American education is slipping, not just slipping, its in free fall. Our society doesn't value education, it values vanity. We pay professional athletes millions of dollars, the Paris Hiltons of the world millions of dollars, and for what? Vanity and entertainment. When it comes to education, we just say, "well, suck it up"...its complete BS.
So what if "Johnny Can So Program" his job will be sent offshore because "Johnny Demands a Livable Wage". There's very few niche markets where "Johnny" can still get a livable tech wage in America. Can you really blame "Johnny" if instead of studying science and math and learning about technology he blows it off, parties his life away through college, and becomes a business major so he can move on up to a clueless management position and cut jobs and make a decent wage?
Everything I learned about computers in high school, and a lot of my time in college, was learned on my own. I'd say a good portion of/. is the same way. Sure I still like to work in the tech field, but if I bought into materialism I certainly wouldn't be here, and if I had a family, I know I wouldn't be here, because I'd demand enough money to feed my family and put a roof over their heads, which would be an issue.
I'm not against outsourcing. I'd say we should be encouraging it, but the kicker being we have to do it responsibly, which corporate America doesn't quite understand.
Better? Probably not. But cheaper? Most likely. Unless you are getting paid down near, oh, $6 and hour or so, there's a cheaper option in Eastern Europe or India. Its just economics. That's the problem, too much focus on the bottom line.
Well it does mention "immigration reforms" in there somewhere...a couple times actually....you don't expect the average American to actually go "read" a bill right? I mean heck, the Senators themselves probably didn't bother. The debate is all about the money being spent on wars, not on the ID part.
You have to wonder though, 100-0...not even one symbolic no vote? You'd have thought someone, probably a democrat, would vote no on spending more money.....unless its all a conspiracy:tinfoilhat::sarcasm:
I think that's because "adequate" is such a broad word. My definition of adequate is different than yours. What I gleam from BS on the subject of "adequate" is just this idea that you should do your own research and set your own limits and not listen to everyone telling you what you need to make your system secure.
Again, this isn't necessarily a popular or informational thing, but really, there's no other answer really. BS knows better than to come out and say something is "adequate" because then if someone uses his words as god's honest truth and "gets hacked" he loses image from it. Besides, I'm sure he'd be more than willing to oblige you and say the only "adequate" security is being a Counterpane client if you pressed him hard enough;)
I stopped reading the monthly cryptograms a while ago. I think BS is becoming a victim of his own pseudo-popularity. He still makes some valid points though, but its mostly reiteration of earlier things he said about peer review/disclosure, snake oil salesman, and the like.
Then part of me wonders if maybe he just doesn't care anymore and is sick and tired of people asking the same questions. Its gotta be tiring having to answer the same series of policy questions over and over again, especially when, as he always seems to retierate, nothing is ever going to be 100% secure, which isn't a very popular idea. Can't say I'd blame him really.
The issue being, where do you draw the line? Sure there's nothing wrong with you not being able to find a copy of a TV show from the 1970s. Its not your TV show, you didn't make it, if the owner of the copyright doesn't want you to have it, why do you feel you should?
Besides, if you really wanted, I'm sure if you found enough people in the world you could probably find a copy of just about anything you wanted (hence why I would love to see the statistics for what you are asserting, saying something "no longer exists" is a pretty broad assertion).
Like I said, our society dictates that you must earn "worth" in order to survive. Until we move past the point on the evolutionary scale where people put value in money, and feel that everything we do should be valued with money, then of course its "right" for copyright laws to exist and say that the "owner" of an idea/media/tv show/whatever has a "right" to do with it what they want. And if they decide that you can't have it, then so be it. We can't go around legislating that someone has to give up "ownership" of their idea just because if they don't it will die. Its a slippery slope.
