone where unless they were taken by the hand. Same goes for shopping, after all if its on AOL it must be safe! (ask my Grandmother why she shops where she does, and I have other relatives who are convinced QVC is the place - and why? BECAUSE)
I am curious how long before Brazil or another country just ups and declares what price they will pay for a copyrighted piece of software.
In other words, how long before they trample copyrights on software in the name of "the good of the people". Brazil has already shown (so has South Africa) that if your company doesn't agree to their terms they will just label you greedy and uncaring and use it as justification to take what they want.
Hence, I think this "free" software is just a short term feel good measure. Anything is free if you don't pay for it. It uses the atypical (repeat after me : BORING) enenmy of Microsoft to explain why they must do this. Free software will only provide them "so much" before they will need to acquire a commercial product. What makes anyone believe they just won't suddenly end up with a near clone of that commercial software engineered under a "free clause"... in other words, put some government slaves to work taking it apart and remarking it as their own?
"Internet access will be the primary mover for these free networks. Sharing a cable modem or a DSL line might annoy some folks [broadband providers], but it's probably legal," said Phil Belanger, vice president of wireless business development at Wayport Inc. in Austin, Texas, a for-profit provider of 802.11b services at airports and hotels.
Now, its true it might be legal to share the cable modem or DSL, doesn't mean the providers have to let you. They could simply change their terms of service. Since these lovely providers seem to be competeing in the wireless market as well I am sure they can come up with inventive ways to slow the spread or stop it.....
Still you have to get people out there to use it, and perhaps the reason it flourishes now is because its too small for the behemoths to notice.
There are a few reasons this is a bad trend. Now they are using a public health problem as an excuse to void a valid international patent because they did not get the agreement they wanted. This plays very well in the press, "bad evil company would rather see people die than sell their stuff cheaper" instead of saying "country refuses to pay a fair price for drugs to save its own people"
Want a story that is similar, but on a more "person" level. White farmers losing their property in Zimbabwe, because its not fair that they have it.
This is the new trend, government are going to take what they want and justify it in any shape or form. While they start off doing this with the cover of "saving lives" how long before it becomes anything they want?
So here are some of the real problems.
1. Basically Brazil breaks the agreed internation law and makes the stuff for free, thereby forcing other nations to either follow their example of pay the difference. (see South Africa's example - do it or we take your companies assests)
2. Reduces the possibility of region specific drugs NOT being developed because companies rightfully fear losing all investment. (some diseases are more prevalent in certain areas of the world - that is an obvious statement).
3. Raises spectre of loss of intellectual property on other levels, and more and more are confiscated for the "public good"
4. Increases the likelyhood of similar industries leaving "hostile" countries furthering the problem that country faces.
When do we stop? Who can judge what is a fair price for something? Who can judge what can fairly be patented?
Apparently people are willing to allow those with the guns to do it, and not realize its the first step to losing their own rights.
Even schools don't deserve Windows for free.
on
Linux Win In Schools
·
· Score: 2
Sorry, if they want free software they can use Linux, but they are rightfully expected to pay for commercial software. Why should government agencies (which schools are) have software free that the public pays for.
How long before local governments decide commercial software must be made free for the benefit of the people (but only to governments, businesses can pay full price)
I cannot see how its backfired for MS, they are a corporation, and corporations are supposed to make money. If the schools don't want to pay they have a choice.
Similar but not the same hardware.
on
IBM Wants Linux
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
the RS/6000 software cannot run on the AS/400 hardware and vica-versa. The As/400 PowerPc chips are unique from what I have seen in the IBM server offerings.
Now there is competition between all groups in IBM, which is probably one reason IBM sells lots of servers (when you can call a/390, a As/400, and an RS/6000 all servers - and they all appeal to different corporate cultures you can make some impressive sales)
Now, the As/400 runs Linux virtualized... with no real perfomance penalty, and this is how they run Apache, which btw is mostly threaded because of Rochester As/400 programmers...
The key to the whole article is that Linux receives a lot of press, but its not a powerful operating system. Its an average operating system that is open to peer review, and average and open can mean many times more value than excellent and closed.
