This ABSOLUTELY does not work with Sprint (and precipitated my departure). After hours of being on the phone with their so-called customer service (and three defective "warranty replacement" phones in the mail), I pleaded with folks at a retail location to help. Sadly, they were absolutely powerless to help--and felt horrible. Everything had to go to a completely worthless call center...
Intelligent markets driven by reasonable regulations IS the freest market we can muster.
For example, the Enron debacle in California was caused, in part, because of a lack of transparency pertaining to how their operated their generators. This produced congestion on transmission network paths needed to deliver power to California from the Pacific NW. IIRC, this caused prices to spike up to $1,000 per MW/hour (maybe more), when typical prices are more in the $40-80 range.
Enron accomplished this because they were able to succesfully hide from market participants their actions--and tossed out decades of generally accepted operational practice (aka "Good Utility Practice"). Ostensibly, this is NOT the Free Market that someone like Adam Smith would envision. Yes, we can't legislate every single aspect of behavior (hence, "Good Utility Practice"), but this should not diminish the supreme importance of creating sensible regulation.
The first comment is, to me, the most interesting response: Sounds like we're once again legislating to save irresponsible people from their own self-destructive actions.
This response is a dramatic oversimplification of what's going on (sadly, a common occurance). What I believe the FCC is proposing is ensuring that _reasonable_ and _prudent_ laypeople can clearly understand the cost consequences of their actions. And, allowing a customer to set a reasonable price cap on their cell phone spending _increases_ accountability--for costs that match their spending ability.
For example, the cost of your garden variety LOL or ROFL missive sent via text message while roaming in Cancun (phone from Sprint [USA]) was about $1. For some, this can become frighteningly expensive. Given that European pay-as-you-go service carefully tracks (and easily reports to the user via a simple text message) their remaining credits, I fail to see why this reasonable ability isn't available to everyone.
And, as someone who has done disaster relief, I have been surprised by a few increases of $40-50 for roaming charges. I am willing to pay this--but I also desire the ability to know up front. I don't think the end user should have to carry their carrier's Terms and Conditions and rate sheet in their back pocket.
Also, some of these cell phone contracts are ludicrous: even the better ones (I like AT&T) don't do a great job clearly delineating between different types of service (for example, my unlimited SMS messaging plan doesn't include picture messaging). If I, as a person who reads contracts as a part of their job, can accidentally miss this, this circumstance doesn't bode well for an average person who doesn't do this.
Accountability requires reasonable rules and transparency--US cell contracts and bills need some help on this front.
Yeah, my main worry is they'd use it as an excuse to cut people off for other reasons.
This is the potential harm from any sort of "rule" or "policy": it's always open for abuse.
That said, I don't believe this should be a reason why ISPs should not act. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to ascertain activity from a spambot or open relay, with a little more research to ascertain whether or not a zombie node is being used for a DDoS attack.
Said another way: just because you own a car doesn't mean you get to drive it any way you like: if your computer's behavior is causing harm to others in a clear manner, it should be whacked and the owner notified (e.g., routed to an ISP's page informing them of a problem with their node, dynamically close off ports, throttle their connection, etc.).
Microsoft's PC operating systems divisions, with its internecine management wars, has managed to produce uninspired designs, solutions that have more security holes than a sieve, and has generally stagnated in the arena of innovation.
Microsoft doesn't have a technology problem: they've got a cultural problem. Like Xerox PARC of the days of yore, Microsoft's Research division cranks out all manner of bankable ideas--yet their corporate patrons fail to see the need to actually implement these things to any serious degree.
That seems to be the gist of the article, and is one case where some members of the OSS community have really lost sight of something important: code is not the only thing projects need.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for pointing this out. People forget that code isn't only an end unto itself...
A small (but important) addition: volunteers power the ice ("Camp Arctica") and coffee sales, with the proceeds going to local charities, who have frequently been in need (sometimes dire) of support from any avenue.
Before you call anyone dumb, please learn to correctly spell words you've chosen to emphasize in caps.
Also, learn a bit more about corporations, both non-profit and for-profit. Black Rock (the LLC) has an "open book" policy of their finances: I suspect you'll find that the main coordinators make far less than your average "non-profit" executive (e.g., Blue Cross, local charities, etc.).
unless you're still harboring that false "nature/civilization" dichotomy, but even then - hello, town full of people, it ain't disconnected from civilization...
