Exactly - if you are lucky in most cases you get to choose between services from two large monopolies - new competitiors are pretty much locked out. Even if you manage to get third party DSL, the monopoly telco is charging them more for the line then they would charge you for DSL, so the third party is always competing at a loss - not to mention they force you to have their phone service, so they make out at your expense.
The only way to avoid enriching one monopoly or another is to go wireless, which has fairly scarce availability, often isnt terribly reliable, and which the monopoly providers are doing their utmost to prevent communities from getting more widely deployed.
If you are in the passing lane, it is YOU who should take 30 seconds to exit the passing lane so they can pass you. You are preventing him from passing you by remaining in the passing lane.
One more time:
RIGHT LANE - where you should be when NOT passing other traffic. LEFT LANE - where you should never be, EXCEPT when passing (or IMMEDIATELY prior to a left turn or exit.
I beleive the poster was referring to passing in the right lane, in a two-lane-in-the-same-direction highway, where another vehicle was in the left lane, NOT passing on the shoulder.
Ah, I see you live in the fantasy world where everyone drives at only one of two speeds - 'fast', and 'slow'. What you miss is that while you may be going 'fast' as compared to someone else, your 'fast', may be 'slow' to someone else. Its the standard rules of the road, which most states even have laws for. There is no good reason to block other traffic - KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS. Personally I wish they'd adjust the 'if you rear end someone its automatically your fault' to not apply in the passing lane of highways. (Not to say it would never be, just would no longer be automatic - that could be enough to keep old people and assholes out of the left lane)
The simple, common sense thing to do when you are in the left and are overtaken from behind, is to move to the right as soon as possible. Did you ever consider that maybe the person behind you is rushing to the hospital where a family member is dying? Or any other legitimate reason for them to be in a hurry (I'm sure you've been in a hurry at one point or another, how would you feel if some asshole decided it was their personal goal to get in your way?)
And if traffic behind you has to brake to avoid colliding with you, you would then NOT be going the 'normal speed of traffic', you would be going slower, and should get back in the right lane.
Also note that the concept of 'passing' another vehicle INCLUDES the part where you return to the right lane after overtaking that vehicle.
Which mean exactly the same thing, just not worded as clearly. If you are in the left lane, and another vehicle moving faster than you is overtaking you from behind then you ARE the 'slow traffic' that should be moving to the right. It would save you and everyone else a lot of time if you just stayed there, except for occasions where you would be passing other even slower traffic.
'fast lane' is misleading. Remember that 'fast' is relative. If you are in the left lane, and another vehicle is overtaking you from behind then you are NOT 'fast' - you are 'slow', the other vehicle is 'fast', and you should move to the right.
Also, I suspect you are wrong, and are just assuming what you beleive to be the law - feel free to provide a specific reference to CA law that supports this.
Also, this isnt so much about the law, but about common-sense rules of the road that if everyone understood and used, would make a big reduction in the number of traffic jams, accidents, and pissed off drivers. If EVERYONE stayed in the right lane, and used the left lane only to pass (and then got back to the right), theoretically there would be no such thing as a traffic jam.
It isnt your job to enforce the speed limit in the left lane, or anywhere else unless you are a member of LE (and if you are, I suspect you don't get tailgated much, in the left lane or anywhere else.)
If you arent passing, get in the right lane, I dont care if you are going the speed limit, or 20 over or under it.
Trust me, your kids will still need driver's ed, so they can learn that the left lane is for PASSING, IDIOT, and if you arent PASSING, get OUT of the left lane, IDIOT! Not to mention the whole turn on your turn signal BEFORE you start to turn, and BEFORE you start to brake for the turn. Oh, and the that the accleration lane on an highway onramp is for ACCELERATING, as in you are supposed to match speed with traffic already on the highway, not force it to brake heavily or swerve so you can merge on at 40MPH. And for good measure, I'll throw in when turning at an intersection, turn into the CLOSEST lane. Eg, if you are turning right, turn into the RIGHTmost lane of the road you are turning into, and if you are turning left, turn into the LEFTmost lane of the road you are turning into (and then merge to the right, if you arent passing).
