"Calling it quits" and filing for Chapter 11 are not the same thing, man.
Let's make a deal. You take the time to post a list of publically listed companies who've filed for Chapter 11 and recovered, and I'll followup with a list of ones who've filed for Chapter 11 and gone titsup. I'll even do you two for one. Go on then.
802.11 Transmitter/Receivers are far too expensive and power-hungry for devices like Palms and cell phones
Blah blah blah. You're parroting things that you clearly haven't researched. Low power 802.11b is equivelant to Bluetooth in range, power and manufacture cost (Bluetooth can theoretically be cheaper to make. Wake me up when it actually gets there). The reason that there are very few low power 802.11b devices is because there's no real demand for such a limited device.
If we were really keen to put up with limited range and functionality if exchange for the low power benefits of Bluetooth, we'd all have bought into (lower powered, cheaper) IR and put up glitterballs.
Or you can shunt it through a 14dBi antenna and get a couple of km out of it. I wonder how well Bluetooth devices will work near a consume.net node? Ask yourself this: do you care about that.bomb yuppie screaming into his Bluetooth headset, or do you want to participate in an unregulated network of clued peers?
Well, see now, Mr Dollar goes out of the building, and around the block, then he never comes back. That makes Mrs Dollar and all the little Quarters very sad, and they pack their bags and follow him off to the happy land of The Mainstream Economy.
Sorry, I know you know that, I just couldn't resist pointing out how idiotic these companies are being. And the reason why they're filing for Chapter 11 (or 7) while.bombs kept going for years? I reckon it's because they actually have well defined products, and their investors can understand what it is they're trying to do, and see that they're failing miserably.
they don't know how to run a business. They're just the next wave of dotcoms, essentially
Yup, except that the physical cableco's have capital to borrow against, so will dig themselves into debt rather than burn venture money.
The whole broadband arena seems to one big ego and cock measuring exercise. A cableco spots a telco talking about how much they're going to make out of broadband once they're the biggest provider, and decides that they're better throw a few hundred million at it to ensure they they're the big dog. They all hire analysists who loyally produce the figures they want to see, that show there's money in them thar cables. Where? Content is king on the TV, but not on the internet. The internet is the place where we provide content to each other. Why don't the providers get that? Why?
Price caps cause shortages, this is Econ 101 here.
The problem with simplistic rules is that you're a buttfucking retard. Oops, sorry, that just slipped out. Really, do the mathematics.
Broadband ISPs need to drive the price down and get as many customers as possible, so that the low use of Joe and Jane Windows makes up for the sizzling cable of Leeching Larry. They need to poach from AOL, so that they get people who won't figure out how to run servers or bypass their caches.
A free, open market will not work for broadband, because it's the ultimate Catch-22. Until the price drops (to $20, not $40), it won't be truly mainstream. Until it's truly mainstream, the average usage will be high, so the price can't drop.
Please don't call Loki gone until they do. They still have a very good chance to pull through.
Why? Really, back that up. I also appreciate what they're doing and wish them the best, but, my budget is $40 a month for my cable modem + $0 for content, because $0 is what I have to pay to get the stuff I want, and I don't see that changing in the immediate future.
So, where exactly do Loki expect the rescue money to come from?
The first problem is that it's engrained in people's mind that the cost is around $40. Problem there, your average total cost is already over $40/person
Yup. Surveys in the UK show that the breakthrough point where Joe Windows will switch to always on is only £10~=$15. Once you've had always on, you know it's worth more than that, but this is the price point where the perceived value meets the cash value.
My own story is that when cable modems were taking off in the UK, I choked at paying £50~=$75 a month, but bit when they dropped to £33~=$50. I'm currently paying £25~=$40, and I know and accept that this price is based on the farcical idea that the cableco will make money selling extra services on the back of the broadband connection.
As far as I can see, this "content is king" dream world is the same sort of idiocy that gave us the.bomb economy, the only difference being that physical cableco's can go on running up debts for longer because they have capital to borrow against.
Having experienced broadband, I would now pay £50~=$75 a month for it, and frankly I'd be happier doing that today than waiting and waiting for the inevitable day when my cableco wakes up and realises that they're taking a beating, that it isn't going to get any better, and that always on broadband isn't going to be in the £10~=$15 cost-to-provide bracket for at least ten years, even after writing off infrastructure investment.
