KDE is a user interface / window manager / shell sitting on top of the Linux (or other) kernel. Same as Explorer, which is a user interface / window manager / shell on top of the Windows NT kernel (in NT/2000/XP anyway)
Oh, very insightful. That's the comparison, now let's contrast.
The biggest practical difference that I can see is that KDE won't send round the BSA stormtroopers if I buy a bunch of boxen without KDE/gnu/Linux pre-installed. The biggest theoretical difference is that KDE/gnu/linux is mix and match. Tell me, how do I replace the Explorer shell on an NT kernel box? Take your time answering that.
So if a Nielson family PVR's a show, it will still show up in it's Nielson rating
With a big old question mark over it regarding whether the ads were actually watched. Advertisers - who have to pretend to believe that advertising has an effect - will happily use any uncertainty to leverage pay deals.
There's an interesting advert airing in the UK at the moment, for the main satellite broadcaster. They're selling a tweaked PVR that also decodes two channels at once. The advert is about how subversive this is. Unspecified Men In Black are aghast that Joe Consumer is pausing live TV and watching one channel while recording another. What they don't say is that you can skip adverts. It's a very intruiging angle on it; the broadcasters are clearly uncomfortable with the idea. It doesn't feel right, even to them, and they backed away from pushing one of the big selling points, the ad skips.
Incidentally, in the UK, ratings are gathered minute-by-minute, so they know if we're channel hopping during the adverts. The ratings households also have their VCR recordings watermarked, so their viewings are registered when they play them back. I don't know if they can detect advert skips in a recording, or whether the watermarking works on PVR's. I do know that they're worried about digital content, as we went a week or so at the start of the year with no figures, when they screwed up the rollout of a new interim system to track figures, while they come up with a complete solution to registering all digital content play through the TV.
Now there's a thought. What's the difference between recording and playing back to my PVR, between me getting that same digital content from someone else, or downloading a copy from the 'net, or for that matter using my TV to play a sports game from my PC or console which has in game advertising?
I can see why this is keeping the advertising droids awake at night. If they want to continue pretending that advertising works, they'll need some pretty smart hardware - or some pretty harsh legislation. And it's that latter thought that worries me. If you thought the RIAA and MPAA were bad, wait until the advertising market wakes up and smells the digital coffee.
If I go out of my way actively to avoid an advert, what exactly are the chances that I would buy the product if I'd watched it? Quantify your answer, please.
Advertising is a crock, an utter crock. Advertising is something you spend between X and Y% of your budget on, because that's what market analysts expect, and if you do something unusual, you're high risk. The only people who pretend to believe that it actually does anything are advertising executives and the people carrying the adverts. Note: "pretend".
Oh, sorry, let's also include in that delusional group "e-advertisers". Because god knows that click-through adverts have really being pulling in the revenue, right?
Once again for luck: overt advertising doesn't work! Actually, even advertisers know this, which is why they are so keen on product placement (place the product with the content, or place the content (e.g. of Britney's brassiere) with the product) rather than trying to actually sell the product on merits.
I'm quite happy for the delusions to continue though: I mean, it's paying for this great free ride that we're all enjoying right now. But for anyone in the industry to actually claim that it matters that we watch commercials is crackpot delusion, pure and simple.
In the UK, the biggest cable/satellite/digital channel, Sky 1, runs Futurama side by side with the Simpsons, at between 6 and 8pm weeknights (plus a Saturday repeat). It promotes it heavily, and doesn't screw around with the timeslots.
In other words: they get it, and we get it, and I'll be deeply, deeply saddened to see it go because some jumped up MBA prick in an expensive suit feels it doesn't target a common enough demographic, or that it might offend the Neurotic Mothers of America. Sad, sad day.
How anyone actually associates Linux with Piracy is beyond me
It's easy. Same way we associate "drugs" and "bad". It's all down to an understanding of the way the human brain interprets repitition, association, emphasis and repitition:
Linux is a way of developing software whereas piracy is copying.