That dichotomy is exceptionally annoying. I previously sold camping goods at REI and would occasionally get the customer who would turn their nose up at "technology" (like water filters) because it got them "away from nature." Never mind the fact that they were wearing clothing made from synthetics and if they got giardiasis, they'd be using "modern antibiotics".
I've had the pleasure of going to Burning Man in 2003 and am returning this year. I, for one, rejoice at the ability to occasionally text message to find someone, affording a bit more spontaneity when meeting up with new and old friends.
We need to stop conferring all sorts of power to technology: attendees DO NOT have to use their phones if they don't want to, just as they have the choice to use or avoid mind-altering anything, generators, glowsticks, or fursuits. I agree that there's a level of mano a mano, intimate communication at the Burn that's really wonderful--and think that if things like cell phones will "ruin" the Burn, that sort of tells me that it was ruined to begin with.
If we cannot trust the ethos of the majority of Burner participants, we cannot trust the continued existence of the Burn.
Many CEOs of Fortune 100 or 500 companies are compensated heavily in stock options. Proponents of this theorize that this ties company performance more closely to CEO compensation.
I theorize that, structured wrong, this causes CEOs to engage in focusing on near-term benefit rather than long-term stability and sustainability.
I think both Warren Buffett and Peter Drucker (ostensibly, two luminaries in the business world) have both railed against excessive executive compensation.
Warren Buffett was even booted off of several executive comp committees a few years ago for having this nebulous value.
I'm going to replace a few words from the OP, using a little story from 1977:
Unfortunately IBM's power is in that everyone uses it, and that is what Big Blue uses to get new users too. Personal computers are a humble goal, but especially with centralized computing you are quite much locked in to a single computing architecture just because everyone else you know uses it, and they in turn use it because you use it too.
Interestingly creating personal computing means you have convince everyone to forget about IBM and move to this platform. Even if it would become successful, once these Two Steves have millions of end users, they most likely will change it the same way that IBM did. Remember that transistors also was a hobby project made by somebody.
I just want to see some form of proof that we need this law/rule/ban in any shape or form.
Before planes, let's start with a form of transportation that A) kills far more people than flying and B) has demonstrated clear and present dangers related to distration.
Please join me in banning ALL forms of distraction in your automobile, including talk radio, music, the bobble hula-girl you've got on your dash and, above all, naughty children.
Even if you give Apple credit for any of the above, how does one rule out the possibility that soon after another player wouldn't have stepped up to fill the vacuum with another tool or technology that would better suit us today in openness, quality or usability?
One cannot rule out that possibility, but you seem to imply that innovators don't deserve some modicum of respect.
I guess Newton wasn't all that cool since "someone else would have discovered gravity," and Einstein is a yawner because "the theory of General Relativity would have eventually been worked out."
I'll bite: I have owned precisely two Mac computers, both during the period between 1987 and 1993. And, the next time I've purchased an Apple product was a used iPhone from my friend about three months ago. I'm hardly what you'd call a loyal customer.
That said, I'm going to hazard a suspicion as to why we're crediting Apple for hard drives and use of USB: it'd be early adoption in the consumer market. Yes, hard drives have been around for a very very long time, but Apple likely deserves a lot of credit for packaging and integrating in a way that it had broad appeal.
Please keep in mind that this was in an era where some outfit named IBM questioned the need for a personal computer.
I only recently purchased an iPhone (for overseas travel)--and am completely sick and tired of the Apple bashing, primarily for reasons that it doesn't work "for me" and therefore must not be good for anyone else.
I'd also note that if it wasn't for Apple, there would be a lot less pressure on Motorola, Nokia and Samsung to produce phones with a better user experience.
Apple is not the end-all, be-all of technology--but I personally have much to be grateful for.
Slashdot Mirror
I had gathered that asbestos is perfectly safe and fine as long as it stays out of your lungs
Essentially, yes. Too much of that--or the oft-feared Dihydrogen Monoxide--can kill you.
Yeah, not all that hard. It really is the small things...
I agree: the FCC can't just toss out a price cap and call it good--some good regulatory policy is needed...
Try roaming or foreign travel: both of those usages have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with your regular plan agreement.
The rate table for service is absolutely byzantine--and frequently hard to find.