Remember, Microsoft is currently being investigated for anticompetitive practices
"Investigated"? Microsoft has been found guilty, in both circuit and appeals, of abusing their monopoly illegally. And the effect on their behaviour? None. They've ignored all previous limitations on their behaviour, and have now integrated/bundled even more applications in/with WindowsXP, plus they've included a licensing mechanism aimed squarely at putting the fear of Bill into the home user, and especially the technically skilled home user. The DOJ is powerless to force change while the courts are slow, clueless, and full of ladder climbing judges with an eye on the Supremes, who can work out that cosying up to politicians is vital for their long term career development.
your linux isn't going anywhere unless the US legal system is much more corrupt than we realize
The legal system is rotten to the core, as there's precious little separation of powers between the three branches at the moment. But I didn't mean that Linux would be banned, there's a valid application in servers. But you don't have to ban something to control it: driving licences; lockpick licenses; gun licenses (the Supremes seem to think that 2nd Amendment grants you the opportunity to be granted the priveledge of being allowed to own guns, not the right to demand to own them, regardless of whether Washington wants you to have them or not)
So... Linux licenses?
If you think I'm over-reacting, take a good, close look at the DMCA, and remember that the USA still views encryption software as "arms" for export purposes. Yes, the restrictions have recently been slackened off, but only after years of futile, risible attempts to stop the rest of the world finding out about those big old secret mathematical algorithms.
To be really honest it sounds just like a dot-bomb venture [...] Yes I am a cynic.
I'll trump that. Want to bet that they'll launch this in a half assed fashion, get about four downloads, wait for the Linux hack to appear, then scream that this proves that everyone is an evil, child molesting, drug dealing movie pirate, and they need stricter laws?
How about, for example, copy control built right into the hardware (been there, backed down, but what goes around comes around)? Or, how about, oooh, targetting devices that allow unrestricted copying. Software devices. Applications. Operating systems.
You can't too cynical when dealing with corporations and their bought politicians.
the studios have learned their lesson (and I bet they have), they'll release players for as many operating systems as they can think of
Why? It's a niche market, Linux users aren't big spenders (are they, Loki?), and when we do hack it, it'll give the MPAA an excuse to initiate another FUD "evil commie child molester drug dealing pirates" suit to put the frighteners on both us and Joe Windows.
Why? It's a niche market, Linux users aren't big spenders (are they, Loki?), and when we do hack it, it'll give the MPAA an excuse to initiate another FUD "evil commie child molester drug dealing pirates" suit to put the frighteners on both us and Joe Windows.
building all our towns around the corporate castle so we can run inside if we're the target of a hostile takeover...
I laughed at this, and then I remembered Kanata, Canada, home of the Nortel Collective and associated parasitic telcos. You're not far off the truth; the whole Ottowan suburb is one big telco housing estate. Every second billboard is a telco recruitment poster, the talk radio stations talk about nothing but telcos and the weather, heck, the dedicated Nortel Recruitment Centre is bigger than my office block. Lead the way, Canada.;)
50% of your income? That's a suspiciously round number. Round numbers are usually that way because they came out of someone's ass
And so, the actual figure would be...? What's that? You don't know? My, what a surprise.
police powers in the UK such as not having the right to remain silent
Oh dear. You have the right to remain silent, but if you do not mention something which you later use in your defence, this fact may be noted to the court. This is the limitation of the law. Scary, huh? You may now return to your US-A-OK idyll.
I'm proud to pay my taxes
And are you happy about contributing to the reputed $30 billion annual budget of the NSA (yes, that's pulled out of my ass, feel free to go ahead and find out how much they get and tell us), most of which is spent monitoring US citizens, because, shucks, it's just too darn hard to keep track of those slippery foreigners? Or is your civic duty as a good, loyal citizen, to pay up and smile your happy, docile smile?
FDR single handedly removed all Constitutional restraint on the federal government
ALL Constitutional restraint? So you're actually claiming no private citizen has won a court case against the US government on Constitutional grounds? That the protective powers of the Constitution aren't invoked every day?