Linux is [mumble] software whereas piracy is copying.
Linux is [mumble] software [mumble] piracy [mumble] copying.
Linux is [mumble mumble] piracy.
Linux is piracy.
Linux is piracy.
LINUX is PIRACY.
Incidentally, I am not - repeat NOT - trying to be cute or funny here. Microsoft are mentioning Linux and piracy in the same sentence because they are laying the foundations for Joe Reader to imagine an association. Expect to see a lot more of this in the future, especially once they figure out whether they want to demonise specifically Linux, the GPL, or Open Source in general.
the workaround is to select all & set language to [anything]
Tried that, setting it to English (US). Still no luck. I'm sure I'll figure it out in the next five minutes, but it's such a basic issue that if it's not immediately obvious, it's going to hurt takeup.
OpenOffice/StarOffice word count: Click on "file," then on "properties," then on statistics.
Thanks! Yes, that's less than ideal. I guess it's only professional wordsmiths that really rely no it, but (as has been pointed out elsewhere) it's the first thing that a reviewer will notice.
I'm getting to like it more. Still can't figure out the spell check though.;-)
Stream of consciousness installation process for Windows version (on WinXP)...
Tricky getting to the file. ftp server is hosed. http gets there eventually, then serves at 109KB/s. Nice. Now serving over gnutella, "soto_en.exe", incidentally, 41MB or so.
Unzips OK. Installer is nice and clear. Still can't understand why it needs 102MB of disk space though.
Hey, where's the clickthough? The fuck? Did I blink and miss it? Can I just use this thing?
Start->Program->SOT Office 2002, let's see, "Text Document", that's 90% of the use cases.
Do I want to import my Windows Address Book? OK then, do it.
Fails. More information. Ah, it's looking for an Outlook Express address book. Fair enough, I'm not using that P.O.S.
OK, a blank document. Looks pretty much like any StarOffice/OpenOffice/Word clone. I could easily forget this isn't Word.
The basic test: open a Word '97.doc... 100,000 words (yes, I'm one of those poor struggling "content producers" you keep hearing about), no styles (ask me about styles in StarOffice 5.2 or Office '97 under Wine for that matter, go on, ask me). Opens fast, looks fine, the endnotes are all intact.
OK, options, Load/Save. Looks just like Word. Autosave every minute, create backup (oh yes). Oh, default save format? "SOT Office 6.0 Text Document"? A quick save reveals that this is a binary format, not anything sane like XML. So, no, I don't bloody well think so. Word 97/2000/XP, please. "This may cause data loss.". I'll take that risk. If I can't use this to reliably read/write Word 97.doc binary formats, it's no use to me (sorry, but it isn't).
Languages now. Again, looks just like Word 97. Default locale, set as English (UK), language as English (UK).
Spellcheck time! Uh, "The spellcheck is complete". I don't think so. Try again. Apparently it's complete. No, it clearly isn't. What's going on? Oh, there's no dictionary for English (UK), only for English (US) and Finnish. It would be handy if it could actually say that.
Back to the web site. Uh, sotoffice, addon, dict... it's empty. No English (UK) dictionary for me. Damn. OK, get it later, press on with English (US). No, dammit, it's still not checking. Come back to this.
OK, try loading a Word '97 document with embedded images. Hurrah! There they are, in the right place. Actually, in better places than in Word '97, it's fixed the image that was spilling over the page end. Make some mods, save it out, load it back into Word (this is vital). It look fine.
Back to the spellchecker again. Let's check those languages. Ah, what? It's changed to German. Hmm, wasn't that a "feature" of StarOffice 6 beta?
No, I absolutely cannot figure out how to get it to perform a spell check (or to tell me why it isn't). Also, I can't see a word count tool or find it in the help; this is an astonishing omission.
So there we go. It looks like Word, it opens Word, it saves Word (so far), but it's got bugs (I'm back to German as the default language again), the spell checking works unusually (which means badly if you're trying to attract Word users), and there's no word count. My god, there's no word count. I really cannot do without a word count.