1. Order movies for later viewing, it downloads to your TIVO or similar device.
2. Movies NEVER to be on DVD, or old TV shows of the same. (now that I might pay for, if the movie was like 2 dollars or something, tv show 2 to 3 dollars per 5 episodes.
For existing content, they can forget it. If I can get it on DVD the charge for the movie that I HAVE to download would have to be in the 2 dollar range to make it even worth my time.
(still downloading to a computer is useless overall to me, I have a big TV just for watching movies, and my computer is NOWHERE near my entertainment system)
You split microsoft and you have accomphlished nothing they haven't considered doing on their own. You split the OS and only consumers will get hurt. Just what they need, does it work on OSA or OSB? Which ever of the two gets the name Windows will win anyway.
Office would continue to stomp everyone else into the ground, because its OFFICE. Everyone would know its "really Ms"
MSN/NBC is not a threat to anyone except to those who hate MS for no logical reasons.
Bill Gates isn't the threat either, but a small mind works wonders when it can focus on ONE PERSON to blame.
Sorry, but they won't give rise to competition. Netscape died because its buggy and could not even follow stanadards. WordPerfect, sorry guys, it deserved death. Novell, for the same thing people bitch as Ms for - you could not run on Novell without their certification.
So get real, I'll lose karma over this, but I really don't care. How in the hell this original stupid post made it to a 4 is beyond me. It offers nothing but the standard "Stoke the Linux faithful" by feeding them the bs you expect a politician to feed welfare slaves.
Instead of smartassed no-thought solutions why not come up with something effective. Ms got this way because of their marketing, it must be curtailed in the future on pcs, networks, and the internet to prevent them from doing so again. Office and Windows were merely what was being marketed.
1. Make it illegal for them to require their product placement over that of others on the desktop. Only operating system required icons can be required, and for windows that usually means system and trashcan. However any thing added to the desktop by a vendor should clearly state it is not supported by MS. I would also go as far to say they should have the right to have the name Windows and their Microsoft logo displayed on ANY startup screen.
2. Place no restriction or penalty on the cost of windows for companies that sell computers with other operating systems.
3. Create and monitor window wholesale costs so that it is sold to resellers of similar volume at the same price. This should not be public information, but monitored by an independant board appointed by the court.
4. Require that any software installed by a competitor be allowed to become the first choice for operating on the media (I think this already occurs)
5. Allow for removal of non-required components via the Windows Software Add/Remove. This means you can one click access away for IE, WMedia, or anything else.
6. Require Microsoft to show a good-faith effort in correcting incompatibilities caused by a software update on their part with a competitors product. Perhaps have an outside board judge the effort.
In the case of the solutions provided above, the court would appoint or see to the appointment of any monitoring agency. Microsoft would be required to pain a reasonable fee to maintain funding of this board for the duration the court sets forth.
Those are better solutions, do not take solutions which only serve to help those who have lots of Ms stock (any split would be amazing to them), and hurt consumers by introducing confusion in the market place.
Remember, any financial penalty is coming out of John Q. Public's pocket anyway.
The local paper ran an article showing that BellSouth changed their charge for a dsl line to ISPs to $33.00. This was done so as to "standardize our rate plan" or some other hogwash.
This means that my $49.00 a month DSL is most likely never to go down, as my ISP makes $16.00 over the cost of leasing the DSL line from BellSouth. If anything I fully expect my DSL to cost nearly $60 a month within 2 years.
Until their is a 2-way BB solution that does not require telco cooperation we are going to get jacked.
As far as cable goes, hey, more power to them, while they are available in my local area I can only hope it keeps BellSouth and my ISP from upping my rates.
Bellsouth charges Earthlink $33 per DSL line in
on
Rhythms Flatlines
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Bellsouth charges Earthlink 33.00 dollars per DSL line in Atlanta, and EL charges me 49.95. I submitted a story about an idea to break up the baby bells (but alas it was rejected) http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-6818658.html? tag=tp_pr
Your going to see more and more of these resellers fail simply because when the bell's do open their networks they jack the prices so high that they don't ever have to fear that their own services unit (read ISP+) will have a problem selling overpriced product.
