I still say spam should be given the same treatment as junk faxes. I'd say the only way putting "ADV:" in the subject header would cut back on the volume is if the SMTP servers were able to scan e-mail subject lines before sending the mail over the network. Otherwise, all you're doing is making it easier to delete by the end-user instead of actually freeing up expensive bandwidth.
And then there are the exceptions, which include (surprise surprise!) political campaign solicitations.
"They want to prevent the sale of a special DVD player which can be used to edit out offensive material from a DVD in realtime."
But they want to require the sale of special DVD players which edit out foreign material from a DVD (ie. region lock-outs).
I knew the MPAA and the DVD Consortium were two-faced, but this is just ridiculous. About the only common trait between these two positions is the elimination of options from the consumer marketplace.
"Paying for someone to speak for you isn't equivalent to you speaking yourself?"
In my opinion, yes. In those of these lobbying organizations, no.
Federal law prevents anybody from donating more than $5000 to a particular candidate, money that they would use in their campaign.
Lobbying groups want to spend much more than $5000. In order to launder their otherwise illegal campaign contributions, they will spend their own money on behalf of and in coordination with the candidate in question.
Now, this is explicitly illegal, however the lobbying groups have ways of weaseling themselves out of trouble. They interpret "on behalf of" to mean advertisements that say "Vote for A!" or "Vote against B!" and not necessarily as saying "A is the second coming!" or "B is a lying stinking dirty weasel!" They interpret "in coordination with" as meaning "Candidate A asked us to pay for this advertising," and not necessarily "Candidate A pointed out that would be nice if someone, somewhere aired an advertisement like that."
Lobbying groups are currently exempt from having to admit that they were the ones that paid for a particular advertisement (while candidates have to say "Paid for by...") and from having to disclose who their contributors are (as opposed to compulsory disclosure from candidates). They are easily the biggest way for donors to make blatently illegal contributions to candidates today.
Freedom of speech my ass. "Freedom of slush funds" is more like it.
"Right now democrats are on the ropes and the republicans are beating them with tire irons."
That "whooshing" sound you just heard was the entire point of my post zooming past your head.
The two parties involved in the Senate are the representatives and the represented, not the Republicans and the Democrats. The only ones who benefit from seeing everything in terms of "Republicans" and "Democrats" are (guess who!) the Republican and the Democrats.
And the same is true for any system that stresses inter-party relationships over the relationship between the governing and the governed. Get over your obsession with the Beloved Party (whichever one you have) and try enlightened self-interest for a change-of-pace.
"This has the affect of giving all the sources of information to the news media, who of course are bastions of integrity and never allow any bias to show through and as such, it is unconstitutional."
Vague bias on the part of news reporters has little (if anything) to do with what the main issue is. The main issue is the ability of lobbying groups to spend money to support their chosen candidates well above and beyond what is allowed by current federal law. The organizations that would be harmed by such legislation are the ones that operate as little more than money laundering operations for people attempting to buy their own candidates.
When I ran for Congress last year, one of the lobbying groups that mailed me an "opinion survey" (a "survey" where they ram their opinions down my throat) was the National Right to Life Committee, Inc. Among the fanfare one would expect in a mailing from a group with a name like that were questions like these:
In its 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo and in recent cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects the right of citizen groups (like NRLC) to comment freely on the positions of politicians on issues (called issue advocacy), reguardless of proximity to elections, without rationing or restrictions, and without disclosing the names of citizens who donate to support such commentary. The Supreme Court has held that this immunity from regulation extends to "voter guides," TV and radio ads, "scorecards" of votes in Congress, and any other commentary on specific politicians, except communications containing "express advocacy" (e. g, explicit urgings to "vote for" or "oppose" a candidate.) NRLC is strongly opposed to any legislation that would infringe on our right to disseminate printed or broadcast issue advocacy communications that comment on candidates' positions and voting records, including restrictions on the timeing, amount, or funding sources for such speech, or any requirement that the names of donors be reported to the government.
Will you oppose any legislation (such as the McCain-Feingold bill or Shays-Meehan bill) that would restrict, regulate, or ration the right of nonprofit corporations (which are not PACs) such as NRLC to engage in unrestricted commentary (issue advocacy) on the positions and voting records of specific officeholders and officeseekers, or require that names of citizens who fund such communications be reported to the government?