And did you ever stop to question why there are so many cases that go to the Supremes on Constitutional grounds? It's because the Legislature and Executive have stopped viewing the Consitution as a guiding principle for their actions, but as the ultimate limitation on them. What FDR did was to say to the Judiciary "I'll pass any damn law I like, and you'll have to strike it down years later when it finally reaches you through the courts."
Do you see the difference? Laws are passed that the Legislature and Executive know are unconsitutional (heck, ~50% of the Legislature, and the previous President and her husband are members of the American Bar Association), but they basically don't give a damn unless they're pretending to champion the Consitution for propaganda purposes.
I used to make an effort to not be so cynical about politics, but then I took a good, hard look at what is actually going on, and realised that We, the People, have no say in deciding the laws that effect us. Laws are bought and sold at will, all wrapped up in the sanitised form of bribery known as "campaign contributions"
Gaa, I give up. Read this very short taster, and begin to get yourself a clue.
my point boils down to this: a government that doesn't look after its people isn't a government worth having
More: a government ostensibly of the people that actually views itself as being separate from the people isn't worth having.
The USA already have a politican superclass, and in 2001, took an amazing step back towards having a hereditary monarchy. I guess what goes around comes around.
I would poll a sample of the pirates and ask them if they would have purchased the product if that was the only way they could have obtained it
Whoa, a sudden attack of common sense.;)
I accept that accountants know their stuff, but it all depends on how you phrase the question, and how many qualifications and caveats you filter out as the figures travel from accountant to lobbyist.
I have the old fashioned opinion that if I can't persuade you to buy my work on my terms (I'm an author), then I've already lost the sale, so I lose nothing else if you then copy it for nothing. I have a duty to provide what the market will accept, you don't have a duty to buy my work on my terms. But, as I said, that's quite an old fashioned view.
I'm gonna pay a membership fee to the EFF, I'd like to see some of it used for proactive work like this
I'd like them working towards having more declaratory judgements make, like Felton's DMCA suit. It should be cheaper than defending a case, and if the MP-/RI-/FT-AA want to step in with Friend of Court filings to block it, we get a fighting chance to grab the moral (and media) high ground, rather than starting from the propaganda losing position of being evil hackers threatening the Aye-merican way.
By being in opposition to the ruling regime (the megacorps), U.S citizens can enjoy the excitement of getting their free speech, in spite of the regime. Now it's worth something. Hard to come by free speech is valuable. Gratis free speech is worthless
Well said. Rights are what you demand and assert, not what you are granted.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's make a deal. You take the time to post a list of publically listed companies who've filed for Chapter 11 and recovered, and I'll followup with a list of ones who've filed for Chapter 11 and gone titsup. I'll even do you two for one. Go on then.
Blah blah blah. You're parroting things that you clearly haven't researched. Low power 802.11b is equivelant to Bluetooth in range, power and manufacture cost (Bluetooth can theoretically be cheaper to make. Wake me up when it actually gets there). The reason that there are very few low power 802.11b devices is because there's no real demand for such a limited device.
If we were really keen to put up with limited range and functionality if exchange for the low power benefits of Bluetooth, we'd all have bought into (lower powered, cheaper) IR and put up glitterballs.
Or you can shunt it through a 14dBi antenna and get a couple of km out of it. I wonder how well Bluetooth devices will work near a consume.net node? Ask yourself this: do you care about that .bomb yuppie screaming into his Bluetooth headset, or do you want to participate in an unregulated network of clued peers?
Well, see now, Mr Dollar goes out of the building, and around the block, then he never comes back. That makes Mrs Dollar and all the little Quarters very sad, and they pack their bags and follow him off to the happy land of The Mainstream Economy.
Sorry, I know you know that, I just couldn't resist pointing out how idiotic these companies are being. And the reason why they're filing for Chapter 11 (or 7) while .bombs kept going for years? I reckon it's because they actually have well defined products, and their investors can understand what it is they're trying to do, and see that they're failing miserably.