I wonder how long before they justify raising the rates they charge to Earthlink (Bellsouth raising rates) because of needs to improve the network.
Seems typical of the industry to me.
on
Dynamix Closed Down?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The Computer Game industry always seems to be this brutal, why should anyone in a subsidiary of Sierra actually be surprised, didn't they do just the same thing the year before, and the year before that?
Actually, I think the first warning to any of the developers on a project is when their company is bought by another. Followed closely by their shipping of the product.
In essence, your nothing but a contract programmer when you work on a computer game, and its probably even worse for the graphic artist and other "support" specialties.
Not an industry for the faint at heart, all guts and no glory.
Understanding that the browser was NOT an intrinsic part of the operating system and did not consititute a threat to consumer choice, for example would have taken all of 60 seconds.
just paraphrasing what you wrote, but any non-biased judges would see that browsers mean SQUAT when it comes to operating systems, so their inclusion or not is irrelevant.
Ms was guilty of monopolistic ideals only through their marktet and forced licensing deals with OEMS. What they integrated into the OS should be of ZERO concern.
Why? Because it comes down to, who decides what is and is not allowed to be integrated?
What if MS started to include compilers for C++ and such in their OS? How about source code so that making windows apps using their compilers was many times easier?
Don't confuse Hypertransport functionality with PCI 3.0, as an eetimes article explains AMD's logic for voting to support the new intel standard, http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20010803S0080
Reading it closely makes me feel as if AMD is trying to curry favor with Intel for some odd reason while at the same time promoting their own technology.... They do overlap in a few areas, but I am curious if their support for the new PCI 3.0 standard will make it harder for them to sell HT as they will have to work to differentiate it.
Sony? I doubt it, why? Because the CD they provided WON'T damage your gear, only the one you make.
Hence, if your equipment cannot create the exact duplicate of what they provided, or even if they could, I doubt any court would side with you on this.
This isn't meant to be a flame, but how can they be liable if they didn't create the product that produced the damaging CD? Could you hold the CDR manufacturer accountable? (doubtful), or the Buring Software manufacturer accountable? (doubtful again - but probably easier)
They should not be required to support a product where the OEM has changed the installed software or the presentation.
Second, how long before these same "protectors of the public" tell Ms that they cannot install a MSN icon through a store bought upgrade version of Windows? Shouldn't we stop them there too?
How long before this same government, in a statement to protect consumers at all levels, determines that all desktops, (apple and linux too) must be open to everyone, meaning if it can run there the OEM must put it there, or the creator of the software must do so?
""Microsoft has the idea that the appearance of certain icons is essentail or harmful to the marketing functions of the operating system. When those icons are irrelevent to to the actual core non-marketing functions of the system.""
If they are irrelevant, then why are you so concerned that they want theirs too?
Huh?
""The rules of the world change because they are a monoply.
Microsoft has yet to adjust to this.""
but it does not excuse other companies to use the same tactics. Icons are irrelevant, so why should they adjust their behaviour?
I think its rude to allow for one company to exercise an attitude we find abhorrent in another. One standard, and hold them all to it.
I guess someone will claim they are exercising thier "monopoly" by making that requirement.
Its the fairest way to end-run the AOL (we haven't been put in court, so we can do all the things that are bad until then) deal.
Two wrongs don't make a right, hence the AOL deal is just as bad as what people accused MS of.
As for MS featuring their products over AOL's IM and the AOL service, uh, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks...
Subsitute AOL/MS and Windows/IM "We at NNNN are trying to comply with the Federal Requlators regarding making changes to YYYYY but it will take a few years as it is very difficult"
(still I like this new solution - it just begs the question - can everyone get on the desktop now so we can end this silliness)
Is it censorship? Probably, but its not anything a court will do anything about. Freedom of expression is in the Constitution is to protect you from the government, not some business. You are protected from such businesses by your wallet and freedom to go elsewhere.
Fair? Getting kicked for downloading copyrighted material and not being given a trial (As someone whined below) - Yep, totally fair. Its their ISP, not yours, they can kick you for any rules violation, and never tell me that downloading a copyrighted material is a "gray" area.