But it's free, and it looks good. I'm certainly going to stick with it for a few days and see if I fall in love. Definitely worth trying... unless you need a word count.;-)
And I don't mean consumers 'chose' dos back in 1981 and so it's gotta to be that way forever. I mean, just like in the US once a politician is democratically elected he isn't in power forever, every 2-4-6 years he has to be chosen again
As an aside, bear in mind that 90-98% of political incumbents are reelected in the USA, and that incumbents enjoy a huge advantage in attracting brib^H^H^H^H campaign contributions. We've already accepted the idea of a monopoly in government; it hardly seems fair to punish business for adopting the same attitude (Microsoft could argue).
My god, every day brings a new lesson about how far the USA has slipped from its founding ideals. We're already at the level of Italy, it won't be long before we reach the old Soviet Union's level. Shudder.
If there is a start button to cover up, haven't they sold a license of windows? How does that impact their sales?
Valid point, but remember, M$ are thinking about the future, and the future (for them) is software-as-a-service. They've already prepared the ground by asserting over and over that software is licensed and not bought (c.f. moving Windows infestations to new machines). The next step is to have the license expire every month, and to charge $10-$20 for a renewal. That's their ultimate wet dream, systems that shut down unless you pay up. Under those circumstances, they have to keep total control of the OS and make 100% sure that every part of the user experience is Microsoft through and through. They don't want to allow any confusing thoughts like "Hey, why exactly am I paying for this piece of shit when the UI and apps are from a third party?"
catsidhe covered most of the points that I wanted to make, so I'll limit myself to this:
You're absolutely right that the USA deserves a 'thank you' for all the good you've done. Thank you.
Now stop doing the bad stuff as well. Stop dropping DUP projectiles and cluster munitions all over the planet. Stop targetting civilian populations with economic sanctions. Stop initiating trade wars and applying punitive import taxes whenever it's convenient. Stop projecting your insane IP laws worldwide. Stop polluting. Stop raping local regions of resources, sanctimoniously pouring in investment for a few years, then walking away and letting the local economy collapse, and all the shiny new schools and hospitals fall apart. Stop pretending that capitalism and the free market is the answer, when half your international trade is done over the barrel of a gun. Stop demonstrating that 'mights makes right' by your every word and deed.
When its something they want bad enough, that is pocket change. Case in point, Xbox.
But Xbox is the perfect example of how slowly they move, and how much their culture is dominated by political infighting. Sure, $250+ million is chump change to Microsoft as a whole, but it will be an individual VP in charge of a smaller subdivision who will have to sign on the dotted line. I just don't think they will be able to organise it in time. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
When times are tight, a middle management hit squad is set up to look for dead wood (by definition "the other guy"). If you've got a bunch of 20 year veterans on customer support, it looks like a real smart move to lay them off and outsource it the lowest third party call centre bidder.
My employer did that about a year ago. As I said, it looked real smart - at the time. Something that occurred to me was that the same management cadre that laid off the guys with 20 year relationships with our most valuable customers were probably not the same clique in charge of tracking customer churn, or listening to the wails of the sales guys as word of mouth kills them before they get a foot through the door.
This is probably a non-story. There's a $250 million poisoned chalice attached to buying ITV Digital as a going concern, let alone the fact that it makes a loss ever second it's on air. That's not pocket change, even for Microsoft, and bearing in mind their internal beaurocracy, they probably won't be able to commit to taking it on in time to buy the business outright.
Chances are, nobody else will either, and the company will fold, default on its debts, and then have its assets (i.e. its license and equipment) bought by a new bidder. Most likely (wait for it) is the current owners, who are chuckling all the way to the bank at the thought of being able to effectively just wipe all the debts and start clean. Microsoft doesn't like to get involved in bidding; they like deals to be done behind closed doors and controlled entirely by then. Actually bidding on an open market would be... unseemly.