Essentially, they want to maintain the right to publish all but the most blatent forms political advertising without, for example, being as restricted as the candidates and parties themselves are, all the while acting as a money laundering racket (note they don't want to admit who their sources are).
Something else I found amusing is how they claim that they are a "nonprofit corporation" and not a PAC (a PAC essentially a buffer that corporations and unions can donate money to, as they are specifically barred from donating to a candidate directly). I asked them how they can possibly have the abbreviation "Inc." in their name yet still not be a PAC. (No, I didn't get a response.)
Further on:
The First Amendment guarantees the right of PACs and other speakers to engage in express advocacy without a dollar limit if this activity is not coordinated with a candidate (called independent expenditures). NRLC opposes any bill that would redefine "coordination" in a manner that would require groups who conduct independent expenditures to forfeit their rights to communicate with lawmakers or other candidates on public policy matters, or to forfeit other constitutional rights of assocation (e.g, with pollsters or venders).
Would you oppose legislation that would redefine "coordination" to mean anything other than an actual prior communication about a specific expenditure for a specific project which places the expenditure at the direction of or under the control of a candidate, or which causes the expenditure to be made based upon information about the candidate's plans or needs provided by the candidate?
Note the recurring "money laundering" theme here. They want to spend more on campaigning than the candidates themselves are allowed to spend, while still being able to maintain some sort of contact with the candidate in question.
And the last little tidbit:
The term "soft money " is used to refer to political party funds that are not rationed or controlled by the Federal Election Commission Act (FECA). Such money can be raised and expended by political parties to lobby on issues, to build their grassroots network, or to report on congressional action or politicians' positions on issues. Under rulings of the U. S. Supreme Court, the First Amendment protects the right of groups and parties to sponsor such communications, which discuss issues or the positions of officeholders or officeseekers on those issues, without being subjected to the rationing laws that teh FECA applies to communications that contain explicit endorsement of candidates (i.e, "express advocacy"). NRLC opposes encroacthment upon this constitutional right of free speecx and believes that freedom of speech and participation in government and issues by a broad range of groups, including political parties--not just the news media--is essential to democracy.
Would you vote to uphold the rights of political parties to raise and expend funds to discuss issues or the positions of officeholders or officeseekers on those issues, or to build grassroots networks?
Once again, they want their soft money and their ability to spend it in practically any fashion their lawyers think they can get away with. And once again, it reeks of money laundering.
NRLC and the organizations like it aren't interested in "free speech," they're interested in free money. They want the ability to launch smear campaigns without even having to declare that they were the ones that paid for it in the first place.
Remember "Daisy" commercial that aired close to the 2000 elections? The one where the producer refused to disclose who paid for it (leaving everybody accusing everybody else)? That's exactly the kind of advertising this corporation wants to continue using. Saying NRLC and their ilk want to defend free speech is like saying Enron executives wanted to defend free markets: They both want all the benefits while absolving themselves of any responsibilities.
At any rate, I personally find it rather two-faced (and humorous) the way this corporation exists in order to try to overturn a Supreme Court decision and yet has no problem with hiding behind the Supreme Court when it suits them.
"they need to say "paid for by Warner bros."? What happened to freedom in this country."
Three words: "Truth in advertising." Saying that the songs you are being paid to play are "today's greatest hits" is misleading at best. It implies that the songs are being played based solely on their popularity.
"Why does the govt. feel they need to regulate everything?"
Why do you believe that "freedom of speech" means "freedom from responsibility?"
"Radio station have the right to free speech,"
FCC what?
"not the obligation to play music without compensation."
"Playing music for compensation" and "telling customers that no compensation took place" are two entirely different issues.
Amazing how you're able to boil everything down into a nice, neat, convenient "we/they" model.
What confuses me, though, is the catch-22 you end up with. First, you bring up the name of someone who managed to be associated with "individualism" (whether or not that association is merited is debatable but besides the point).
"With the loss of Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold is one of the strongest supporters of liberal ideals and causes left in the Senate."
But then you reverse and stress the importance of towing the Beloved Party's line.
"Democrats certainly can't afford to go it alone in their current minority status"
So is it important for Democrats to take initiative, or tow the party line? Who decides what "we" do in the "struggle" against "them?"
On the other hand, we have "them." You know, those...
"whose bottom line is not aimed at increasing the wealth of the wealthy for once"
You need them to show individual initiative...