This ABSOLUTELY does not work with Sprint (and precipitated my departure). After hours of being on the phone with their so-called customer service (and three defective "warranty replacement" phones in the mail), I pleaded with folks at a retail location to help. Sadly, they were absolutely powerless to help--and felt horrible. Everything had to go to a completely worthless call center...
Intelligent markets driven by reasonable regulations IS the freest market we can muster.
For example, the Enron debacle in California was caused, in part, because of a lack of transparency pertaining to how their operated their generators. This produced congestion on transmission network paths needed to deliver power to California from the Pacific NW. IIRC, this caused prices to spike up to $1,000 per MW/hour (maybe more), when typical prices are more in the $40-80 range.
Enron accomplished this because they were able to succesfully hide from market participants their actions--and tossed out decades of generally accepted operational practice (aka "Good Utility Practice"). Ostensibly, this is NOT the Free Market that someone like Adam Smith would envision. Yes, we can't legislate every single aspect of behavior (hence, "Good Utility Practice"), but this should not diminish the supreme importance of creating sensible regulation.
The first comment is, to me, the most interesting response:
Sounds like we're once again legislating to save irresponsible people from their own self-destructive actions.
This response is a dramatic oversimplification of what's going on (sadly, a common occurance). What I believe the FCC is proposing is ensuring that _reasonable_ and _prudent_ laypeople can clearly understand the cost consequences of their actions. And, allowing a customer to set a reasonable price cap on their cell phone spending _increases_ accountability--for costs that match their spending ability.
For example, the cost of your garden variety LOL or ROFL missive sent via text message while roaming in Cancun (phone from Sprint [USA]) was about $1. For some, this can become frighteningly expensive. Given that European pay-as-you-go service carefully tracks (and easily reports to the user via a simple text message) their remaining credits, I fail to see why this reasonable ability isn't available to everyone.
And, as someone who has done disaster relief, I have been surprised by a few increases of $40-50 for roaming charges. I am willing to pay this--but I also desire the ability to know up front. I don't think the end user should have to carry their carrier's Terms and Conditions and rate sheet in their back pocket.
Also, some of these cell phone contracts are ludicrous: even the better ones (I like AT&T) don't do a great job clearly delineating between different types of service (for example, my unlimited SMS messaging plan doesn't include picture messaging). If I, as a person who reads contracts as a part of their job, can accidentally miss this, this circumstance doesn't bode well for an average person who doesn't do this.
Accountability requires reasonable rules and transparency--US cell contracts and bills need some help on this front.
Scientology would never try to compromise anything confidential!
Well, except for that one Operation Snow White thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_snow_white
Yeah, my main worry is they'd use it as an excuse to cut people off for other reasons.
This is the potential harm from any sort of "rule" or "policy": it's always open for abuse.
That said, I don't believe this should be a reason why ISPs should not act. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to ascertain activity from a spambot or open relay, with a little more research to ascertain whether or not a zombie node is being used for a DDoS attack.
Said another way: just because you own a car doesn't mean you get to drive it any way you like: if your computer's behavior is causing harm to others in a clear manner, it should be whacked and the owner notified (e.g., routed to an ISP's page informing them of a problem with their node, dynamically close off ports, throttle their connection, etc.).
Foreseeing something and actually doing it are two very different things.
Apple released the first version of the Newton almost two decades ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MessagePad
Microsoft's PC operating systems divisions, with its internecine management wars, has managed to produce uninspired designs, solutions that have more security holes than a sieve, and has generally stagnated in the arena of innovation.
Microsoft doesn't have a technology problem: they've got a cultural problem. Like Xerox PARC of the days of yore, Microsoft's Research division cranks out all manner of bankable ideas--yet their corporate patrons fail to see the need to actually implement these things to any serious degree.
That seems to be the gist of the article, and is one case where some members of the OSS community have really lost sight of something important: code is not the only thing projects need.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for pointing this out. People forget that code isn't only an end unto itself...
A small (but important) addition: volunteers power the ice ("Camp Arctica") and coffee sales, with the proceeds going to local charities, who have frequently been in need (sometimes dire) of support from any avenue.
Before you call anyone dumb, please learn to correctly spell words you've chosen to emphasize in caps.
