Shoplifting *IS* a crime, which will land you in CRIMINAL COURT.
Breaking a TOS is a Breach of Contract, which will land you in CIVIL court.
Point B: (Any reason this wouldn't work?)
If a cable company's user breaks thier terms of service, it's very easy to disconnect thier service and bar them from causing futher loss. Recovering losses is as easy as small claims court.
Of course it won't work for a grocery store as they have few reliable options to prevent people from coming back into thier store to steal.(That's if you're not arresting them)
So, yes it wouldn't work very well with the grocery store, but it would plently fine with the ISP.
Your post got off on a good start. It was simple, somewhat insightful, but more importantly grabbed people's attention.
Then conclude it by pulling out the trite ol' dystopia bit, made references to communism, terrorism, alienating just about any reasonable individual, and subverted any rational explaination as to how Microsoft could exploit thier power in the future.
Try not being so dramatic next time, it sets off people's bullshit detectors.
*IF* (Big IF) you can get a dry pair connecting between your house and your ISP (given you're 12,000 ft from your ISP), and you can *ACTUALLY* get your ISP to agree on this arrangement, then you've solved a huge part of the problem.
As far as equipment is concerned, I couldn't help you. I gathered from his article that standard equipment will more or less do maybe with some help of other equipment.
My point was: If the Telcos were required to sell dry copper pairs at a minimum quality, then you might have a chance and you would probably find a lot more information as what do to.
Rolling your own DSL over a dry copper line for $45 a month
The awakening of the Internet happened for many reasons, but one of the more significant reasons was because it provided tens of thousands of entrepenuers the opportunity to start thier own ISP. Small ISP's began to crop up everywhere, especially where larger providers wouldn't provide service.
Doesn't DSL have to connect to the main switch to work?
I read this article one year ago and I was shocked. Cringely had explained that DSL doesn't need to go through the Baby Bells to work. As a matter of fact, the types of lines to make this possible have been available for years. They're called dry-copper lines and they're used by alarm companies monitor security systems, but they could also be used for DSL.
The difference between dry copper lines and regular phone lines is that dry copper lines never connect to the switch, but that doesn't matter for DSL. It's like P2P phone service, but with one line going from you home directly to your neighbors.
If only the Baby Bells would sell dry copper lines
By law the Baby Bells are required to specific services at specific prices, primarily because they are entrusted with the public's communicatiosn infrastructure. The truth is: Most baby bells will sell you a dry copper line for about $15-$45 a month. They may lie to you and say it doesn't exists, but even if you get it, it doesn't mean it will work. All they are required to do is sell you a dry copper line that completes a circuit. There's nothing preventing them from selling you a noisy dry copper line, which is especially bad for DSL.
What would have happened if the Baby Bells were required to sell clear dry copper lines?
My guess is as good as yours, but I know if I was an ISP. I would have been out there hawking cheap DSL in areas the Baby Bells were ignoring. I wonder how many people would have been doing the same thing? Would broadband have been a little more ubiquitous by now?
Do I hear an opportunity knocking on my front door???
[Knock Knock] Homeowner: May I help you? Me [beaming]: Hello maam, I'm here to make my rounds. Homeowner: Your rounds? Me: I'm here to collect the money in your computer. Homeowner: Oh yes, right this way... Me: [tinkering] Maam, Is this a slug? Homeowner: [shocked] I... I... thought Me: You thought you could get away with it? Homeowner: [shakes head] Me: I'm going to need you to pay your balance off right now, maan. Homeowner: You take cash? Me: Why certainly! [smiles + winks + thumbs up]
It's pretty obvious that discussing stupid hypothetical scenerios is a waste of time, however you seem to want to throw ALL hypothetical situations in the same boat.
Here's some basic criteria for determining whether a scenerio is worth discussing. (If you answer yes, it's worth discussing)
1. Is the scenerio likely? 2. Can the scenerio be used to circumvent the law either ligitimately or illigitmately?
Imagine what would have happened to the PC industry if they hadn't discussed the hypothetical situation in which they could circumvent the copyprotection of the IBM PC's BIOS, thus ushering the PC clone revolution.
Experts have been telling people that it's safe to view attachments like JPGs and GIFs. A press release like this aims to discredit experts who have despirately tried to explain some basic precaution, so users can try new things without fearing they'll delete everything or activate a virus.
This sort of nasty press gets picked up for the sole purpose of changing people's behavior and discrediting any other credible source of information that isn't the mainstream media.