Of course, I suspect its been a long time since driver's ed taught any of that, since so few people seem to be completely ignorant on those issues. And dont even get me started on the idiots that turn right into the left lane without signalling, and then cruse along at 25MPH on the left lane while gabbing on their cellphone, completely oblivious to the line of traffic that has formed behind them thats actually trying to get where they are going.
Wrong - if the free wireless sucks, as you allege it will, then there will be market demand for better service from private industry, if they are willing and able to provide it. It will also provide a 'reality check' on pricing for the 'better services'. If the free is 512K, companies wont be able to get away with pricing 768K for $95/mo
Actually, there is very little competition for wired broadband, and there is very little available wireless broadband in most places at all.
In most areas, for broadband, you may have none or more of have the following choices.
1. Cablemodem from whatever cable company has the geographic monopoly in your area, assuming they provide service at your location. You are also forced to either subscribe to 'basic cable TV service', or pay a monthly 'no cable TV service fee' (that is usually about the same amount as the basic cable charge). It is pretty much unheard of, except in a VERY few portions of very-high-density metro areas, for there to EVER be a choice between multiple cable companies. You get the one that owns your area, or none - unless you decide to move.
2. DSL, run over copper lines controlled exlusively by whatever incumbent telco installed them over the last hundred years or so with guaranteed captive-customer paid funds, and government granted rights of way. You must be within 18000 wire-feet (usually less) of the wirecenter, and certain equipment used in the last decade to expand capacity may prevent it from being available as well. Usually you are also forced to have telephone service from that same incumbent telco as well, regardless of wether the DSL itself is provided by that telco or by a third party (where that is even available). Usually in order to get a non-ripoff price for the 'DSL/phone' 'bundle' from the monopoly company you are forced to agree to a one-year commitment (eg, if you later decide the service sucks, you are stuck paying for it anyway). You mentioned competition - I challenge you to find me ANY location where you can choose between Verizon and Bellsouth for wired phone or DSL service.
3. You can of course get leased lines (T-1, 1.5Mbps) for several hundred dollars a month, from the monopoly telco... (note that only includes the line, there will be additional charges for bandwidth from whatever provider you chose at the other end)
4. In a VERY few areas, if you are very lucky, you MIGHT be able to find a fixed wireless provider. This will usually cost as much or more than wired options (assuming you have any), due to the high equipment cost, and 'startup' nature of most of these companies. (Note that they have to get high speed access to the net to their towers, and unless they have a huge installed base and lots of towers, that means paying for those previously mentioned T-1's for each location. Also, since wireless tech is still immature, there will often be outages associated with weather. Oh, and if you are in a a hilly or forested area, you may also need to pay between a few hundred and thousands of dollars for a tower for your location...
Wired cable companies do not compete with each other, nor do the incumbent telco's compete for wired services. You can tell from the advertising - cable co's ads always slam 'the dish'. And big telco's don't really ever slam anyone specific, becuase they know most of their customers don't really have any choice. Instead they try to convince you to get 'bundles' from them, tying services that they do have a monopoly over with services they dont, and to agree to long-contracts that force you to stay with them even if you find a better deal elsewhere for some of the non-monopoly services.
Also note, I have not heard of any 'community wireless project' where taxpayer funds are being used. The (private companies) that bid to participate in this project are expected to finance it themselves. The only help that the (city/town/whatever) provides is assisting with permits, rights-of-way, etc, that are involved in installing the tower/equipment/etc. Usually there is also a case where the company provides access to the city/town/etc offices as well, either at or below cost.
No, a majority of those in office were 'convinced' by the major telco's and cableco's (much of the convincing surely came in the form of campaign funds), that it was a bad thing and that a law prohibiting it was a good idea. There is a difference.
Yes, seeing the source to a decryption system doesnt automatically let you decrypt anything unless you have the key - but thats the problem with DRM, is that they have to let you have the key in order to play the 'concent'. Once in possession of the key, and the source code to the system, a coder could write a modified version to allow him to save the decrypted content, instead of merely playing it.