The fact is you can do all of these things, just avoid these cooperative ISPs, maybe they will learn. Some of them are ignorant of the law and just believe what any high powered organization tells them, others are fearful of the costs of court cases because they are marginally afloat in the first place, knowing full well they could go under fighting a case they would win, just simply not outlast.
Still, whats hilarious is/. contant all out crying over the RIAA and MPAA and then turning around and telling us all the cool stuff out on DVD that we just gotta have:D
Uh, the kettle is black guys...
One more time: You have a choice, no use in beating a dead horse, take your money to the companies that show more respect for your rights and maybe the rest will get the hint. The RIAA is going to win the battle through ignorance, so find the law and let your ISP in on it, eventually you might change their view... you might not, but not trying is worse than losing
Where did they threaten to raise the price of Windows to super high levels?
Actually, can you have a monopoly on the operating system front when people can still go to the store and buy another? That is one thing that still bugs me about the scenario of the MS monopoly?
Where is the importance of which browser is preloaded or used?
Where is the importance in the Instant Messenger?
Where is the importance in the media player?
There isn't, nothing MS proposed prevents me from getting another, which in fact is what I do. Heck, IE comes up and tells me I need QT or SW to play something, not quite threatening is it?
The key to being a monopoly is to have no choice other that yourself. I don't think its achieveable, not now, not 5 years ago, and not in 5 years, let alone ever.
So can AOL's decision be dangerous? Well the only threat AOL has is that in this day and age people are pretty attached to their email address.
Why not universalize them? Make them out to be like DNS... you may be x@aol.com, does that mean your mail must go there? Why not require ISPs and similar to let go the control of the mailbox, then it won't matter what platform or what ISP you use, you will always have a choice.
Its when you lose the freedom to switch that a monopoly exists, and we don't have that, nor were we approaching it.
Really, I hope they true to the comment. I am not just concerned about storyline, but character behaviour. Continuing one but not the other can be just as bad as doing neither, maybe worse.
We trade one evil for another. Netscape will save us from evil Microsoft, in turn becomes part of AOL who is now trying to out-evil even Microsoft.
It does seem that they want to lock down our connection, our content, and soon where we can shop.
So do they wait until Amazon goes bankrupt or is on the verge of it to buy them outright, or do they just pay Amazon enough money not to associate with MSN thereby depriving Microsoft of an ally?
I really wonder just how big the Feds are going to allow AOL/TW to get, and how many "special" contracts they will be permitted.
The common theorey is, let them get entrenched so we//justice// can establish a pattern of behaviour, then label it anti-competitive, make them pay the Federal Government and States for daring to be uncompetitive, and tell the public how much safer they are... (even though prosecution is just a ruse to tax people via a third party)
So how much more can they get away with before some state or the Feds come a knocking?
I really hope the new series picks up from the OVA, which ended with "Here comes Jurai". The character portrayals in the OVA were many times better than Tenchi Universe. TU seems "sanitized" in most areas, with simple relationships and too many "cutesy" scenes. It also never felt connected very from episode to episode.
The one big hope we know they probably won't anwser is, who gets Tenchi? Does Ryoko (probably the fan favorite - and some would say the animators favorite by the results of the movies), or does Ayeka trap him in a life of Royalty? Then again, perhaps Mihoshi "genius of luck" lands him in her lap, or Washu convinces Tenchi that love is better with "many gadgets":D
Slashdot Mirror
my favorite ""The most heavily trafficked sites are overwhelmingly devoted to commercial activities in one form or another, such as online shopping, financial services, investment, corporate-screened entertainment, travel deals and market research. ""
Any more commas and he would have covered 99% of what you can DO on the internet.
The internet has been sold as a means of buying stuff and finding information. It is pretty obvious to those who think for themselves that corporations are much better at selling themselves than individuals are. Nearly everyday I see the three companies he wrote about being mentioned in one form or another on different mediums. It is very hard to compete with entities that people encounter on the web, radio, tv, and print.
Is that bad? No, because as we have seen, no amount of advertising keeps a bad company on the net for long. People will go where they feel is suitable for their needs.