It's precisely crap like this that resets any trust a user has in a knowledgable IT person. We despirately try to simplify the concepts enough to be understand, but not so much that it creates a security risk.
The problem is this type of press discredits experts who have been saying JPGs are harmless for years, by suggesting we all have been overlooking this huge hole.
We always knew about this scenerio with JPEGs or any other benign file type. The reason we never discussed it is because spreading viruses via JPEGs isn't very effective because you need to infect the computer with ANOTHER virus first!
It's one of those defeats the purpose scenerios.
This is also an obvious attempt to hijack credible sources of information, so they can replace it with thier "amazing tales that defy conventional wisdom and common sense" source of information.
I can't prove everybody assumed bulk discounting, but I can prove that anybody with half a brain wouldn't assume what you assumed.
Small Children understand that 10 apples cost more money than 5 apples. You accused the original post of not understanding that 10Mbs of bandwidth costs more then 5Mbs of bandwidth, and that he didn't understand that more users need more bandwidth.
Personally, I think you were quite proud of yourself for exposing the "more costs less" fallacy that's been suckering the rest of us. Way to go!
You really ARE clueless if you think he was talking about TOTAL costs, rather than cost per customer, especially when fixed costs like building, admin, marketing, equipment, are shared across all customers. (Thus reducing cost per customer)
Everybody else made that assumption, only a true moron would assume he was talking about total costs, and then have the nerve to call him a moron.
If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL? This point is of considerable concern to software companies that value their secrets, design and architecture strategies. Proponents of the GPL argue that each party in the exchange is benefiting equally, but without a means to properly make this evaluation, this position at best is over-assuming
To that you say...
Is it fair that you STEAL my 100 hours of code, which I donated to the community just because you're 50 times bigger? Is it fair to deny me the freedom to distribute MY work so people can't exploit my work?
You don't even let me USE your software unless I pony up $$$, whereas I let you USE, SHARE, and MODIFY for NOTHING, so long as you don't exploit my work. Yet, you don't think it's fair that I take measure to make sure you don't exploit my hard work?
"Another security concern is that the primary distribution channel for GPL open source is the Internet. As opposed to proprietary vendors, open source is freely downloaded. However, software in the public domain could contain a critical problem, a backdoor or worse, a dangerous virus."
Even worse! It could contain a gaping hole allowing virus writers to distribute email lightening fast throughout the world! Even worse, such a problem ignored for years, or only be fixed in a newer version!!!
Reverse engineering "harbors very close to IP infringement because and has staggering economic implications." [sic]
The economic implications are staggering! Wealth is replicated and distributed instantly at little to no cost! If only we could do that with cars and houses!!!
"On a lighter note, while many open source enthusiasts are proponents for copyleft, they insist on trademark protection for their ideas."
You mean after GIVING away thier hard work, they shouldn't ATLEAST be able to ask for CREDIT???
"If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL? This point is of considerable concern to software companies that value their secrets, design and architecture strategies. Proponents of the GPL argue that each party in the exchange is benefiting equally, but without a means to properly make this evaluation, this position at best is over-assuming."
Is it fair that you STEAL my 100 hours of code, which I donated to the community just because you're 50 times bigger? Is it fair to deny me the option to distribute MY work so people can't exploit my work for thier profit?
You don't even let me USE your software unless I pony up $$$, whereas I let you USE, SHARE, and MODIFY for NOTHING, so long as you don't exploit me work.
AND you expect me to let you exploit me because your software is 50 times bigger? Geeze, Why don't we set up the courts so whoever has the most money wins while we're at it.
"The federal government's information systems requirements intersect countless sensitive operations. The limitless potential for holes and back doors in an open source product would require unyielding scrutiny by staff that decided to use it. For example, if the Federal Aviation Agency were to develop an application (derived from open source) which controlled 747 flight patterns, a number of issues easily become national security questions such as: Would it be prudent for the FAA to use software that thousands of unknown programmers have intimate knowledge of for something this critical? Could the FAA take the chance that these unknown programmers have not shared the source code accidentally with the wrong parties? Would the FAA's decision to use software in the public domain invite computer 'hackers' more readily than proprietary products?"
This is the only tough question of the bunch. More people seeing the source code doesn't nessecarily mean it's going to be more secure. The only thing I can counter with commercial software, is there is no option to audit the security by looking through the source code. You pretty much have to take the vendor's word and hope if there are security holes, they will fix them promptly.
To be honest, I'm not sure how corporate bankruptcy works, but I would think that investors would try to milk Covad before liquidating it's assets (colocated DSL equipment).