I think we can sleep easy. But then, I'm already a UK Telewest customer, and Microsoft's already got their finger in that pie, so I may be suffering the first signs of Infestation. Make up your own minds.;-)
Didn't we just have a jillion articles about how crooked reviewers are? Didn't we agree that you'd have to be insanely gullible to buy a new game based on hype and a paid-for review of an early beta? That the best idea was to wait a couple of months, and purchase the (fully patched) proven best, based on reviews by (slighly more impatient) friends and family. What's the darned fire hurry to gamble on a premium priced pig in a poke?
The contest was announced on Slashdot. Slashdot rejected two reminder stories from me one month and one week before it closed. Despite all the sound and fury in this forum and elsewhere, it received only fifty-some submissions. Two of them were mine.
If this is all we care about IP, we've already lost. Son of SSSCA will slip through as amendments, and we'll all be buying our hardware from Hilary Rosen.
You disagree? Did you submit an essay? Did you? I didn't think so.
Mars University - Knowledge Brings Fear [Futurama]
Contact with alien races always renews ones faith in humanity. It's my belief that foreign travel narrows the mind wonderfully. [Games Workshop, Warhammer 40K]
My statement of the fact that competition is good came from the argument that the amount of money that you lose in duplication is gained in lower prices. Competition causes lower prices. A hypothetical numerical example: There are 3 cable companies, each lays their own cables. The cost of laying cables is, say, $1 million. Therefore there is a $2 million "waste". Now, if there was only 1 cable comapny, each subscriber would pay, say, $70 per month. With three cable companies, the companies are more efficient and thus only charge on average, say, $45 per month. Subscribers save $35 dollars a month. Say there are ten thousand cable subscribers in the city. $35/month * 10,000 subscribers = $350,000 saved per month. It would only take 6 month to make up for the $2 million dollar waste.
Are you drunk? Each cableco has spent as much as a single monopoly would (and must continue to spend that in maintenance), but only has 1/3 of the customers. In what weird alternative universe does that make them "more efficient", or mean that they can charge sustainable lower prices than a monopoly?
You don't seem to have a grasp of what "inefficiency" means, or that costs to the cableco's have to be passed on to the customers. Market forces can only drive down prices so far. Beyond a certain point, you end with companies cutting their own throats, selling at a loss, providing a crappy service, screwing customers whenever they think they can get away with it, and selling them in their tens of thousands as a commodity.
It's very simple: competition leads to duplication. Someone has to pay for that duplication. "Someone" in this case is us.
In the US voip is not moving at all at the enterprise level. The carriers got freaked out about started dropping their rates to prevent voip from being used for toll by pass domesticly. It does not provide a cost savings for corporations
True. Sorry, when I said SME, I really meant Small enterprise, actually down at the mom and pop corner store (or gas station) level. There's a huge market down in the sub ten lines, and that's also where the customers live who don't really want a service contract, and are prepared to try out new solutions if it'll save then a few bucks a month. But you're right, VoiP is being used (today) as part of packages to preserve call revenue. Give it a year though.
Privacy advocates and advocates of Content Use Restriction (DRM) have a shared goal.
Well said. That's why I already use a private encryption scheme to protect any personal data that idiotic companies oblige me to provide. I think of a number, multiply by the day of the week, divide by my current age... and then I type a bunch of random crap.
Seems to be working fine so far. If anyone does try and reverse engineer my scheme, the trusty DMCA will come to my rescue.
Well said. When the bill does surface into the light of day, let's bear something in mind. If Hollings is proposing a bill that guarantees Federally protected privacy (ahem) for your information, might the corollary be that it becomes an offence to provide dis-information, even when there's no fraudulent intent, just caution?
Before you scoff and dismiss this, consider his track record, and apply the appropriate spin. How about "Promoting a culture of mutual trust in a value add win-win proposition for both peon^H^H^^H consumers and master^H^H^H^H^H^ business." And remember, you heard it here first.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, very insightful. That's the comparison, now let's contrast.
