You really need to read up on natural monopolies. You need regulation in such cases to provide the "level playing field" that you so much desire, and net neutrality is a regulation that will promote competition.
Yes, the government paid for the wires, but let the telcos own them. So you have a natural monopoly, which has to be regulated, which is what net neutrality is about...
Well, you could do what they did to the electric grid, create an "Open Access Transmission Tarriff" that declares that a utility company does not have the right to prevent transactions to occur across their systems.
Isn't that the exact equivalent of "net neutrality"? That's the whole point I was responding to - you cannot manage ustilities without some sort of regulation, and talking about the "free market" is pointless when you have a natural monopoly (one set of wires).
How exactly do you propose to create this "realistic free market playing field of open competition for anyone who wants to jump into the business"? The telcos own the wires - do you propose the government take the wires away and lease them to the lowest bidder?
Turn it as much as you want, software is copyrightable - last I heard authors are still making money off books, even though anyone can buy a copier and churn copies of the finished work. Oh, wait, they can't make money off the finished work, because of copyright.
If an idea is truly innovative, its development into a finished software product must be non-trivial, so if someone else would want to produce a software product based on that idea, they can't skip the investment part, because copyright protects from just copying the finished product.
Of course, copyright also needs to be fixed (bring it back down to 14+14 years, and watch innovation and creativity flourish).
How about this white paper? Or the features already existing in Reiser 4? Doesn't sound like complaining at all, but as true innovation, which Microsoft is obviously lacking...
May I remind the Slashdot readers that, in the time of Galileo, the "scientific consensus" was that the Earth is the center of the solar system (or is that the universe?) It wasn't the scientific consensus, it was the allowed consensus - if you deviated, you got the Inquisition on your a**. Something similar is being attempted in the US - if you deviate from the political position on climate change, your reports are being altered, or you are being told not to discuss your findings.
It's not a voluntary choice, because the recording industry is a cartel. There are no free market forces here, not matter how you try the bend reality - the price of CDs reflects what the market will bear from the point of view of a monopoly...
All that infrastructure that you generously give to AT&T as "theirs" was built with subsidies from the tax-payers. So yes, the telco monopolies don't get to do whatever they want, but it is because it is not really their network alone.
And how is this not being done as is. For anyone who goes into a library, records of what books you check out are kept since you have to submit your library card. Most public libaries are known/thought to share this information with government as it stands.
I don't know where you get this idea, but currently most public libraries make it a point to destroy the record of you checking out a book after you return it, just so that they don't have this information available if/when the government comes around asking for it. Here is some relevant reading material: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/usapatriotact. htm
Although I know how to spell most common Portuguese words, I am not always sure of their gender (in the case of nouns) and without that it's not possible to get the correct form of the adjective. MS Word automatically checks my "concordances" in an instant. I doubt that OO will ever come even close to MS Word in this one, for me - essential area.
This is not a problem with OOo, but with the Portuguese localization. The Bulgarian localization (OOo 2) handles this same issue just fine.
Banks already do this - it is called secure messaging, and it is web based. You get an e-mail telling you that you have a message, the e-mail has no links or phone numbers (since you know your bank's web site), and you log into a secure web site to send and receive messages.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I claim that Mach people (and apparently FreeBSD) are incompetent idiots.
I also claim that Slashdot people usually are smelly and eat their boogers, and have an IQ slightly lower than my daughters pet hamster (that's "hamster" without a "p", btw, for any slashdot posters out there. Try to follow me, ok?).
Furthermore, I claim that anybody that hasn't noticed by now that I'm an opinionated bastard, and that "impolite" is my middle name, is lacking a few clues.
Finally, it's clear that I'm not only the smartest person around, I'm also incredibly good-looking, and that my infallible charm is also second only to my becoming modesty.
Jesus, I can't believe I have to keep saying this.
Apparently you operate under the maxim "A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth."
Here are the conclusions of law. They state that MS violated the Sherman Act, they explain what exactly MS did to violate the Sherman act, and no, it was not "they bundled a browser with the OS".
Quote from the section "Microsoft's Conduct Taken As a Whole":
"But only when the separate categories of conduct are viewed, as they should be, as a single, well-coordinated course of action does the full extent of the violence that Microsoft has done to the competitive process reveal itself. [...] In essence, Microsoft mounted a deliberate assault upon entrepreneurial efforts that, left to rise or fall on their own merits, could well have enabled the introduction of competition into the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems."
But at the time Microsoft did them, they weren't yet declared a monopoly. I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about. Monopolies are not "declared" monopolies, they are or they aren't. How can a corporation not realise that it has monopoly power in the market, if its actions would not have worked if they had viable competition (i.e. if they weren't a monopoly)? Here are the findings of law which also spell out the laws broken, and what actions broke them.
Microsoft was convicted for illegal busines practices, including illegal OEM coersion. A quote from the findings of fact:
"...by pressuring Intel to drop the development of platform-level NSP software, and otherwise to cut back on its software development efforts, Microsoft deprived consumers of software innovation that they very well may have found valuable, had the innovation been allowed to reach the marketplace. None of these actions had pro-competitive justifications."
"Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest."
Slashdot Mirror
You really need to read up on natural monopolies. You need regulation in such cases to provide the "level playing field" that you so much desire, and net neutrality is a regulation that will promote competition.
Yes, the government paid for the wires, but let the telcos own them. So you have a natural monopoly, which has to be regulated, which is what net neutrality is about...