I'd say really, short of changing the mindset of the society in which we live, there's nothing that really "should" be changed about copyright. I mean really, if you think about it, people need to make money to live, therefore they "should" fight to the death to protect anything they have that is worth "money". Why shouldn't Disney have exclusive right to make money off of Mickey Mouse indefinitely (ok so maybe that would be a change from current law, since they can't do that now)? Why shouldn't the RIAA try and defend the music it pumps out for profit (assuming it does it legally, not through abusing the legal system, that's another can of worms)?
I'd say that all in all, copyright law for our time and place is relatively good in concept. The biggest problem, and something that I would make clear, is that the limits of that copyright need to be clearly defined. I think the problems that arise from copyright law these days tends to come from both sides bending the rules and trying to exploit the system.
Unfortunately, until we evolve past a state of fighting for "money" to "survive" we are still going to have to face issues of how much "money" our ideas are "worth". I'm all for stopping people from ripping off other's ideas, which copyright law does "in theory" but unfortunately the limits haven't been well defined and thus are being exploited.
Now Patent Law, on the other hand, needs some serious readjustment, but that, again, is another can of worms.
Don't give them any ideas! Next thing you know we'll all be unemployed looking for bounties because its cheaper for Sun and IBM than bringing in developers in house! Have you seen the size of those bounties? You couldn't live off that!
It'll be anarchy, bedlam, cats and dogs getting along!
As far as the resume part goes, your name would be attached to the commenting of the source code most likely. So anyone who really wanted to get on your case about it could just go look that up. Generally speaking I'd think that anyone who was that anal about checking your resume (read management types and the like) would probably back down if you told them to go look at code.
As far as the taxes part goes, you'd probaly have to weigh the benefits of incorporating yourself vs. paying as an independant contractor vs. just not claiming the income and hoping the IRS doesn't notice (helps if you just cash the checks and not deposit them in a bank most likely).
He developed the technology for a company he was working for, they owned the IP and paid him for his research while he was employed. That company then sold the rights to it to another company, who then went under in 1985 and was bought out by another company who successfully sued and won in defense of the patents on the technology. The only reason he didn't get paid off of that settlement was because he wasn't employed by the time it settled. He hardly got screwed, and didn't own the IP to begin with.
Well, not brand new per se, but I'm sure you see where I'm taking this. Sure, its a great publicity stunt, but its probably also just a stunt to get more names on their list of people to spam.
I'm finishing my degree in Computer Science at the University of Nevada (Go Wolf Pack....er....Go Flushing My Money Down the Toilet to Send 12 Guys Who Can't Speak English to a Meaningless Basketball Game), and honestly, all I can tell you is:
Your major doesn't mean a whole lot.
If you like computers and technology (which I do, which is why I'm in CS), then major in engineering and technology. Don't do it for the money. 10 years from when you graduate the percentages say you probably won't be working in a field where you will use the stuff you learned for your degree anyways. The problem I'm finding now though, unfortunately, is that as soon as I mention that I'm a CS major, companies immediately either:
A) Tell me they don't need software engineers
or
B) Try to pidgeon hole me into being a software engineer
If they would have told me that when I entered CS I probably wouldn't have have gone CS, but all in all I've learned some fun stuff and don't hate myself for going CS. So if you don't want to be a software engineer then maybe go into something like Information Systems, although I don't know if a Penn degree would run into the same software engineering trap that I have found since maybe Penn is a little more well rounded as far as theory goes, but yeah. To answer your question though, the moral of the story is just do what you like to do, and then worry about finding a job when you get there.
If what all of the people older than me say is true, then what you get your degree in doesn't matter as much as just having it, since the degree itself is what gets your foot in the door.
Then again, there's always my theory that every job will be outsourced to third wolrd countries or robots within the next 20 years anyways, so we'll aall either be rich or in poverty, but that's another can of worms entirely =)
Yup, I think now technology is viewed in two ways by the general populus:
1) Its a way to make money (although that's just the residual from the 1990s, which is dying, hence the article that started this thread).
2) Its the scary guy in the closet office who comes and fixes my computer, and who I wouldn't want my daughter to date.