As for 50%+ of people's time being spent on only certain sites, I would like to see what constitutes "time spent". Are we refering to time actually using the resource of the site, or including idle time or just passing through time.
Last. People here and in the tech fields love to over estimate the intelligence and willingness of the common web surfer. Most would never know how to search, let alone where unless they were taken by the hand. Same goes for shopping, after all if its on AOL it must be safe! (ask my Grandmother why she shops where she does, and I have other relatives who are convinced QVC is the place - and why? BECAUSE)
I am curious how long before Brazil or another country just ups and declares what price they will pay for a copyrighted piece of software.
In other words, how long before they trample copyrights on software in the name of "the good of the people". Brazil has already shown (so has South Africa) that if your company doesn't agree to their terms they will just label you greedy and uncaring and use it as justification to take what they want.
Hence, I think this "free" software is just a short term feel good measure. Anything is free if you don't pay for it. It uses the atypical (repeat after me : BORING) enenmy of Microsoft to explain why they must do this. Free software will only provide them "so much" before they will need to acquire a commercial product. What makes anyone believe they just won't suddenly end up with a near clone of that commercial software engineered under a "free clause"... in other words, put some government slaves to work taking it apart and remarking it as their own?
Free does not equal open source.
"Internet access will be the primary mover for these free networks. Sharing a cable modem or a DSL line might annoy some folks [broadband providers], but it's probably legal," said Phil Belanger, vice president of wireless business development at Wayport Inc. in Austin, Texas, a for-profit provider of 802.11b services at airports and hotels.
Now, its true it might be legal to share the cable modem or DSL, doesn't mean the providers have to let you. They could simply change their terms of service. Since these lovely providers seem to be competeing in the wireless market as well I am sure they can come up with inventive ways to slow the spread or stop it.....
Still you have to get people out there to use it, and perhaps the reason it flourishes now is because its too small for the behemoths to notice.
http://www.viracept.com/3_DOSING/AGVR.pdf
Its pretty complex, but tell me why Brazil or anyone else should have to pay at least something for developing this, let alone testing it?
There are a few reasons this is a bad trend. Now they are using a public health problem as an excuse to void a valid international patent because they did not get the agreement they wanted. This plays very well in the press, "bad evil company would rather see people die than sell their stuff cheaper" instead of saying "country refuses to pay a fair price for drugs to save its own people"
Want a story that is similar, but on a more "person" level. White farmers losing their property in Zimbabwe, because its not fair that they have it.
This is the new trend, government are going to take what they want and justify it in any shape or form. While they start off doing this with the cover of "saving lives" how long before it becomes anything they want?
So here are some of the real problems.
1. Basically Brazil breaks the agreed internation law and makes the stuff for free, thereby forcing other nations to either follow their example of pay the difference. (see South Africa's example - do it or we take your companies assests)
2. Reduces the possibility of region specific drugs NOT being developed because companies rightfully fear losing all investment. (some diseases are more prevalent in certain areas of the world - that is an obvious statement).
3. Raises spectre of loss of intellectual property on other levels, and more and more are confiscated for the "public good"
4. Increases the likelyhood of similar industries leaving "hostile" countries furthering the problem that country faces.
When do we stop? Who can judge what is a fair price for something? Who can judge what can fairly be patented?
Apparently people are willing to allow those with the guns to do it, and not realize its the first step to losing their own rights.
Sorry, if they want free software they can use Linux, but they are rightfully expected to pay for commercial software. Why should government agencies (which schools are) have software free that the public pays for.
How long before local governments decide commercial software must be made free for the benefit of the people (but only to governments, businesses can pay full price)
I cannot see how its backfired for MS, they are a corporation, and corporations are supposed to make money. If the schools don't want to pay they have a choice.
the RS/6000 software cannot run on the AS/400 hardware and vica-versa. The As/400 PowerPc chips are unique from what I have seen in the IBM server offerings.
/390, a As/400, and an RS/6000 all servers - and they all appeal to different corporate cultures you can make some impressive sales)
Now there is competition between all groups in IBM, which is probably one reason IBM sells lots of servers (when you can call a
Now, the As/400 runs Linux virtualized... with no real perfomance penalty, and this is how they run Apache, which btw is mostly threaded because of Rochester As/400 programmers...