The biggest practical difference that I can see is that KDE won't send round the BSA stormtroopers if I buy a bunch of boxen without KDE/gnu/Linux pre-installed. The biggest theoretical difference is that KDE/gnu/linux is mix and match. Tell me, how do I replace the Explorer shell on an NT kernel box? Take your time answering that.
It's 100% true... less a few tiny differences.
So apart from it being completely, utterly different to anyone but an uninformed hermit, it's exactly the same.
With a big old question mark over it regarding whether the ads were actually watched. Advertisers - who have to pretend to believe that advertising has an effect - will happily use any uncertainty to leverage pay deals.
There's an interesting advert airing in the UK at the moment, for the main satellite broadcaster. They're selling a tweaked PVR that also decodes two channels at once. The advert is about how subversive this is. Unspecified Men In Black are aghast that Joe Consumer is pausing live TV and watching one channel while recording another. What they don't say is that you can skip adverts. It's a very intruiging angle on it; the broadcasters are clearly uncomfortable with the idea. It doesn't feel right, even to them, and they backed away from pushing one of the big selling points, the ad skips.
Incidentally, in the UK, ratings are gathered minute-by-minute, so they know if we're channel hopping during the adverts. The ratings households also have their VCR recordings watermarked, so their viewings are registered when they play them back. I don't know if they can detect advert skips in a recording, or whether the watermarking works on PVR's. I do know that they're worried about digital content, as we went a week or so at the start of the year with no figures, when they screwed up the rollout of a new interim system to track figures, while they come up with a complete solution to registering all digital content play through the TV.
Now there's a thought. What's the difference between recording and playing back to my PVR, between me getting that same digital content from someone else, or downloading a copy from the 'net, or for that matter using my TV to play a sports game from my PC or console which has in game advertising?
I can see why this is keeping the advertising droids awake at night. If they want to continue pretending that advertising works, they'll need some pretty smart hardware - or some pretty harsh legislation. And it's that latter thought that worries me. If you thought the RIAA and MPAA were bad, wait until the advertising market wakes up and smells the digital coffee.
If I go out of my way actively to avoid an advert, what exactly are the chances that I would buy the product if I'd watched it? Quantify your answer, please.
Advertising is a crock, an utter crock. Advertising is something you spend between X and Y% of your budget on, because that's what market analysts expect, and if you do something unusual, you're high risk. The only people who pretend to believe that it actually does anything are advertising executives and the people carrying the adverts. Note: "pretend".
Oh, sorry, let's also include in that delusional group "e-advertisers". Because god knows that click-through adverts have really being pulling in the revenue, right?
Once again for luck: overt advertising doesn't work! Actually, even advertisers know this, which is why they are so keen on product placement (place the product with the content, or place the content (e.g. of Britney's brassiere) with the product) rather than trying to actually sell the product on merits.
I'm quite happy for the delusions to continue though: I mean, it's paying for this great free ride that we're all enjoying right now. But for anyone in the industry to actually claim that it matters that we watch commercials is crackpot delusion, pure and simple.
In the UK, the biggest cable/satellite/digital channel, Sky 1, runs Futurama side by side with the Simpsons, at between 6 and 8pm weeknights (plus a Saturday repeat). It promotes it heavily, and doesn't screw around with the timeslots.
In other words: they get it, and we get it, and I'll be deeply, deeply saddened to see it go because some jumped up MBA prick in an expensive suit feels it doesn't target a common enough demographic, or that it might offend the Neurotic Mothers of America. Sad, sad day.
It's easy. Same way we associate "drugs" and "bad". It's all down to an understanding of the way the human brain interprets repitition, association, emphasis and repitition:
Linux is a way of developing software whereas piracy is copying.
Linux is [mumble] software whereas piracy is copying.
Linux is [mumble] software [mumble] piracy [mumble] copying.
Linux is [mumble mumble] piracy.
Linux is piracy.
Linux is piracy.
LINUX is PIRACY.