Maybe if we had some desire to do anythign in this country other than find new ways of making money without working or being innovative we would value people with technological aptitude instead of mindlessly humping people with big fake boobs and steroid-injected pecs. But then again, I don't see anything inherently wrong with boobs.....but yeah....I hope my point came through there...
First, its great that people are dropping out of technology-based majors imo. These are probably the people who got into technology because they saw the huge amounts of money being raked in during the 1990s and wanted to jump on the bandwagon. Now if only the CEOs who jumped on that bandwagon and now want to outsource for cheap labor to save their dwindling paychecks did the same maybe we could get somewhere as a society instead of living every day fearing that our jobs will be sent to India.
Maybe that was a little pessimistic and unfair, but you get my point. Its culling the weak, and its good for an industry to get rid of people without the desire to do the job.
I come from the technological hotbed of Nevada (sarcasm), and up until last week I don't think anybody even knew my university existed (maybe there's something to be said for university athletics, but that's another story for another time). I constantly hear from employers the same type of story, that being "There isn't enough of a workforce to set up an office in Nevada". Yet every year people graduating from my university leave the area to try and find entry level hack jobs in some silicon valley sweatshop. Now granted, a lot of those people don't know a keyboard from a hole in their ass, and probably only got into CS because of the boom of the 1990s. This is where I'm hoping maybe this decline of CS students will be good. Teh professors can focus on teaching people who are worth their salt, instead of freeloaders who want big money for being half-assed web developers with a shiny degree.
This could also backfire, of course, in that if fewer people graduate with CS and engineering degrees, then that gives business more excuse to outsource due to "lack of a workforce". Just remember all the people who can't hack it in CS and Engineering usually end up in the business school where they learn that outsourcing is good.
Honestly, I don't know what the right answer is. I see tons of great minds with great talkent working crappy jobs, so I don't tend to buy the "we outsource because American students aren't talented enough" story. Sure, my public school education was crap, but maybe if employers tended to look past shiny degrees to see if people were really worth their salt instead of just saying "oh, the degree's good enough for me" then it would help.
But then again, that was a lot of rambling and vague ideas. I hope some of it made sense, it seems to work for me.
...that the next Windows release, that being XP Reloaded, will wander around aimlessly during install never really making any progress, whilst showing big exploding splash screens and lots of half naked people in transparent clothes and cutting rapidly to Bill G getting his sex on with some 50 year old shemale to the beat of a crappy wannabe Jungle/Tribal soundtrack?
Or even better, how about it sets the initial timeline for install at say...oh...7 hours, then somewhere in the middle it gets sped up to 30 minutes remaining, then at the very end goes back to 24 hours before just somehow being done? All the time playing the aforementioned crappy Jungle/Tribal/Industrial crap soundtrack and exploding randomly?
I know, it already does that, sans the Bill G sex and crappy soundtrack, guess that's why it would be a "new release" if they added that stuff to the install.
Comes in the form of libraries! Oh my God, people can go in an read almost any book they want, FOR FREE!!! Dear God save us all from this scourge! How can we control the masses if they have access to reading materials and knowledge! Hurry everyone get a torch and burn down these houses of terrorism and theft!
On the service thing, you're lucky. I get sporadic outages about once or twice a week. It was down for 36 hours the other day. Everytime I call it goes about like this:
"I'd like to report a DSL outage."
"Oh, I don't know who to tell about that, let me transfer you to DSL Services."
"Ok."
"Hello, DSL Services."
"I'd like to report an outage."
"Ok, what version of Windows are you running? Can you power cycle your modem and computer for me?"
"Ummm, the DSL is out to my area. I'm trying to report an outage."
"We don't see any outages, have you tried power cycling?"
"Ummm (makes typing sounds) one sec, its rebooting...Ok still no connection."
"Ok, give me a moment. (few moments pass) Oh, I see that there is an outage, it will be back momentarily."