The key to the whole article is that Linux receives a lot of press, but its not a powerful operating system. Its an average operating system that is open to peer review, and average and open can mean many times more value than excellent and closed.
1. Order movies for later viewing, it downloads to your TIVO or similar device.
2. Movies NEVER to be on DVD, or old TV shows of the same. (now that I might pay for, if the movie was like 2 dollars or something, tv show 2 to 3 dollars per 5 episodes.
For existing content, they can forget it. If I can get it on DVD the charge for the movie that I HAVE to download would have to be in the 2 dollar range to make it even worth my time.
(still downloading to a computer is useless overall to me, I have a big TV just for watching movies, and my computer is NOWHERE near my entertainment system)
and who do you call when your HP branded computer doesn't run Baby Seal Hunter 11?
Changing startup screens and desktop presentation is one thing, I would never trust an OEM to modify anything in the OS.
Fracture the market is exactly what it would do, as well as raise support costs for everyone involved to out of this world numbers.
Let them package it, by changing icons, bundled software (which could me Java, QT, and Real), but NEVER EVER let OEM's inside.
ACK!
You split microsoft and you have accomphlished nothing they haven't considered doing on their own. You split the OS and only consumers will get hurt. Just what they need, does it work on OSA or OSB? Which ever of the two gets the name Windows will win anyway.
Office would continue to stomp everyone else into the ground, because its OFFICE. Everyone would know its "really Ms"
MSN/NBC is not a threat to anyone except to those who hate MS for no logical reasons.
Bill Gates isn't the threat either, but a small mind works wonders when it can focus on ONE PERSON to blame.
Sorry, but they won't give rise to competition. Netscape died because its buggy and could not even follow stanadards. WordPerfect, sorry guys, it deserved death. Novell, for the same thing people bitch as Ms for - you could not run on Novell without their certification.
So get real, I'll lose karma over this, but I really don't care. How in the hell this original stupid post made it to a 4 is beyond me. It offers nothing but the standard "Stoke the Linux faithful" by feeding them the bs you expect a politician to feed welfare slaves.
Instead of smartassed no-thought solutions why not come up with something effective. Ms got this way because of their marketing, it must be curtailed in the future on pcs, networks, and the internet to prevent them from doing so again. Office and Windows were merely what was being marketed.
1. Make it illegal for them to require their product placement over that of others on the desktop. Only operating system required icons can be required, and for windows that usually means system and trashcan. However any thing added to the desktop by a vendor should clearly state it is not supported by MS. I would also go as far to say they should have the right to have the name Windows and their Microsoft logo displayed on ANY startup screen.
2. Place no restriction or penalty on the cost of windows for companies that sell computers with other operating systems.
3. Create and monitor window wholesale costs so that it is sold to resellers of similar volume at the same price. This should not be public information, but monitored by an independant board appointed by the court.
4. Require that any software installed by a competitor be allowed to become the first choice for operating on the media (I think this already occurs)
5. Allow for removal of non-required components via the Windows Software Add/Remove. This means you can one click access away for IE, WMedia, or anything else.
6. Require Microsoft to show a good-faith effort in correcting incompatibilities caused by a software update on their part with a competitors product. Perhaps have an outside board judge the effort.
In the case of the solutions provided above, the court would appoint or see to the appointment of any monitoring agency. Microsoft would be required to pain a reasonable fee to maintain funding of this board for the duration the court sets forth.
Those are better solutions, do not take solutions which only serve to help those who have lots of Ms stock (any split would be amazing to them), and hurt consumers by introducing confusion in the market place.
Remember, any financial penalty is coming out of John Q. Public's pocket anyway.
It works both ways.
The local paper ran an article showing that BellSouth changed their charge for a dsl line to ISPs to $33.00. This was done so as to "standardize our rate plan" or some other hogwash.
This means that my $49.00 a month DSL is most likely never to go down, as my ISP makes $16.00 over the cost of leasing the DSL line from BellSouth. If anything I fully expect my DSL to cost nearly $60 a month within 2 years.