The guy was bitching about people misusing the generic definition of monopoly, when they had it right. You don't think that's just BEGGING someone to whip out a dictionary to clarify things?
Misspelling the name of your primary source is even clumsier.
People understand that even really bright people misspell phonetically ambiguous words, and are quick to forgive them.
People don't understand pedantic quibbling, and even pedantic quibblers don't forgive each other.
Monopoly's definition is best left to lawyers and economists-- not to lexicographers.
Of course, Despite usually being in the middle of academia, I'm sure lexicographers NEVER consult reputable lawyers/economists. I'm sure they do ALL thier own research to save time.
You're argument for allowing Cable companies a monopoly is contigent on the following series of events happening.
1. Cable begins selling Voice-over-IP to all customers. 2. A significant market is going to switch to an inferior voice service. (CLEC's had hard enough time selling the same service as Bell's let alone an inferior one) 3. FCC will reconsider it's decision despite an earlier decision exempting VoIP services from paying into the Universal Service Fund, which funds telephone access in remote areas. 4. The Telco's won't figure out a way to circumvent this despite they figured out how to circumvent the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which bargained deregulation in exchange for providing access the public infrastructure they are entrusted with.
How can you even begin to assure that any of these events will take place, let alone all of them? How can you ensure a community will have all three services, Cable, DSL, and wireless? How can you ensure prices will be reasonable for the areas that lack competition (All Cable, no DSL, no Wireless)? What would keep any of these services from all agreeing to ban certain uses (Kazaa, FTP server, etc.)?
To recap, your plan puts all it's eggs in the VoIP basket, and is naive for thinking the Baby Bells and Cable companies will play by the rules.
At a minimum, we should ATLEAST keep making the Bells provide access to the infrastructure as they've been doing for the last 4-5 years. That's AT A MINIMUM, because you just can't trust them.
While we're at it, here's a list of people you can't trust.
* Politicans * Monopolies * Corporations * The Media * Musicians * Comedians * Religious Icons * Advocacy Groups * Anyone who just wants you to trust them * Anyone who identifies with a political party
I think you need to consult a brand name dictionary-- perhaps Merriam-Webster, and realize that cheap imitation dictionaries, are, like genuine "Sorny" televisions, best left unsold.
Funny you say that, I usually use dictionary.com, but having dealt with people not considering dictionary.com a good source of definitions I made sure I used Marriam-Webster.
It's pretty ironic that in going out of my way to reduce dumb comments focusing on which dictionary I used, I still get dumb comments.
Marriam-Webster 1. exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2. exclusive possession or control 3. a commodity controlled by one party
Notice the word exclusive as in exclusive ownership, exclusive control, exclusive possession
Litmus Test
Q. Do the Baby Bell's have exclusive control over the publicly owned telephone telecommunications infrastructure?
A. No, They currently have Primary Control now as they are required to share thier control with other providers.
Q. If the current FCC proposal allowing Baby Bells to deny access to the network access, will the Baby Bells return to thier Monopoly status?
A. Yes, The current FCC proposal will give EXCLUSIVE rights to the public infrastructure, making the Baby Bells Regional Monopolies. IE, No more Covad or Flashcom.
Outside of playing interactive games, which is hardly a universal activity, no broadband "killer app" has yet emerged.
I don't know about you, but isn't quickly pirating movies and music a KILLER app? If I had broadband connection like my brother, I would probably have a collection of 200 some movies too.
So what's the real reason? You have a killer app, and a low price in some areas, yet only a fraction of people are subscribing to it? Something is fishy...
Slashdot Mirror
Cable theft is a crime because it's been legislated as a crime.
This is a breach of contract with an ISP who just happens to be a cable company.
Cable Theft is a crime because it was legislated as a crime.
This isn't Cable Theft, this is breach of contract.
Point A:
Shoplifting *IS* a crime, which will land you in CRIMINAL COURT.
Breaking a TOS is a Breach of Contract, which will land you in CIVIL court.
Point B: (Any reason this wouldn't work?)
If a cable company's user breaks thier terms of service, it's very easy to disconnect thier service and bar them from causing futher loss. Recovering losses is as easy as small claims court.
Of course it won't work for a grocery store as they have few reliable options to prevent people from coming back into thier store to steal.(That's if you're not arresting them)
So, yes it wouldn't work very well with the grocery store, but it would plently fine with the ISP.
You're anology has this huge gaping hole in it...