Then an hour later I may or may not have DSL back. Nevada sucks, but still SBC is terrible. Unfortunately, its my only option for DSL here, especially now that the Nevada Congress passed a bill (SB 400 I think) to make it legal for SBC to not offer up their lines to 3rd Parties. Of course, fighting this would take political pressure, and when you have a state full of cattle ranchers and porn fiends, you don't get a lot of clout.
SBC recently sponsored a bill in the Nevada Congress which made it legal for them to do this within the state. SB 400 (I think is the number) was sponsored by SBC and is an attempt to make it legal for SBC to charge whatever they want when dealing with 3rd party ISPs. I was in the car with a few colleagues Wednesday and one of them got a call from some of his clients who went through a 3rd party DSL service to say that their entire internet connection had been shut down because SBC cut the connection to the ISP.
Its not only monopolistic pricing, they are now, at least in Nevada (and I think I heard that Indiana or Illinois had a similar measure passed) absolved from even offering the lines to 3rd parties. We're trying to start a grassroots counter-attack in the Reno area, but its going to be a long fight for certain.
Well they are 'objective' if by 'objective' you mean 'agree with everything I think, so it seems 'unbiased''. If by 'unbiased' you mean 'agree with everything I think'.
No media source is truly 'objective' or 'unbiased' all outlets have their own spin to put on stories. It just depends on what you see as 'the truth' whether or not the outlet is 'objective'...but I agree El Reg's disclaimer today was kickass. I laughed pretty hard. I love that site.
Slashdot Mirror
American education is slipping, not just slipping, its in free fall. Our society doesn't value education, it values vanity. We pay professional athletes millions of dollars, the Paris Hiltons of the world millions of dollars, and for what? Vanity and entertainment. When it comes to education, we just say, "well, suck it up"...its complete BS.
/. is the same way. Sure I still like to work in the tech field, but if I bought into materialism I certainly wouldn't be here, and if I had a family, I know I wouldn't be here, because I'd demand enough money to feed my family and put a roof over their heads, which would be an issue.
So what if "Johnny Can So Program" his job will be sent offshore because "Johnny Demands a Livable Wage". There's very few niche markets where "Johnny" can still get a livable tech wage in America. Can you really blame "Johnny" if instead of studying science and math and learning about technology he blows it off, parties his life away through college, and becomes a business major so he can move on up to a clueless management position and cut jobs and make a decent wage?
Everything I learned about computers in high school, and a lot of my time in college, was learned on my own. I'd say a good portion of
I'm not against outsourcing. I'd say we should be encouraging it, but the kicker being we have to do it responsibly, which corporate America doesn't quite understand.
Better? Probably not. But cheaper? Most likely. Unless you are getting paid down near, oh, $6 and hour or so, there's a cheaper option in Eastern Europe or India. Its just economics. That's the problem, too much focus on the bottom line.
Well it does mention "immigration reforms" in there somewhere...a couple times actually....you don't expect the average American to actually go "read" a bill right? I mean heck, the Senators themselves probably didn't bother. The debate is all about the money being spent on wars, not on the ID part.
:tinfoilhat: :sarcasm:
You have to wonder though, 100-0...not even one symbolic no vote? You'd have thought someone, probably a democrat, would vote no on spending more money.....unless its all a conspiracy
I was going to read that book, but I heard it was all the same old stuff. Glad I didn't bother, haha.
I don't know, but I'd wager you may be correct about getting paid by the word. If BS is this way at cocktail parties I'd feel pity for his guests.
I think that's because "adequate" is such a broad word. My definition of adequate is different than yours. What I gleam from BS on the subject of "adequate" is just this idea that you should do your own research and set your own limits and not listen to everyone telling you what you need to make your system secure.
;)
Again, this isn't necessarily a popular or informational thing, but really, there's no other answer really. BS knows better than to come out and say something is "adequate" because then if someone uses his words as god's honest truth and "gets hacked" he loses image from it. Besides, I'm sure he'd be more than willing to oblige you and say the only "adequate" security is being a Counterpane client if you pressed him hard enough
I stopped reading the monthly cryptograms a while ago. I think BS is becoming a victim of his own pseudo-popularity. He still makes some valid points though, but its mostly reiteration of earlier things he said about peer review/disclosure, snake oil salesman, and the like.