"we're going to need to have Republicans crossing party lines"
... and decide to tow somebody else's line.
"It's good to see him getting support from the Republicans"
You want a particular Democrat to show "initiative", all other Democrats to obediently follow (ie. not show any initiative of their own), and for all Republicans to show "initiative" by obediently following a different party mouthpiece than the one they normally follow. According to your model, all politics does and should rely on a bunch of sheep in Congress chanting "(Democrats|Republicans) good! (Republicans|Democrats) bad!" Where in this model you apparently promote does the whole "representing the voters" thing come into play?
You can name a handful of senators that have grabbed national headlines one way or the other. Out of curiousity, can you name your two senators? Better yet, have you ever written them? Or are you simply assuming that Democrats don't need to be told to do (what you consider to be) the right thing and Republicans are a lost cause anyway?
"Most of the other "imperialist" countries have returned most if not all of what they took."
Most of the other imperialist countries believed in Mercantilism, where there were distinct differences between the mother country and the colonies/rest of the empire. For example, while India was part of the British Empire for a long time, they never got to elect their own members of Parliament. Hell, even Puerto Rico has more of a voice in Congress than India ever had in Parliament.
On the other hand, at least until the twentieth century (and the situation could change back at any time), being US territory meant that you were on the way to becoming a seamless part of the "mother country." Hawaii has exactly the same interactions with the US federal government as Delaware.
The US "giving back" California is less like the UK giving back India and more like the UK giving back Wales.
"The article I read (on yahoo [yahoo.com]) states the unpatched servers were all on the internal network, not the internet, and that they were in use by researchers within microsoft."
Which means the problem isn't with shoddy MS SQL server code, it's with shoddy XP/2003 firewall code.
"Since America, Europe and Australia all have trade agreements I can expect that the dmca like laws will never go away."
"Trade agreements" doesn't mean they're married to each other. Despite the best efforts of the WTO, there are still inter-regional barriers to trade. I wouldn't really start to worry until Australia joins either NAFTA or the EU.
If anything, the recent article about the lapsing of European copyrights should be an example of inter-regional trade issues.
"I do not need to fight nor to die to "do" what I believe in."
Only because you live someplace where somebody did all the dirty work for you.
Using the example of Iraq you brought up earlier, the mere act of pissing and moaning about the actions of the local government (which you seem fond of) would get you thrown into a special prison built just for people like you. They may eventually let you out if it becomes politically expedient, but not until after they've had a chance to use you to discover new and interesting ways of causing pain (a favorite hobby of Uday's, I hear).
But, no, here you're perfectly allowed to wish death on people you don't even know while attempting to put on airs of intellectual superiority. You have the constitutionally gauranteed right to make a total fool of yourself.
"Think about that one..."
If you don't want to do anything at all, most communist regimes have ways of convincing you to put away your selfish attitudes and get to work on the collectivized farms. A worker's paradise has no room for non-workers.
"getting ready to fight for what they believe in and hopefully die there as well"
While you, on the other hand, instead of fighting and dying for what (ever) you believe in, post on Slashdot instead. Way to take the moral high ground!
Hell, I even rate the voluntary human sheilds higher than you. While they may be perpetuating the racist ideals they claim to be fighting against and while they may be confusing "conscientious objecting" with "aiding and abetting," at least they're doing something...
Re:Forgive the obvious question...
on
Superbowl XXXVII
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but where else can you find such bad jokes as "If those are the Raiders, which one is Paul Revere?"
Kickers just keep getting harder to find...
Re:Regarding the piece "Disneyland Memorial Orgy"
on
Review: Illegal Art
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"This kind of stuff has been on the Internet for years"
Yeah, but 99% of it is a bunch of poor-quality cut-and-paste jobs, a bunch of horny prepubescent boys discovering what their warez copies of Photoshop can do. "Disneyland Memorial Orgy," on the other hand, is obviously done by a professional. This guy spent more than five minutes producing it and obviously had something more in mind beyond "heh-heh... they're naked!" This was obviously intended as satire.
They put commercials on cable TV channels as well. DirecTV is a content provider (as opposed to a content owner) attempting to compete directly with another content provider (ie. Kazaa). While they don't have some of the advantages Kazaa has (Kazaa is free and offers instant gratification), DirecTV provides better quality content (digital music, movie channels) for about the same price as the monthly cost of a broadband connection.