1. Speeding is a crime...
2. Breaking TOS is a breach of contract
One of these subjects you statuatory court, the other subjects you to civil court.
Your post got off on a good start. It was simple, somewhat insightful, but more importantly grabbed people's attention.
Then conclude it by pulling out the trite ol' dystopia bit, made references to communism, terrorism, alienating just about any reasonable individual, and subverted any rational explaination as to how Microsoft could exploit thier power in the future.
Try not being so dramatic next time, it sets off people's bullshit detectors.
*IF* (Big IF) you can get a dry pair connecting between your house and your ISP (given you're 12,000 ft from your ISP), and you can *ACTUALLY* get your ISP to agree on this arrangement, then you've solved a huge part of the problem.
As far as equipment is concerned, I couldn't help you. I gathered from his article that standard equipment will more or less do maybe with some help of other equipment.
My point was: If the Telcos were required to sell dry copper pairs at a minimum quality, then you might have a chance and you would probably find a lot more information as what do to.
Rolling your own DSL over a dry copper line for $45 a month
The awakening of the Internet happened for many reasons, but one of the more significant reasons was because it provided tens of thousands of entrepenuers the opportunity to start thier own ISP. Small ISP's began to crop up everywhere, especially where larger providers wouldn't provide service.
Doesn't DSL have to connect to the main switch to work?
Or does it??? Roll your own DSL
I read this article one year ago and I was shocked. Cringely had explained that DSL doesn't need to go through the Baby Bells to work. As a matter of fact, the types of lines to make this possible have been available for years. They're called dry-copper lines and they're used by alarm companies monitor security systems, but they could also be used for DSL.
The difference between dry copper lines and regular phone lines is that dry copper lines never connect to the switch, but that doesn't matter for DSL. It's like P2P phone service, but with one line going from you home directly to your neighbors.
If only the Baby Bells would sell dry copper lines
By law the Baby Bells are required to specific services at specific prices, primarily because they are entrusted with the public's communicatiosn infrastructure. The truth is: Most baby bells will sell you a dry copper line for about $15-$45 a month. They may lie to you and say it doesn't exists, but even if you get it, it doesn't mean it will work. All they are required to do is sell you a dry copper line that completes a circuit. There's nothing preventing them from selling you a noisy dry copper line, which is especially bad for DSL.
What would have happened if the Baby Bells were required to sell clear dry copper lines?
My guess is as good as yours, but I know if I was an ISP. I would have been out there hawking cheap DSL in areas the Baby Bells were ignoring. I wonder how many people would have been doing the same thing? Would broadband have been a little more ubiquitous by now?
Do I hear an opportunity knocking on my front door???
[Knock Knock]
Homeowner: May I help you?
Me [beaming]: Hello maam, I'm here to make my rounds.
Homeowner: Your rounds?
Me: I'm here to collect the money in your computer.
Homeowner: Oh yes, right this way...
Me: [tinkering] Maam, Is this a slug?
Homeowner: [shocked] I... I... thought
Me: You thought you could get away with it?
Homeowner: [shakes head]
Me: I'm going to need you to pay your balance off right now, maan.
Homeowner: You take cash?
Me: Why certainly! [smiles + winks + thumbs up]
I almost went into a rant about how obtuse you were not to understand the difference between copyright and copyprotected. Actually, I started it...
Then I read my parent post...
It's pretty obvious that discussing stupid hypothetical scenerios is a waste of time, however you seem to want to throw ALL hypothetical situations in the same boat.
Here's some basic criteria for determining whether a scenerio is worth discussing. (If you answer yes, it's worth discussing)
1. Is the scenerio likely?
2. Can the scenerio be used to circumvent the law either ligitimately or illigitmately?
Imagine what would have happened to the PC industry if they hadn't discussed the hypothetical situation in which they could circumvent the copyprotection of the IBM PC's BIOS, thus ushering the PC clone revolution.
This is no different...
Experts have been telling people that it's safe to view attachments like JPGs and GIFs. A press release like this aims to discredit experts who have despirately tried to explain some basic precaution, so users can try new things without fearing they'll delete everything or activate a virus.
This sort of nasty press gets picked up for the sole purpose of changing people's behavior and discrediting any other credible source of information that isn't the mainstream media.
It's precisely crap like this that resets any trust a user has in a knowledgable IT person. We despirately try to simplify the concepts enough to be understand, but not so much that it creates a security risk.
The problem is this type of press discredits experts who have been saying JPGs are harmless for years, by suggesting we all have been overlooking this huge hole.