Then part of me wonders if maybe he just doesn't care anymore and is sick and tired of people asking the same questions. Its gotta be tiring having to answer the same series of policy questions over and over again, especially when, as he always seems to retierate, nothing is ever going to be 100% secure, which isn't a very popular idea. Can't say I'd blame him really.
The issue being, where do you draw the line? Sure there's nothing wrong with you not being able to find a copy of a TV show from the 1970s. Its not your TV show, you didn't make it, if the owner of the copyright doesn't want you to have it, why do you feel you should?
Besides, if you really wanted, I'm sure if you found enough people in the world you could probably find a copy of just about anything you wanted (hence why I would love to see the statistics for what you are asserting, saying something "no longer exists" is a pretty broad assertion).
Like I said, our society dictates that you must earn "worth" in order to survive. Until we move past the point on the evolutionary scale where people put value in money, and feel that everything we do should be valued with money, then of course its "right" for copyright laws to exist and say that the "owner" of an idea/media/tv show/whatever has a "right" to do with it what they want. And if they decide that you can't have it, then so be it. We can't go around legislating that someone has to give up "ownership" of their idea just because if they don't it will die. Its a slippery slope.
I'd say really, short of changing the mindset of the society in which we live, there's nothing that really "should" be changed about copyright. I mean really, if you think about it, people need to make money to live, therefore they "should" fight to the death to protect anything they have that is worth "money". Why shouldn't Disney have exclusive right to make money off of Mickey Mouse indefinitely (ok so maybe that would be a change from current law, since they can't do that now)? Why shouldn't the RIAA try and defend the music it pumps out for profit (assuming it does it legally, not through abusing the legal system, that's another can of worms)?
I'd say that all in all, copyright law for our time and place is relatively good in concept. The biggest problem, and something that I would make clear, is that the limits of that copyright need to be clearly defined. I think the problems that arise from copyright law these days tends to come from both sides bending the rules and trying to exploit the system.
Unfortunately, until we evolve past a state of fighting for "money" to "survive" we are still going to have to face issues of how much "money" our ideas are "worth". I'm all for stopping people from ripping off other's ideas, which copyright law does "in theory" but unfortunately the limits haven't been well defined and thus are being exploited.
Now Patent Law, on the other hand, needs some serious readjustment, but that, again, is another can of worms.
Don't give them any ideas! Next thing you know we'll all be unemployed looking for bounties because its cheaper for Sun and IBM than bringing in developers in house! Have you seen the size of those bounties? You couldn't live off that!
It'll be anarchy, bedlam, cats and dogs getting along!
Or maybe not...:tinfoilhat:
As far as the resume part goes, your name would be attached to the commenting of the source code most likely. So anyone who really wanted to get on your case about it could just go look that up. Generally speaking I'd think that anyone who was that anal about checking your resume (read management types and the like) would probably back down if you told them to go look at code.
As far as the taxes part goes, you'd probaly have to weigh the benefits of incorporating yourself vs. paying as an independant contractor vs. just not claiming the income and hoping the IRS doesn't notice (helps if you just cash the checks and not deposit them in a bank most likely).
He developed the technology for a company he was working for, they owned the IP and paid him for his research while he was employed. That company then sold the rights to it to another company, who then went under in 1985 and was bought out by another company who successfully sued and won in defense of the patents on the technology. The only reason he didn't get paid off of that settlement was because he wasn't employed by the time it settled. He hardly got screwed, and didn't own the IP to begin with.
At least RTFA before flaming for Christ's sake.
...and be entered to win this BRAND NEW CAR!!!
Well, not brand new per se, but I'm sure you see where I'm taking this. Sure, its a great publicity stunt, but its probably also just a stunt to get more names on their list of people to spam.