Until their is a 2-way BB solution that does not require telco cooperation we are going to get jacked.
As far as cable goes, hey, more power to them, while they are available in my local area I can only hope it keeps BellSouth and my ISP from upping my rates.
Her I could listen to.
Especially if she could read me my email.
Guess I have to wait a few years.
Bellsouth charges Earthlink 33.00 dollars per DSL line in Atlanta, and EL charges me 49.95. I submitted a story about an idea to break up the baby bells (but alas it was rejected) http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-6818658.html? tag=tp_pr
Your going to see more and more of these resellers fail simply because when the bell's do open their networks they jack the prices so high that they don't ever have to fear that their own services unit (read ISP+) will have a problem selling overpriced product.
I wonder how long before they justify raising the rates they charge to Earthlink (Bellsouth raising rates) because of needs to improve the network.
The Computer Game industry always seems to be this brutal, why should anyone in a subsidiary of Sierra actually be surprised, didn't they do just the same thing the year before, and the year before that?
Actually, I think the first warning to any of the developers on a project is when their company is bought by another. Followed closely by their shipping of the product.
In essence, your nothing but a contract programmer when you work on a computer game, and its probably even worse for the graphic artist and other "support" specialties.
Not an industry for the faint at heart, all guts and no glory.
Understanding that the browser was NOT an intrinsic part of the operating system and did not consititute a threat to consumer choice, for example would have taken all of 60 seconds.
just paraphrasing what you wrote, but any non-biased judges would see that browsers mean SQUAT when it comes to operating systems, so their inclusion or not is irrelevant.
Ms was guilty of monopolistic ideals only through their marktet and forced licensing deals with OEMS. What they integrated into the OS should be of ZERO concern.
Why? Because it comes down to, who decides what is and is not allowed to be integrated?
What if MS started to include compilers for C++ and such in their OS? How about source code so that making windows apps using their compilers was many times easier?
So, yes, technically capable judges are nice.
Don't confuse Hypertransport functionality with PCI 3.0, as an eetimes article explains AMD's logic for voting to support the new intel standard, http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20010803S0080
Reading it closely makes me feel as if AMD is trying to curry favor with Intel for some odd reason while at the same time promoting their own technology.... They do overlap in a few areas, but I am curious if their support for the new PCI 3.0 standard will make it harder for them to sell HT as they will have to work to differentiate it.
Sony? I doubt it, why? Because the CD they provided WON'T damage your gear, only the one you make.
Hence, if your equipment cannot create the exact duplicate of what they provided, or even if they could, I doubt any court would side with you on this.
This isn't meant to be a flame, but how can they be liable if they didn't create the product that produced the damaging CD? Could you hold the CDR manufacturer accountable? (doubtful), or the Buring Software manufacturer accountable? (doubtful again - but probably easier)
They should not be required to support a product where the OEM has changed the installed software or the presentation.
Second, how long before these same "protectors of the public" tell Ms that they cannot install a MSN icon through a store bought upgrade version of Windows? Shouldn't we stop them there too?
How long before this same government, in a statement to protect consumers at all levels, determines that all desktops, (apple and linux too) must be open to everyone, meaning if it can run there the OEM must put it there, or the creator of the software must do so?
""Microsoft has the idea that the appearance of certain icons is essentail or harmful to the marketing functions of the operating system. When those icons are irrelevent to to the actual core non-marketing functions of the system.""
If they are irrelevant, then why are you so concerned that they want theirs too?
Huh?
""The rules of the world change because they are a monoply.
Microsoft has yet to adjust to this.""
but it does not excuse other companies to use the same tactics. Icons are irrelevant, so why should they adjust their behaviour?
I think its rude to allow for one company to exercise an attitude we find abhorrent in another. One standard, and hold them all to it.
All or none.
I guess someone will claim they are exercising thier "monopoly" by making that requirement.
Its the fairest way to end-run the AOL (we haven't been put in court, so we can do all the things that are bad until then) deal.
Two wrongs don't make a right, hence the AOL deal is just as bad as what people accused MS of.
As for MS featuring their products over AOL's IM and the AOL service, uh, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks...