We always knew about this scenerio with JPEGs or any other benign file type. The reason we never discussed it is because spreading viruses via JPEGs isn't very effective because you need to infect the computer with ANOTHER virus first!
It's one of those defeats the purpose scenerios.
This is also an obvious attempt to hijack credible sources of information, so they can replace it with thier "amazing tales that defy conventional wisdom and common sense" source of information.
You thought you read 319 million. I checked it, it reads 319,000
I can't prove everybody assumed bulk discounting, but I can prove that anybody with half a brain wouldn't assume what you assumed.
Small Children understand that 10 apples cost more money than 5 apples. You accused the original post of not understanding that 10Mbs of bandwidth costs more then 5Mbs of bandwidth, and that he didn't understand that more users need more bandwidth.
Personally, I think you were quite proud of yourself for exposing the "more costs less" fallacy that's been suckering the rest of us. Way to go!
That's close to what I estimated for 100% utilization which was 16 gigs.
Just multiply 56K Videos (16538 * 1 Meg)
You really ARE clueless if you think he was talking about TOTAL costs, rather than cost per customer, especially when fixed costs like building, admin, marketing, equipment, are shared across all customers. (Thus reducing cost per customer)
Everybody else made that assumption, only a true moron would assume he was talking about total costs, and then have the nerve to call him a moron.
Basic Assumptions
-------------------
Web Page - 50K
Streaming Video - 1MB
MP3 Size - 3MB
Game - 30MB
Full Length Video - 600MB
1 GB Capped
Web Pages - 20972
Videos - 1024
MP3's - 341
Games - 34
Full Length Movies - 2
5 GB Capped
Web Pages - 104858
Videos - 5120
MP3's - 1707
Games - 171
Full Length Movies - 9
56K Dialup
Web Pages - 338688
Videos - 16538
MP3's - 5513
Games - 551
Full Length Movies - 28
Unlimited 384Kbps DSL
Web Pages - 2322432
Videos - 113400
MP3's - 37800
Games - 3780
Full Length Movies - 189
If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL? This point is of considerable concern to software companies that value their secrets, design and architecture strategies. Proponents of the GPL argue that each party in the exchange is benefiting equally, but without a means to properly make this evaluation, this position at best is over-assuming
To that you say...
Is it fair that you STEAL my 100 hours of code, which I donated to the community just because you're 50 times bigger? Is it fair to deny me the freedom to distribute MY work so people can't exploit my work?
You don't even let me USE your software unless I pony up $$$, whereas I let you USE, SHARE, and MODIFY for NOTHING, so long as you don't exploit my work. Yet, you don't think it's fair that I take measure to make sure you don't exploit my hard work?
"Another security concern is that the primary distribution channel for GPL open source is the Internet. As opposed to proprietary vendors, open source is freely downloaded. However, software in the public domain could contain a critical problem, a backdoor or worse, a dangerous virus."
Even worse! It could contain a gaping hole allowing virus writers to distribute email lightening fast throughout the world! Even worse, such a problem ignored for years, or only be fixed in a newer version!!!
Reverse engineering "harbors very close to IP infringement because and has staggering economic implications." [sic]
The economic implications are staggering! Wealth is replicated and distributed instantly at little to no cost! If only we could do that with cars and houses!!!
"On a lighter note, while many open source enthusiasts are proponents for copyleft, they insist on trademark protection for their ideas."
You mean after GIVING away thier hard work, they shouldn't ATLEAST be able to ask for CREDIT???
"If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL? This point is of considerable concern to software companies that value their secrets, design and architecture strategies. Proponents of the GPL argue that each party in the exchange is benefiting equally, but without a means to properly make this evaluation, this position at best is over-assuming."
Is it fair that you STEAL my 100 hours of code, which I donated to the community just because you're 50 times bigger? Is it fair to deny me the option to distribute MY work so people can't exploit my work for thier profit?
You don't even let me USE your software unless I pony up $$$, whereas I let you USE, SHARE, and MODIFY for NOTHING, so long as you don't exploit me work.
AND you expect me to let you exploit me because your software is 50 times bigger? Geeze, Why don't we set up the courts so whoever has the most money wins while we're at it.
"The federal government's information systems requirements intersect countless sensitive operations. The limitless potential for holes and back doors in an open source product would require unyielding scrutiny by staff that decided to use it. For example, if the Federal Aviation Agency were to develop an application (derived from open source) which controlled 747 flight patterns, a number of issues easily become national security questions such as: Would it be prudent for the FAA to use software that thousands of unknown programmers have intimate knowledge of for something this critical? Could the FAA take the chance that these unknown programmers have not shared the source code accidentally with the wrong parties? Would the FAA's decision to use software in the public domain invite computer 'hackers' more readily than proprietary products?"