Incidentally, I am not - repeat NOT - trying to be cute or funny here. Microsoft are mentioning Linux and piracy in the same sentence because they are laying the foundations for Joe Reader to imagine an association. Expect to see a lot more of this in the future, especially once they figure out whether they want to demonise specifically Linux, the GPL, or Open Source in general.
Tried that, setting it to English (US). Still no luck. I'm sure I'll figure it out in the next five minutes, but it's such a basic issue that if it's not immediately obvious, it's going to hurt takeup.
Thanks! Yes, that's less than ideal. I guess it's only professional wordsmiths that really rely no it, but (as has been pointed out elsewhere) it's the first thing that a reviewer will notice.
I'm getting to like it more. Still can't figure out the spell check though. ;-)
You remember correctly. It's zipped 672K of XML down to 208K. The original binary Word '97 .doc is 1056K!
Thanks for the info.
Stream of consciousness installation process for Windows version (on WinXP)...
So there we go. It looks like Word, it opens Word, it saves Word (so far), but it's got bugs (I'm back to German as the default language again), the spell checking works unusually (which means badly if you're trying to attract Word users), and there's no word count. My god, there's no word count. I really cannot do without a word count.
But it's free, and it looks good. I'm certainly going to stick with it for a few days and see if I fall in love. Definitely worth trying... unless you need a word count. ;-)
As an aside, bear in mind that 90-98% of political incumbents are reelected in the USA, and that incumbents enjoy a huge advantage in attracting brib^H^H^H^H campaign contributions. We've already accepted the idea of a monopoly in government; it hardly seems fair to punish business for adopting the same attitude (Microsoft could argue).
My god, every day brings a new lesson about how far the USA has slipped from its founding ideals. We're already at the level of Italy, it won't be long before we reach the old Soviet Union's level. Shudder.
Valid point, but remember, M$ are thinking about the future, and the future (for them) is software-as-a-service. They've already prepared the ground by asserting over and over that software is licensed and not bought (c.f. moving Windows infestations to new machines). The next step is to have the license expire every month, and to charge $10-$20 for a renewal. That's their ultimate wet dream, systems that shut down unless you pay up. Under those circumstances, they have to keep total control of the OS and make 100% sure that every part of the user experience is Microsoft through and through. They don't want to allow any confusing thoughts like "Hey, why exactly am I paying for this piece of shit when the UI and apps are from a third party?"
catsidhe covered most of the points that I wanted to make, so I'll limit myself to this:
You're absolutely right that the USA deserves a 'thank you' for all the good you've done. Thank you.
Now stop doing the bad stuff as well. Stop dropping DUP projectiles and cluster munitions all over the planet. Stop targetting civilian populations with economic sanctions. Stop initiating trade wars and applying punitive import taxes whenever it's convenient. Stop projecting your insane IP laws worldwide. Stop polluting. Stop raping local regions of resources, sanctimoniously pouring in investment for a few years, then walking away and letting the local economy collapse, and all the shiny new schools and hospitals fall apart. Stop pretending that capitalism and the free market is the answer, when half your international trade is done over the barrel of a gun. Stop demonstrating that 'mights makes right' by your every word and deed.
Fair enough?
But Xbox is the perfect example of how slowly they move, and how much their culture is dominated by political infighting. Sure, $250+ million is chump change to Microsoft as a whole, but it will be an individual VP in charge of a smaller subdivision who will have to sign on the dotted line. I just don't think they will be able to organise it in time. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
When times are tight, a middle management hit squad is set up to look for dead wood (by definition "the other guy"). If you've got a bunch of 20 year veterans on customer support, it looks like a real smart move to lay them off and outsource it the lowest third party call centre bidder.
My employer did that about a year ago. As I said, it looked real smart - at the time. Something that occurred to me was that the same management cadre that laid off the guys with 20 year relationships with our most valuable customers were probably not the same clique in charge of tracking customer churn, or listening to the wails of the sales guys as word of mouth kills them before they get a foot through the door.