Subsitute AOL/MS and Windows/IM "We at NNNN are trying to comply with the Federal Requlators regarding making changes to YYYYY but it will take a few years as it is very difficult"
(still I like this new solution - it just begs the question - can everyone get on the desktop now so we can end this silliness)
Is it censorship? Probably, but its not anything a court will do anything about. Freedom of expression is in the Constitution is to protect you from the government, not some business. You are protected from such businesses by your wallet and freedom to go elsewhere.
/. contant all out crying over the RIAA and MPAA and then turning around and telling us all the cool stuff out on DVD that we just gotta have :D
Fair? Getting kicked for downloading copyrighted material and not being given a trial (As someone whined below) - Yep, totally fair. Its their ISP, not yours, they can kick you for any rules violation, and never tell me that downloading a copyrighted material is a "gray" area.
The fact is you can do all of these things, just avoid these cooperative ISPs, maybe they will learn. Some of them are ignorant of the law and just believe what any high powered organization tells them, others are fearful of the costs of court cases because they are marginally afloat in the first place, knowing full well they could go under fighting a case they would win, just simply not outlast.
Still, whats hilarious is
Uh, the kettle is black guys...
One more time: You have a choice, no use in beating a dead horse, take your money to the companies that show more respect for your rights and maybe the rest will get the hint. The RIAA is going to win the battle through ignorance, so find the law and let your ISP in on it, eventually you might change their view... you might not, but not trying is worse than losing
Where did they threaten to raise the price of Windows to super high levels?
Actually, can you have a monopoly on the operating system front when people can still go to the store and buy another? That is one thing that still bugs me about the scenario of the MS monopoly?
Where is the importance of which browser is preloaded or used?
Where is the importance in the Instant Messenger?
Where is the importance in the media player?
There isn't, nothing MS proposed prevents me from getting another, which in fact is what I do. Heck, IE comes up and tells me I need QT or SW to play something, not quite threatening is it?
The key to being a monopoly is to have no choice other that yourself. I don't think its achieveable, not now, not 5 years ago, and not in 5 years, let alone ever.
So can AOL's decision be dangerous? Well the only threat AOL has is that in this day and age people are pretty attached to their email address.
Why not universalize them? Make them out to be like DNS... you may be x@aol.com, does that mean your mail must go there? Why not require ISPs and similar to let go the control of the mailbox, then it won't matter what platform or what ISP you use, you will always have a choice.
Its when you lose the freedom to switch that a monopoly exists, and we don't have that, nor were we approaching it.
Really, I hope they true to the comment. I am not just concerned about storyline, but character behaviour. Continuing one but not the other can be just as bad as doing neither, maybe worse.
We trade one evil for another. Netscape will save us from evil Microsoft, in turn becomes part of AOL who is now trying to out-evil even Microsoft.
//justice// can establish a pattern of behaviour, then label it anti-competitive, make them pay the Federal Government and States for daring to be uncompetitive, and tell the public how much safer they are... (even though prosecution is just a ruse to tax people via a third party)
It does seem that they want to lock down our connection, our content, and soon where we can shop.
So do they wait until Amazon goes bankrupt or is on the verge of it to buy them outright, or do they just pay Amazon enough money not to associate with MSN thereby depriving Microsoft of an ally?
I really wonder just how big the Feds are going to allow AOL/TW to get, and how many "special" contracts they will be permitted.
The common theorey is, let them get entrenched so we
So how much more can they get away with before some state or the Feds come a knocking?
I really hope the new series picks up from the OVA, which ended with "Here comes Jurai". The character portrayals in the OVA were many times better than Tenchi Universe. TU seems "sanitized" in most areas, with simple relationships and too many "cutesy" scenes. It also never felt connected very from episode to episode.
:D
The one big hope we know they probably won't anwser is, who gets Tenchi? Does Ryoko (probably the fan favorite - and some would say the animators favorite by the results of the movies), or does Ayeka trap him in a life of Royalty? Then again, perhaps Mihoshi "genius of luck" lands him in her lap, or Washu convinces Tenchi that love is better with "many gadgets"
I'll vote for Ryoko, and wait to see the results.