If its 'open source', then it will be trivial for any qualified coder who wants to produce a modified version of the code to remove the restrictions instead of enforcing them. Even if the 'rights holders' are somehow fooled at first, I think they'll catch on eventually.
There is no way for restrictions such as those desired by the 'rights holders' to be enforced absent proprietary binary-only programs doing it for them. And even those usually are defeated, as well. The scheme MS used to call Palladium, where the restrictions extend right to the hardware, is the only way it can ever work even close to their satisfaction. And quite frankly, I hope that never happens, becuase that is the end of any hope of ever overcoming the MS monopoly.
And just think, if they hadn't wasted their time with the (easily crackable, as demonstrated by a previous poster who was able to copy and transcode it on his Windows system) complicated DRM nonsense, they could easily have 'supported' 100% of the market.
The music on CD's IS digital, moron. So comparing "digital music" to "CD's" is just silly. What I suspect you really meant was 'Internet-downloadable digital music' and presumably only that purchased from a RIAA-approved source in a proprietary format including an offensive and obnoxious DRM system (as opposed to that shared between individuals via whatever mechanism), as compared to 'purchasable digital music delivered on physical read-only optical media, including both "order [online or by phone] and wait for it to be shipped", and "walk into the store and pay for it at the register" (sometimes including the offensive DRM, sometimes in a standards compliant format)'
"I've got my kids brainwashed: You don't use Google, and you don't use an iPod."
Thats what it takes to get people to voluntarily use MS products. Sadly, MS has most of the population brainwashed. But slowly people are waking up. Its sort of like the Matrix.
Slashdot Mirror
Machine gun? Hah. It wont be worth much after my hood-mounted Harpoon missles reduce your car to a smoking crater.
So this will allow someone to buy a really expensive computer, and run a really crappy OS on it.
I'd be much more interested in being able to run OSX on stock x86 hardware, thank you.
Exactly - if you are lucky in most cases you get to choose between services from two large monopolies - new competitiors are pretty much locked out. Even if you manage to get third party DSL, the monopoly telco is charging them more for the line then they would charge you for DSL, so the third party is always competing at a loss - not to mention they force you to have their phone service, so they make out at your expense.
The only way to avoid enriching one monopoly or another is to go wireless, which has fairly scarce availability, often isnt terribly reliable, and which the monopoly providers are doing their utmost to prevent communities from getting more widely deployed.
If you are in the passing lane, it is YOU who should take 30 seconds to exit the passing lane so they can pass you. You are preventing him from passing you by remaining in the passing lane.
One more time:
RIGHT LANE - where you should be when NOT passing other traffic.
LEFT LANE - where you should never be, EXCEPT when passing (or IMMEDIATELY prior to a left turn or exit.
I beleive the poster was referring to passing in the right lane, in a two-lane-in-the-same-direction highway, where another vehicle was in the left lane, NOT passing on the shoulder.
Ah, I see you live in the fantasy world where everyone drives at only one of two speeds - 'fast', and 'slow'. What you miss is that while you may be going 'fast' as compared to someone else, your 'fast', may be 'slow' to someone else. Its the standard rules of the road, which most states even have laws for. There is no good reason to block other traffic - KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS. Personally I wish they'd adjust the 'if you rear end someone its automatically your fault' to not apply in the passing lane of highways. (Not to say it would never be, just would no longer be automatic - that could be enough to keep old people and assholes out of the left lane)
The simple, common sense thing to do when you are in the left and are overtaken from behind, is to move to the right as soon as possible. Did you ever consider that maybe the person behind you is rushing to the hospital where a family member is dying? Or any other legitimate reason for them to be in a hurry (I'm sure you've been in a hurry at one point or another, how would you feel if some asshole decided it was their personal goal to get in your way?)
And if traffic behind you has to brake to avoid colliding with you, you would then NOT be going the 'normal speed of traffic', you would be going slower, and should get back in the right lane.
Also note that the concept of 'passing' another vehicle INCLUDES the part where you return to the right lane after overtaking that vehicle.