Also, learn a bit more about corporations, both non-profit and for-profit. Black Rock (the LLC) has an "open book" policy of their finances: I suspect you'll find that the main coordinators make far less than your average "non-profit" executive (e.g., Blue Cross, local charities, etc.).
Are you willing to apply that same methodology to other annoying things, such as bullhorns, sound camps, shirtcockers and DPW?
unless you're still harboring that false "nature/civilization" dichotomy, but even then - hello, town full of people, it ain't disconnected from civilization...
That dichotomy is exceptionally annoying. I previously sold camping goods at REI and would occasionally get the customer who would turn their nose up at "technology" (like water filters) because it got them "away from nature." Never mind the fact that they were wearing clothing made from synthetics and if they got giardiasis, they'd be using "modern antibiotics".
I've had the pleasure of going to Burning Man in 2003 and am returning this year. I, for one, rejoice at the ability to occasionally text message to find someone, affording a bit more spontaneity when meeting up with new and old friends.
We need to stop conferring all sorts of power to technology: attendees DO NOT have to use their phones if they don't want to, just as they have the choice to use or avoid mind-altering anything, generators, glowsticks, or fursuits. I agree that there's a level of mano a mano, intimate communication at the Burn that's really wonderful--and think that if things like cell phones will "ruin" the Burn, that sort of tells me that it was ruined to begin with.
If we cannot trust the ethos of the majority of Burner participants, we cannot trust the continued existence of the Burn.
Many CEOs of Fortune 100 or 500 companies are compensated heavily in stock options. Proponents of this theorize that this ties company performance more closely to CEO compensation.
I theorize that, structured wrong, this causes CEOs to engage in focusing on near-term benefit rather than long-term stability and sustainability.
I think both Warren Buffett and Peter Drucker (ostensibly, two luminaries in the business world) have both railed against excessive executive compensation.
Warren Buffett was even booted off of several executive comp committees a few years ago for having this nebulous value.
I'm going to replace a few words from the OP, using a little story from 1977:
Unfortunately IBM's power is in that everyone uses it, and that is what Big Blue uses to get new users too. Personal computers are a humble goal, but especially with centralized computing you are quite much locked in to a single computing architecture just because everyone else you know uses it, and they in turn use it because you use it too.
Interestingly creating personal computing means you have convince everyone to forget about IBM and move to this platform. Even if it would become successful, once these Two Steves have millions of end users, they most likely will change it the same way that IBM did. Remember that transistors also was a hobby project made by somebody.
I just want to see some form of proof that we need this law/rule/ban in any shape or form.
Before planes, let's start with a form of transportation that A) kills far more people than flying and B) has demonstrated clear and present dangers related to distration.
Please join me in banning ALL forms of distraction in your automobile, including talk radio, music, the bobble hula-girl you've got on your dash and, above all, naughty children.
KILL IT WITH FIRE!!1! :-)
Even if you give Apple credit for any of the above, how does one rule out the possibility that soon after another player wouldn't have stepped up to fill the vacuum with another tool or technology that would better suit us today in openness, quality or usability?
One cannot rule out that possibility, but you seem to imply that innovators don't deserve some modicum of respect.
I guess Newton wasn't all that cool since "someone else would have discovered gravity," and Einstein is a yawner because "the theory of General Relativity would have eventually been worked out."
I'll bite: I have owned precisely two Mac computers, both during the period between 1987 and 1993. And, the next time I've purchased an Apple product was a used iPhone from my friend about three months ago. I'm hardly what you'd call a loyal customer.
That said, I'm going to hazard a suspicion as to why we're crediting Apple for hard drives and use of USB: it'd be early adoption in the consumer market. Yes, hard drives have been around for a very very long time, but Apple likely deserves a lot of credit for packaging and integrating in a way that it had broad appeal.
Please keep in mind that this was in an era where some outfit named IBM questioned the need for a personal computer.
I only recently purchased an iPhone (for overseas travel)--and am completely sick and tired of the Apple bashing, primarily for reasons that it doesn't work "for me" and therefore must not be good for anyone else.
I'd also note that if it wasn't for Apple, there would be a lot less pressure on Motorola, Nokia and Samsung to produce phones with a better user experience.
Apple is not the end-all, be-all of technology--but I personally have much to be grateful for.
I didn't know that making $35K/year was license to lie. Which is what happened here.
You absolutely nailed it!