I'm finishing my degree in Computer Science at the University of Nevada (Go Wolf Pack....er....Go Flushing My Money Down the Toilet to Send 12 Guys Who Can't Speak English to a Meaningless Basketball Game), and honestly, all I can tell you is:
Your major doesn't mean a whole lot.
If you like computers and technology (which I do, which is why I'm in CS), then major in engineering and technology. Don't do it for the money. 10 years from when you graduate the percentages say you probably won't be working in a field where you will use the stuff you learned for your degree anyways. The problem I'm finding now though, unfortunately, is that as soon as I mention that I'm a CS major, companies immediately either:
A) Tell me they don't need software engineers
or
B) Try to pidgeon hole me into being a software engineer
If they would have told me that when I entered CS I probably wouldn't have have gone CS, but all in all I've learned some fun stuff and don't hate myself for going CS. So if you don't want to be a software engineer then maybe go into something like Information Systems, although I don't know if a Penn degree would run into the same software engineering trap that I have found since maybe Penn is a little more well rounded as far as theory goes, but yeah. To answer your question though, the moral of the story is just do what you like to do, and then worry about finding a job when you get there.
If what all of the people older than me say is true, then what you get your degree in doesn't matter as much as just having it, since the degree itself is what gets your foot in the door.
Then again, there's always my theory that every job will be outsourced to third wolrd countries or robots within the next 20 years anyways, so we'll aall either be rich or in poverty, but that's another can of worms entirely =)
Yup, I think now technology is viewed in two ways by the general populus:
1) Its a way to make money (although that's just the residual from the 1990s, which is dying, hence the article that started this thread).
2) Its the scary guy in the closet office who comes and fixes my computer, and who I wouldn't want my daughter to date.
Maybe if we had some desire to do anythign in this country other than find new ways of making money without working or being innovative we would value people with technological aptitude instead of mindlessly humping people with big fake boobs and steroid-injected pecs. But then again, I don't see anything inherently wrong with boobs.....but yeah....I hope my point came through there...
First, its great that people are dropping out of technology-based majors imo. These are probably the people who got into technology because they saw the huge amounts of money being raked in during the 1990s and wanted to jump on the bandwagon. Now if only the CEOs who jumped on that bandwagon and now want to outsource for cheap labor to save their dwindling paychecks did the same maybe we could get somewhere as a society instead of living every day fearing that our jobs will be sent to India.
Maybe that was a little pessimistic and unfair, but you get my point. Its culling the weak, and its good for an industry to get rid of people without the desire to do the job.
I come from the technological hotbed of Nevada (sarcasm), and up until last week I don't think anybody even knew my university existed (maybe there's something to be said for university athletics, but that's another story for another time). I constantly hear from employers the same type of story, that being "There isn't enough of a workforce to set up an office in Nevada". Yet every year people graduating from my university leave the area to try and find entry level hack jobs in some silicon valley sweatshop. Now granted, a lot of those people don't know a keyboard from a hole in their ass, and probably only got into CS because of the boom of the 1990s. This is where I'm hoping maybe this decline of CS students will be good. Teh professors can focus on teaching people who are worth their salt, instead of freeloaders who want big money for being half-assed web developers with a shiny degree.
This could also backfire, of course, in that if fewer people graduate with CS and engineering degrees, then that gives business more excuse to outsource due to "lack of a workforce". Just remember all the people who can't hack it in CS and Engineering usually end up in the business school where they learn that outsourcing is good.
Honestly, I don't know what the right answer is. I see tons of great minds with great talkent working crappy jobs, so I don't tend to buy the "we outsource because American students aren't talented enough" story. Sure, my public school education was crap, but maybe if employers tended to look past shiny degrees to see if people were really worth their salt instead of just saying "oh, the degree's good enough for me" then it would help.
But then again, that was a lot of rambling and vague ideas. I hope some of it made sense, it seems to work for me.