Which mean exactly the same thing, just not worded as clearly. If you are in the left lane, and another vehicle moving faster than you is overtaking you from behind then you ARE the 'slow traffic' that should be moving to the right. It would save you and everyone else a lot of time if you just stayed there, except for occasions where you would be passing other even slower traffic.
'fast lane' is misleading. Remember that 'fast' is relative. If you are in the left lane, and another vehicle is overtaking you from behind then you are NOT 'fast' - you are 'slow', the other vehicle is 'fast', and you should move to the right.
Also, I suspect you are wrong, and are just assuming what you beleive to be the law - feel free to provide a specific reference to CA law that supports this.
Also, this isnt so much about the law, but about common-sense rules of the road that if everyone understood and used, would make a big reduction in the number of traffic jams, accidents, and pissed off drivers. If EVERYONE stayed in the right lane, and used the left lane only to pass (and then got back to the right), theoretically there would be no such thing as a traffic jam.
It isnt your job to enforce the speed limit in the left lane, or anywhere else unless you are a member of LE (and if you are, I suspect you don't get tailgated much, in the left lane or anywhere else.)
If you arent passing, get in the right lane, I dont care if you are going the speed limit, or 20 over or under it.
Right, I was concentrating on the commonest case, most people usually get it right when there are multiple lanes turning in parallel.
Trust me, your kids will still need driver's ed, so they can learn that the left lane is for PASSING, IDIOT, and if you arent PASSING, get OUT of the left lane, IDIOT! Not to mention the whole turn on your turn signal BEFORE you start to turn, and BEFORE you start to brake for the turn. Oh, and the that the accleration lane on an highway onramp is for ACCELERATING, as in you are supposed to match speed with traffic already on the highway, not force it to brake heavily or swerve so you can merge on at 40MPH. And for good measure, I'll throw in when turning at an intersection, turn into the CLOSEST lane. Eg, if you are turning right, turn into the RIGHTmost lane of the road you are turning into, and if you are turning left, turn into the LEFTmost lane of the road you are turning into (and then merge to the right, if you arent passing).
Of course, I suspect its been a long time since driver's ed taught any of that, since so few people seem to be completely ignorant on those issues. And dont even get me started on the idiots that turn right into the left lane without signalling, and then cruse along at 25MPH on the left lane while gabbing on their cellphone, completely oblivious to the line of traffic that has formed behind them thats actually trying to get where they are going.
Wrong - if the free wireless sucks, as you allege it will, then there will be market demand for better service from private industry, if they are willing and able to provide it. It will also provide a 'reality check' on pricing for the 'better services'. If the free is 512K, companies wont be able to get away with pricing 768K for $95/mo
Actually, there is very little competition for wired broadband, and there is very little available wireless broadband in most places at all.
..
In most areas, for broadband, you may have none or more of have the following choices.
1. Cablemodem from whatever cable company has the geographic monopoly in your area, assuming they provide service at your location. You are also forced to either subscribe to 'basic cable TV service', or pay a monthly 'no cable TV service fee' (that is usually about the same amount as the basic cable charge). It is pretty much unheard of, except in a VERY few portions of very-high-density metro areas, for there to EVER be a choice between multiple cable companies. You get the one that owns your area, or none - unless you decide to move.
2. DSL, run over copper lines controlled exlusively by whatever incumbent telco installed them over the last hundred years or so with guaranteed captive-customer paid funds, and government granted rights of way. You must be within 18000 wire-feet (usually less) of the wirecenter, and certain equipment used in the last decade to expand capacity may prevent it from being available as well. Usually you are also forced to have telephone service from that same incumbent telco as well, regardless of wether the DSL itself is provided by that telco or by a third party (where that is even available). Usually in order to get a non-ripoff price for the 'DSL/phone' 'bundle' from the monopoly company you are forced to agree to a one-year commitment (eg, if you later decide the service sucks, you are stuck paying for it anyway). You mentioned competition - I challenge you to find me ANY location where you can choose between Verizon and Bellsouth for wired phone or DSL service.