They're attempting to compete in an open market without resorting to trying to buy their own legislation. What a concept!
"Ending like WC3 has,... how do you create anything more in that line ? It was all a bad joke ? It was actually someone's bad dream ?"
What the hell is Medivh doing alive again?
Is Sargeras dead or not? Was he or wasn't he supposed to be in his tomb in WCII? And if he really is dead, how come the Burning Legion is still so well-organized?
How has the Lich King been keeping himself busy? What's left of Lordaeron?
How is Azeroth (the kingdom) fairing in all this?
Where did Illidan wander off to?
What about Telly Savalas? What's he been doing lately?*
Personally, I'll just be happy with a game that doesn't require me to log in with administrative privileges. That sounds like a potential security problem waiting to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
"The inventor of pong was Ralph Baer:"
Oh, come now! Next you'll be trying to say that RCA didn't invent the television and Marconi didn't invent the radio!
I still say spam should be given the same treatment as junk faxes. I'd say the only way putting "ADV:" in the subject header would cut back on the volume is if the SMTP servers were able to scan e-mail subject lines before sending the mail over the network. Otherwise, all you're doing is making it easier to delete by the end-user instead of actually freeing up expensive bandwidth.
And then there are the exceptions, which include (surprise surprise!) political campaign solicitations.
"They want to prevent the sale of a special DVD player which can be used to edit out offensive material from a DVD in realtime."
But they want to require the sale of special DVD players which edit out foreign material from a DVD (ie. region lock-outs).
I knew the MPAA and the DVD Consortium were two-faced, but this is just ridiculous. About the only common trait between these two positions is the elimination of options from the consumer marketplace.
"Paying for someone to speak for you isn't equivalent to you speaking yourself?"
In my opinion, yes. In those of these lobbying organizations, no.
Federal law prevents anybody from donating more than $5000 to a particular candidate, money that they would use in their campaign.
Lobbying groups want to spend much more than $5000. In order to launder their otherwise illegal campaign contributions, they will spend their own money on behalf of and in coordination with the candidate in question.
Now, this is explicitly illegal, however the lobbying groups have ways of weaseling themselves out of trouble. They interpret "on behalf of" to mean advertisements that say "Vote for A!" or "Vote against B!" and not necessarily as saying "A is the second coming!" or "B is a lying stinking dirty weasel!" They interpret "in coordination with" as meaning "Candidate A asked us to pay for this advertising," and not necessarily "Candidate A pointed out that would be nice if someone, somewhere aired an advertisement like that."
Lobbying groups are currently exempt from having to admit that they were the ones that paid for a particular advertisement (while candidates have to say "Paid for by...") and from having to disclose who their contributors are (as opposed to compulsory disclosure from candidates). They are easily the biggest way for donors to make blatently illegal contributions to candidates today.
Freedom of speech my ass. "Freedom of slush funds" is more like it.
"Didn't the Sims Online do this by including a McDonald's kiosk? By eating at the McDonalds, your happiness goes up, or something like that."
Yes, but did they allow you to go French socialist and blow the place up? That right there would make the game wortwhile in and of itself.
"Right now democrats are on the ropes and the republicans are beating them with tire irons."
That "whooshing" sound you just heard was the entire point of my post zooming past your head.
The two parties involved in the Senate are the representatives and the represented, not the Republicans and the Democrats. The only ones who benefit from seeing everything in terms of "Republicans" and "Democrats" are (guess who!) the Republican and the Democrats.
And the same is true for any system that stresses inter-party relationships over the relationship between the governing and the governed. Get over your obsession with the Beloved Party (whichever one you have) and try enlightened self-interest for a change-of-pace.
Vague bias on the part of news reporters has little (if anything) to do with what the main issue is. The main issue is the ability of lobbying groups to spend money to support their chosen candidates well above and beyond what is allowed by current federal law. The organizations that would be harmed by such legislation are the ones that operate as little more than money laundering operations for people attempting to buy their own candidates.
When I ran for Congress last year, one of the lobbying groups that mailed me an "opinion survey" (a "survey" where they ram their opinions down my throat) was the National Right to Life Committee, Inc. Among the fanfare one would expect in a mailing from a group with a name like that were questions like these:Essentially, they want to maintain the right to publish all but the most blatent forms political advertising without, for example, being as restricted as the candidates and parties themselves are, all the while acting as a money laundering racket (note they don't want to admit who their sources are).