...that the next Windows release, that being XP Reloaded, will wander around aimlessly during install never really making any progress, whilst showing big exploding splash screens and lots of half naked people in transparent clothes and cutting rapidly to Bill G getting his sex on with some 50 year old shemale to the beat of a crappy wannabe Jungle/Tribal soundtrack?
Or even better, how about it sets the initial timeline for install at say...oh...7 hours, then somewhere in the middle it gets sped up to 30 minutes remaining, then at the very end goes back to 24 hours before just somehow being done? All the time playing the aforementioned crappy Jungle/Tribal/Industrial crap soundtrack and exploding randomly?
I know, it already does that, sans the Bill G sex and crappy soundtrack, guess that's why it would be a "new release" if they added that stuff to the install.
That's great....but it still has to have a plot and character development that means something...
I can say my pile of crap in the toilet is named Machiovelli, and you should fear my pile of crap, but in the end...its still a pile of crap...
Comes in the form of libraries! Oh my God, people can go in an read almost any book they want, FOR FREE!!! Dear God save us all from this scourge! How can we control the masses if they have access to reading materials and knowledge! Hurry everyone get a torch and burn down these houses of terrorism and theft!
On the service thing, you're lucky. I get sporadic outages about once or twice a week. It was down for 36 hours the other day. Everytime I call it goes about like this:
"I'd like to report a DSL outage."
"Oh, I don't know who to tell about that, let me transfer you to DSL Services."
"Ok."
"Hello, DSL Services."
"I'd like to report an outage."
"Ok, what version of Windows are you running? Can you power cycle your modem and computer for me?"
"Ummm, the DSL is out to my area. I'm trying to report an outage."
"We don't see any outages, have you tried power cycling?"
"Ummm (makes typing sounds) one sec, its rebooting...Ok still no connection."
"Ok, give me a moment. (few moments pass) Oh, I see that there is an outage, it will be back momentarily."
Then an hour later I may or may not have DSL back. Nevada sucks, but still SBC is terrible. Unfortunately, its my only option for DSL here, especially now that the Nevada Congress passed a bill (SB 400 I think) to make it legal for SBC to not offer up their lines to 3rd Parties. Of course, fighting this would take political pressure, and when you have a state full of cattle ranchers and porn fiends, you don't get a lot of clout.
SBC recently sponsored a bill in the Nevada Congress which made it legal for them to do this within the state. SB 400 (I think is the number) was sponsored by SBC and is an attempt to make it legal for SBC to charge whatever they want when dealing with 3rd party ISPs. I was in the car with a few colleagues Wednesday and one of them got a call from some of his clients who went through a 3rd party DSL service to say that their entire internet connection had been shut down because SBC cut the connection to the ISP.
Its not only monopolistic pricing, they are now, at least in Nevada (and I think I heard that Indiana or Illinois had a similar measure passed) absolved from even offering the lines to 3rd parties. We're trying to start a grassroots counter-attack in the Reno area, but its going to be a long fight for certain.
Well they are 'objective' if by 'objective' you mean 'agree with everything I think, so it seems 'unbiased''. If by 'unbiased' you mean 'agree with everything I think'.
No media source is truly 'objective' or 'unbiased' all outlets have their own spin to put on stories. It just depends on what you see as 'the truth' whether or not the outlet is 'objective'...but I agree El Reg's disclaimer today was kickass. I laughed pretty hard. I love that site.
No I haven't RTFA'd yet, but yeah, I'm tired of SCO.
...but it will shave your cat, clean your oven, and vacuum the carpet! Tally ho!
First post!
...all the linux is unaffected conclusions, while probably right, make is seem a little like the following line of analysis:
...
1) Something here
2)
3) Profit!
I don't know, just seemed like kinda a cheesy chart to me, although a lot of the points he made were decent enough, the analysis seemed cheesy.
"When space exploration ramps up it'll be the big corporations that name everything: The IBM Stellarsphere, The Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks."
Mmmmm, sounds good...where do I sign up for my Grande Latte Enima and crap software?