3. You can of course get leased lines (T-1, 1.5Mbps) for several hundred dollars a month, from the monopoly telco... (note that only includes the line, there will be additional charges for bandwidth from whatever provider you chose at the other end)
4. In a VERY few areas, if you are very lucky, you MIGHT be able to find a fixed wireless provider. This will usually cost as much or more than wired options (assuming you have any), due to the high equipment cost, and 'startup' nature of most of these companies. (Note that they have to get high speed access to the net to their towers, and unless they have a huge installed base and lots of towers, that means paying for those previously mentioned T-1's for each location. Also, since wireless tech is still immature, there will often be outages associated with weather. Oh, and if you are in a a hilly or forested area, you may also need to pay between a few hundred and thousands of dollars for a tower for your location.
Wired cable companies do not compete with each other, nor do the incumbent telco's compete for wired services. You can tell from the advertising - cable co's ads always slam 'the dish'. And big telco's don't really ever slam anyone specific, becuase they know most of their customers don't really have any choice. Instead they try to convince you to get 'bundles' from them, tying services that they do have a monopoly over with services they dont, and to agree to long-contracts that force you to stay with them even if you find a better deal elsewhere for some of the non-monopoly services.
Also note, I have not heard of any 'community wireless project' where taxpayer funds are being used. The (private companies) that bid to participate in this project are expected to finance it themselves. The only help that the (city/town/whatever) provides is assisting with permits, rights-of-way, etc, that are involved in installing the tower/equipment/etc. Usually there is also a case where the company provides access to the city/town/etc offices as well, either at or below cost.
"Deja-vu usually happens when they change something.
Oh no, they cut the hardline, get out of there, its a trap!"
No, a majority of those in office were 'convinced' by the major telco's and cableco's (much of the convincing surely came in the form of campaign funds), that it was a bad thing and that a law prohibiting it was a good idea. There is a difference.
You misread. It was VMWare that released the partition format for their product, not MS for theirs.
Yes, just sign this form here sir. Oh, just ignore that part about agreeing to lobotomization, thats on all our forms.
Yes, seeing the source to a decryption system doesnt automatically let you decrypt anything unless you have the key - but thats the problem with DRM, is that they have to let you have the key in order to play the 'concent'. Once in possession of the key, and the source code to the system, a coder could write a modified version to allow him to save the decrypted content, instead of merely playing it.
If its 'open source', then it will be trivial for any qualified coder who wants to produce a modified version of the code to remove the restrictions instead of enforcing them. Even if the 'rights holders' are somehow fooled at first, I think they'll catch on eventually.
There is no way for restrictions such as those desired by the 'rights holders' to be enforced absent proprietary binary-only programs doing it for them. And even those usually are defeated, as well. The scheme MS used to call Palladium, where the restrictions extend right to the hardware, is the only way it can ever work even close to their satisfaction. And quite frankly, I hope that never happens, becuase that is the end of any hope of ever overcoming the MS monopoly.
Try 'encumbered, but so ineffectually so that the movie industry is desperate for a new paradigm shift to something more restrictive'
And just think, if they hadn't wasted their time with the (easily crackable, as demonstrated by a previous poster who was able to copy and transcode it on his Windows system) complicated DRM nonsense, they could easily have 'supported' 100% of the market.
The music on CD's IS digital, moron. So comparing "digital music" to "CD's" is just silly. What I suspect you really meant was 'Internet-downloadable digital music' and presumably only that purchased from a RIAA-approved source in a proprietary format including an offensive and obnoxious DRM system (as opposed to that shared between individuals via whatever mechanism), as compared to 'purchasable digital music delivered on physical read-only optical media, including both "order [online or by phone] and wait for it to be shipped", and "walk into the store and pay for it at the register" (sometimes including the offensive DRM, sometimes in a standards compliant format)'
"I've got my kids brainwashed: You don't use Google, and you don't use an iPod."
Thats what it takes to get people to voluntarily use MS products. Sadly, MS has most of the population brainwashed. But slowly people are waking up. Its sort of like the Matrix.
Water cannot be copied at no incremental cost.