The Camp Girls of America, if I remember my Illuminati power structures. ;)
Bah! Your 802.11 has no honour! consume.net are hosting a project to form a wireless network, using 5 - 14 dBi antennae. Power to the people. ;)
Pedantic correction (the best kind of correction). 802.11 is Ethernet. RJ45/Cat 5 is wired Ethernet. Ethernet is a wireless standard.
Yup, except that the physical cableco's have capital to borrow against, so will dig themselves into debt rather than burn venture money.
The whole broadband arena seems to one big ego and cock measuring exercise. A cableco spots a telco talking about how much they're going to make out of broadband once they're the biggest provider, and decides that they're better throw a few hundred million at it to ensure they they're the big dog. They all hire analysists who loyally produce the figures they want to see, that show there's money in them thar cables. Where? Content is king on the TV, but not on the internet. The internet is the place where we provide content to each other. Why don't the providers get that? Why?
The problem with simplistic rules is that you're a buttfucking retard. Oops, sorry, that just slipped out. Really, do the mathematics .
Broadband ISPs need to drive the price down and get as many customers as possible, so that the low use of Joe and Jane Windows makes up for the sizzling cable of Leeching Larry. They need to poach from AOL, so that they get people who won't figure out how to run servers or bypass their caches.
A free, open market will not work for broadband, because it's the ultimate Catch-22. Until the price drops (to $20, not $40), it won't be truly mainstream. Until it's truly mainstream, the average usage will be high, so the price can't drop.
Why? Really, back that up. I also appreciate what they're doing and wish them the best, but, my budget is $40 a month for my cable modem + $0 for content, because $0 is what I have to pay to get the stuff I want, and I don't see that changing in the immediate future.
So, where exactly do Loki expect the rescue money to come from?
Yup. Surveys in the UK show that the breakthrough point where Joe Windows will switch to always on is only £10~=$15. Once you've had always on, you know it's worth more than that, but this is the price point where the perceived value meets the cash value.
My own story is that when cable modems were taking off in the UK, I choked at paying £50~=$75 a month, but bit when they dropped to £33~=$50. I'm currently paying £25~=$40, and I know and accept that this price is based on the farcical idea that the cableco will make money selling extra services on the back of the broadband connection.
As far as I can see, this "content is king" dream world is the same sort of idiocy that gave us the .bomb economy, the only difference being that physical cableco's can go on running up debts for longer because they have capital to borrow against.
Having experienced broadband, I would now pay £50~=$75 a month for it, and frankly I'd be happier doing that today than waiting and waiting for the inevitable day when my cableco wakes up and realises that they're taking a beating, that it isn't going to get any better, and that always on broadband isn't going to be in the £10~=$15 cost-to-provide bracket for at least ten years, even after writing off infrastructure investment.
"Investigated"? Microsoft has been found guilty, in both circuit and appeals, of abusing their monopoly illegally. And the effect on their behaviour? None. They've ignored all previous limitations on their behaviour, and have now integrated/bundled even more applications in/with WindowsXP, plus they've included a licensing mechanism aimed squarely at putting the fear of Bill into the home user, and especially the technically skilled home user. The DOJ is powerless to force change while the courts are slow, clueless, and full of ladder climbing judges with an eye on the Supremes, who can work out that cosying up to politicians is vital for their long term career development.
The legal system is rotten to the core, as there's precious little separation of powers between the three branches at the moment. But I didn't mean that Linux would be banned, there's a valid application in servers. But you don't have to ban something to control it: driving licences; lockpick licenses; gun licenses (the Supremes seem to think that 2nd Amendment grants you the opportunity to be granted the priveledge of being allowed to own guns, not the right to demand to own them, regardless of whether Washington wants you to have them or not)
So... Linux licenses?
If you think I'm over-reacting, take a good, close look at the DMCA, and remember that the USA still views encryption software as "arms" for export purposes. Yes, the restrictions have recently been slackened off, but only after years of futile, risible attempts to stop the rest of the world finding out about those big old secret mathematical algorithms.
If this doesn't reenforce my point, nothing will. ;)
I'll trump that. Want to bet that they'll launch this in a half assed fashion, get about four downloads, wait for the Linux hack to appear, then scream that this proves that everyone is an evil, child molesting, drug dealing movie pirate, and they need stricter laws?