This is probably a non-story. There's a $250 million poisoned chalice attached to buying ITV Digital as a going concern, let alone the fact that it makes a loss ever second it's on air. That's not pocket change, even for Microsoft, and bearing in mind their internal beaurocracy, they probably won't be able to commit to taking it on in time to buy the business outright.
Chances are, nobody else will either, and the company will fold, default on its debts, and then have its assets (i.e. its license and equipment) bought by a new bidder. Most likely (wait for it) is the current owners, who are chuckling all the way to the bank at the thought of being able to effectively just wipe all the debts and start clean. Microsoft doesn't like to get involved in bidding; they like deals to be done behind closed doors and controlled entirely by then. Actually bidding on an open market would be... unseemly.
I think we can sleep easy. But then, I'm already a UK Telewest customer, and Microsoft's already got their finger in that pie, so I may be suffering the first signs of Infestation. Make up your own minds. ;-)
Your sig implies that you've done a year of law school. Please repeat it. Pay special attention to the difference between copyrights and trademarks.
Didn't we just have a jillion articles about how crooked reviewers are? Didn't we agree that you'd have to be insanely gullible to buy a new game based on hype and a paid-for review of an early beta? That the best idea was to wait a couple of months, and purchase the (fully patched) proven best, based on reviews by (slighly more impatient) friends and family. What's the darned fire hurry to gamble on a premium priced pig in a poke?
The contest was announced on Slashdot. Slashdot rejected two reminder stories from me one month and one week before it closed. Despite all the sound and fury in this forum and elsewhere, it received only fifty-some submissions. Two of them were mine.
If this is all we care about IP, we've already lost. Son of SSSCA will slip through as amendments, and we'll all be buying our hardware from Hilary Rosen.
You disagree? Did you submit an essay? Did you? I didn't think so.
Both from geek friendly sources:
Are you drunk? Each cableco has spent as much as a single monopoly would (and must continue to spend that in maintenance), but only has 1/3 of the customers. In what weird alternative universe does that make them "more efficient", or mean that they can charge sustainable lower prices than a monopoly?
You don't seem to have a grasp of what "inefficiency" means, or that costs to the cableco's have to be passed on to the customers. Market forces can only drive down prices so far. Beyond a certain point, you end with companies cutting their own throats, selling at a loss, providing a crappy service, screwing customers whenever they think they can get away with it, and selling them in their tens of thousands as a commodity.
It's very simple: competition leads to duplication. Someone has to pay for that duplication. "Someone" in this case is us.
True. Sorry, when I said SME, I really meant Small enterprise, actually down at the mom and pop corner store (or gas station) level. There's a huge market down in the sub ten lines, and that's also where the customers live who don't really want a service contract, and are prepared to try out new solutions if it'll save then a few bucks a month. But you're right, VoiP is being used (today) as part of packages to preserve call revenue. Give it a year though.
Ooh, ooh, I've got another one.
Q: What's the most efficient way to check that personal information is being stored and used in accordance with this legislation?
A: Why, to have it all held and handled by one company, of course!
Someone check Microsoft's petty cash jar, quick.
Well said. That's why I already use a private encryption scheme to protect any personal data that idiotic companies oblige me to provide. I think of a number, multiply by the day of the week, divide by my current age... and then I type a bunch of random crap.
Seems to be working fine so far. If anyone does try and reverse engineer my scheme, the trusty DMCA will come to my rescue.
Well said. When the bill does surface into the light of day, let's bear something in mind. If Hollings is proposing a bill that guarantees Federally protected privacy (ahem) for your information, might the corollary be that it becomes an offence to provide dis-information, even when there's no fraudulent intent, just caution?
Before you scoff and dismiss this, consider his track record, and apply the appropriate spin. How about "Promoting a culture of mutual trust in a value add win-win proposition for both peon^H^H^^H consumers and master^H^H^H^H^H^ business." And remember, you heard it here first.