This is the only tough question of the bunch. More people seeing the source code doesn't nessecarily mean it's going to be more secure. The only thing I can counter with commercial software, is there is no option to audit the security by looking through the source code. You pretty much have to take the vendor's word and hope if there are security holes, they will fix them promptly.
I thought they just filed for bankruptcy...
It seems like they're still taking orders...
To be honest, I'm not sure how corporate bankruptcy works, but I would think that investors would try to milk Covad before liquidating it's assets (colocated DSL equipment).
Arguing from the dictionary is a clumsy endeavor.
The guy was bitching about people misusing the generic definition of monopoly, when they had it right. You don't think that's just BEGGING someone to whip out a dictionary to clarify things?
Misspelling the name of your primary source is even clumsier.
People understand that even really bright people misspell phonetically ambiguous words, and are quick to forgive them.
People don't understand pedantic quibbling, and even pedantic quibblers don't forgive each other.
Monopoly's definition is best left to lawyers and economists-- not to lexicographers.
Of course, Despite usually being in the middle of academia, I'm sure lexicographers NEVER consult reputable lawyers/economists. I'm sure they do ALL thier own research to save time.
You're argument for allowing Cable companies a monopoly is contigent on the following series of events happening.
1. Cable begins selling Voice-over-IP to all customers.
2. A significant market is going to switch to an inferior voice service. (CLEC's had hard enough time selling the same service as Bell's let alone an inferior one)
3. FCC will reconsider it's decision despite an earlier decision exempting VoIP services from paying into the Universal Service Fund, which funds telephone access in remote areas.
4. The Telco's won't figure out a way to circumvent this despite they figured out how to circumvent the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which bargained deregulation in exchange for providing access the public infrastructure they are entrusted with.
How can you even begin to assure that any of these events will take place, let alone all of them? How can you ensure a community will have all three services, Cable, DSL, and wireless? How can you ensure prices will be reasonable for the areas that lack competition (All Cable, no DSL, no Wireless)? What would keep any of these services from all agreeing to ban certain uses (Kazaa, FTP server, etc.)?
To recap, your plan puts all it's eggs in the VoIP basket, and is naive for thinking the Baby Bells and Cable companies will play by the rules.
At a minimum, we should ATLEAST keep making the Bells provide access to the infrastructure as they've been doing for the last 4-5 years. That's AT A MINIMUM, because you just can't trust them.
While we're at it, here's a list of people you can't trust.
* Politicans
* Monopolies
* Corporations
* The Media
* Musicians
* Comedians
* Religious Icons
* Advocacy Groups
* Anyone who just wants you to trust them
* Anyone who identifies with a political party
AND
* Anyone over 30
I think you need to consult a brand name dictionary-- perhaps Merriam-Webster, and realize that cheap imitation dictionaries, are, like genuine "Sorny" televisions, best left unsold.
Funny you say that, I usually use dictionary.com, but having dealt with people not considering dictionary.com a good source of definitions I made sure I used Marriam-Webster.
It's pretty ironic that in going out of my way to reduce dumb comments focusing on which dictionary I used, I still get dumb comments.
Maybe you should look up quibble
See the second definition...
First, Let's refer to...
Marriam-Webster
1. exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2. exclusive possession or control
3. a commodity controlled by one party
Notice the word exclusive as in exclusive ownership, exclusive control, exclusive possession
Litmus Test
Q. Do the Baby Bell's have exclusive control over the publicly owned telephone telecommunications infrastructure?
A. No, They currently have Primary Control now as they are required to share thier control with other providers.
Q. If the current FCC proposal allowing Baby Bells to deny access to the network access, will the Baby Bells return to thier Monopoly status?
A. Yes, The current FCC proposal will give EXCLUSIVE rights to the public infrastructure, making the Baby Bells Regional Monopolies. IE, No more Covad or Flashcom.
From the article:
Outside of playing interactive games, which is hardly a universal activity, no broadband "killer app" has yet emerged.
I don't know about you, but isn't quickly pirating movies and music a KILLER app? If I had broadband connection like my brother, I would probably have a collection of 200 some movies too.
So what's the real reason? You have a killer app, and a low price in some areas, yet only a fraction of people are subscribing to it? Something is fishy...