Well, you could do what they did to the electric grid, create an "Open Access Transmission Tarriff" that declares that a utility company does not have the right to prevent transactions to occur across their systems.
Isn't that the exact equivalent of "net neutrality"? That's the whole point I was responding to - you cannot manage ustilities without some sort of regulation, and talking about the "free market" is pointless when you have a natural monopoly (one set of wires).
How exactly do you propose to create this "realistic free market playing field of open competition for anyone who wants to jump into the business"? The telcos own the wires - do you propose the government take the wires away and lease them to the lowest bidder?
Turn it as much as you want, software is copyrightable - last I heard authors are still making money off books, even though anyone can buy a copier and churn copies of the finished work. Oh, wait, they can't make money off the finished work, because of copyright.
If an idea is truly innovative, its development into a finished software product must be non-trivial, so if someone else would want to produce a software product based on that idea, they can't skip the investment part, because copyright protects from just copying the finished product.
Of course, copyright also needs to be fixed (bring it back down to 14+14 years, and watch innovation and creativity flourish).
How about this white paper? Or the features already existing in Reiser 4? Doesn't sound like complaining at all, but as true innovation, which Microsoft is obviously lacking...
May I remind the Slashdot readers that, in the time of Galileo, the "scientific consensus" was that the Earth is the center of the solar system (or is that the universe?)
It wasn't the scientific consensus, it was the allowed consensus - if you deviated, you got the Inquisition on your a**. Something similar is being attempted in the US - if you deviate from the political position on climate change, your reports are being altered, or you are being told not to discuss your findings.
My explanation:
2004 election donations
2005-2006 donations
I guess AT&T has further payments to make for this year's election, to at least match 2004...
That's the next version, where all the new "experimental" stuff is going to be included. And it will still come out before Vista...
It's not a voluntary choice, because the recording industry is a cartel. There are no free market forces here, not matter how you try the bend reality - the price of CDs reflects what the market will bear from the point of view of a monopoly...
All that infrastructure that you generously give to AT&T as "theirs" was built with subsidies from the tax-payers. So yes, the telco monopolies don't get to do whatever they want, but it is because it is not really their network alone.
And how is this not being done as is. For anyone who goes into a library, records of what books you check out are kept since you have to submit your library card. Most public libaries are known/thought to share this information with government as it stands.
. htm
I don't know where you get this idea, but currently most public libraries make it a point to destroy the record of you checking out a book after you return it, just so that they don't have this information available if/when the government comes around asking for it. Here is some relevant reading material: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/usapatriotact
Given that the original author wants to run Linux as his primary OS, it makes more sense to run Linux as the host, and run an XP image.
Although I know how to spell most common Portuguese words, I am not always sure of their gender (in the case of nouns) and without that it's not possible to get the correct form of the adjective. MS Word automatically checks my "concordances" in an instant. I doubt that OO will ever come even close to MS Word in this one, for me - essential area.
This is not a problem with OOo, but with the Portuguese localization. The Bulgarian localization (OOo 2) handles this same issue just fine.
Just tried it under Mandriva/KDE on a 2.13 GHz Centrino laptop - just short of 8 seconds from click to completely open with a blank document.
Banks already do this - it is called secure messaging, and it is web based. You get an e-mail telling you that you have a message, the e-mail has no links or phone numbers (since you know your bank's web site), and you log into a secure web site to send and receive messages.
1. Does the applicant show initiative, is he/she proactive?
No. (Give me a call)
2. When presented with a problem, does the applicant find a general solution, or is he/she looking for a temporary shortcut?
Temporary shortcut. (You know what's faster? Hiring an American)
3. Recommendation for hire?
Not recommended.
They, as well as certain **AAs, behave like rabid dogs protecting their food...
Good thing we know how to deal with rabid dogs...
Everyone knows that the word is "artisticity"! :-P
Jesus, I can't believe I have to keep saying this.
Apparently you operate under the maxim "A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth."
Here are the conclusions of law. They state that MS violated the Sherman Act, they explain what exactly MS did to violate the Sherman act, and no, it was not "they bundled a browser with the OS".
Quote from the section "Microsoft's Conduct Taken As a Whole":
"But only when the separate categories of conduct are viewed, as they should be, as a single, well-coordinated course of action does the full extent of the violence that Microsoft has done to the competitive process reveal itself. [...] In essence, Microsoft mounted a deliberate assault upon entrepreneurial efforts that, left to rise or fall on their own merits, could well have enabled the introduction of competition into the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems."
But at the time Microsoft did them, they weren't yet declared a monopoly.
I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about. Monopolies are not "declared" monopolies, they are or they aren't. How can a corporation not realise that it has monopoly power in the market, if its actions would not have worked if they had viable competition (i.e. if they weren't a monopoly)? Here are the findings of law which also spell out the laws broken, and what actions broke them.
Microsoft was convicted for illegal busines practices, including illegal OEM coersion. A quote from the findings of fact:
"...by pressuring Intel to drop the development of platform-level NSP software, and otherwise to cut back on its software development efforts, Microsoft deprived consumers of software innovation that they very well may have found valuable, had the innovation been allowed to reach the marketplace. None of these actions had pro-competitive justifications."
"Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest."
Surely you meant to write "ghastly", didn't you?
Work with me to remove this cancer from our workplaces because our language is part of who we are.
Step one:
"3. If your in position of power..." should read "3. If you're in position of power..."