How about, for example, copy control built right into the hardware (been there, backed down, but what goes around comes around)? Or, how about, oooh, targetting devices that allow unrestricted copying. Software devices. Applications. Operating systems.
You can't too cynical when dealing with corporations and their bought politicians.
Why? It's a niche market, Linux users aren't big spenders (are they, Loki?), and when we do hack it, it'll give the MPAA an excuse to initiate another FUD "evil commie child molester drug dealing pirates" suit to put the frighteners on both us and Joe Windows.
Why? It's a niche market, Linux users aren't big spenders (are they, Loki?), and when we do hack it, it'll give the MPAA an excuse to initiate another FUD "evil commie child molester drug dealing pirates" suit to put the frighteners on both us and Joe Windows.
I laughed at this, and then I remembered Kanata, Canada, home of the Nortel Collective and associated parasitic telcos. You're not far off the truth; the whole Ottowan suburb is one big telco housing estate. Every second billboard is a telco recruitment poster, the talk radio stations talk about nothing but telcos and the weather, heck, the dedicated Nortel Recruitment Centre is bigger than my office block. Lead the way, Canada. ;)
And so, the actual figure would be...? What's that? You don't know? My, what a surprise.
Oh dear. You have the right to remain silent, but if you do not mention something which you later use in your defence, this fact may be noted to the court. This is the limitation of the law. Scary, huh? You may now return to your US-A-OK idyll.
And are you happy about contributing to the reputed $30 billion annual budget of the NSA (yes, that's pulled out of my ass, feel free to go ahead and find out how much they get and tell us), most of which is spent monitoring US citizens, because, shucks, it's just too darn hard to keep track of those slippery foreigners? Or is your civic duty as a good, loyal citizen, to pay up and smile your happy, docile smile?
- FDR single handedly removed all Constitutional restraint on the federal government
ALL Constitutional restraint? So you're actually claiming no private citizen has won a court case against the US government on Constitutional grounds? That the protective powers of the Constitution aren't invoked every day?And did you ever stop to question why there are so many cases that go to the Supremes on Constitutional grounds? It's because the Legislature and Executive have stopped viewing the Consitution as a guiding principle for their actions, but as the ultimate limitation on them. What FDR did was to say to the Judiciary "I'll pass any damn law I like, and you'll have to strike it down years later when it finally reaches you through the courts."
Do you see the difference? Laws are passed that the Legislature and Executive know are unconsitutional (heck, ~50% of the Legislature, and the previous President and her husband are members of the American Bar Association), but they basically don't give a damn unless they're pretending to champion the Consitution for propaganda purposes.
I used to make an effort to not be so cynical about politics, but then I took a good, hard look at what is actually going on, and realised that We, the People, have no say in deciding the laws that effect us. Laws are bought and sold at will, all wrapped up in the sanitised form of bribery known as "campaign contributions"
Gaa, I give up. Read this very short taster, and begin to get yourself a clue.
More: a government ostensibly of the people that actually views itself as being separate from the people isn't worth having.
The USA already have a politican superclass, and in 2001, took an amazing step back towards having a hereditary monarchy. I guess what goes around comes around.
Whoa, a sudden attack of common sense. ;)
I accept that accountants know their stuff, but it all depends on how you phrase the question, and how many qualifications and caveats you filter out as the figures travel from accountant to lobbyist.
I have the old fashioned opinion that if I can't persuade you to buy my work on my terms (I'm an author), then I've already lost the sale, so I lose nothing else if you then copy it for nothing. I have a duty to provide what the market will accept, you don't have a duty to buy my work on my terms. But, as I said, that's quite an old fashioned view.
Is this irony or morony? Either way, thanks for proving both of our original points.
I'd like them working towards having more declaratory judgements make, like Felton's DMCA suit. It should be cheaper than defending a case, and if the MP-/RI-/FT-AA want to step in with Friend of Court filings to block it, we get a fighting chance to grab the moral (and media) high ground, rather than starting from the propaganda losing position of being evil hackers threatening the Aye-merican way.
Well said. Rights are what you demand and assert, not what you are granted.
Synaptic shutdown in your Irony Centre? ;)