Something else I found amusing is how they claim that they are a "nonprofit corporation" and not a PAC (a PAC essentially a buffer that corporations and unions can donate money to, as they are specifically barred from donating to a candidate directly). I asked them how they can possibly have the abbreviation "Inc." in their name yet still not be a PAC. (No, I didn't get a response.)
Further on:Note the recurring "money laundering" theme here. They want to spend more on campaigning than the candidates themselves are allowed to spend, while still being able to maintain some sort of contact with the candidate in question.
And the last little tidbit:Once again, they want their soft money and their ability to spend it in practically any fashion their lawyers think they can get away with. And once again, it reeks of money laundering.
NRLC and the organizations like it aren't interested in "free speech," they're interested in free money. They want the ability to launch smear campaigns without even having to declare that they were the ones that paid for it in the first place.
Remember "Daisy" commercial that aired close to the 2000 elections? The one where the producer refused to disclose who paid for it (leaving everybody accusing everybody else)? That's exactly the kind of advertising this corporation wants to continue using. Saying NRLC and their ilk want to defend free speech is like saying Enron executives wanted to defend free markets: They both want all the benefits while absolving themselves of any responsibilities.
At any rate, I personally find it rather two-faced (and humorous) the way this corporation exists in order to try to overturn a Supreme Court decision and yet has no problem with hiding behind the Supreme Court when it suits them.
"they need to say "paid for by Warner bros."? What happened to freedom in this country."
Three words: "Truth in advertising." Saying that the songs you are being paid to play are "today's greatest hits" is misleading at best. It implies that the songs are being played based solely on their popularity.
"Why does the govt. feel they need to regulate everything?"
Why do you believe that "freedom of speech" means "freedom from responsibility?"
"Radio station have the right to free speech,"
FCC what?
"not the obligation to play music without compensation."
"Playing music for compensation" and "telling customers that no compensation took place" are two entirely different issues.
So how is the government "catching up?" Are the politicians finally getting their cut as well?
"What part of "Congress shall make no law..." are they having trouble with?"
Probably the part where money is considered speech. Note we're talking about campaign finance reform legislation.
What confuses me, though, is the catch-22 you end up with. First, you bring up the name of someone who managed to be associated with "individualism" (whether or not that association is merited is debatable but besides the point).But then you reverse and stress the importance of towing the Beloved Party's line.So is it important for Democrats to take initiative, or tow the party line? Who decides what "we" do in the "struggle" against "them?"
On the other hand, we have "them." You know, those...You need them to show individual initiative...... and decide to tow somebody else's line.You want a particular Democrat to show "initiative", all other Democrats to obediently follow (ie. not show any initiative of their own), and for all Republicans to show "initiative" by obediently following a different party mouthpiece than the one they normally follow. According to your model, all politics does and should rely on a bunch of sheep in Congress chanting "(Democrats|Republicans) good! (Republicans|Democrats) bad!" Where in this model you apparently promote does the whole "representing the voters" thing come into play?
You can name a handful of senators that have grabbed national headlines one way or the other. Out of curiousity, can you name your two senators? Better yet, have you ever written them? Or are you simply assuming that Democrats don't need to be told to do (what you consider to be) the right thing and Republicans are a lost cause anyway?
"I wonder what the final company will be called?"
Jar-Jar, Inc.
"Most of the other "imperialist" countries have returned most if not all of what they took."
Most of the other imperialist countries believed in Mercantilism, where there were distinct differences between the mother country and the colonies/rest of the empire. For example, while India was part of the British Empire for a long time, they never got to elect their own members of Parliament. Hell, even Puerto Rico has more of a voice in Congress than India ever had in Parliament.
On the other hand, at least until the twentieth century (and the situation could change back at any time), being US territory meant that you were on the way to becoming a seamless part of the "mother country." Hawaii has exactly the same interactions with the US federal government as Delaware.
The US "giving back" California is less like the UK giving back India and more like the UK giving back Wales.
"The article I read (on yahoo [yahoo.com]) states the unpatched servers were all on the internal network, not the internet, and that they were in use by researchers within microsoft."
Which means the problem isn't with shoddy MS SQL server code, it's with shoddy XP/2003 firewall code.
"Since America, Europe and Australia all have trade agreements I can expect that the dmca like laws will never go away."
"Trade agreements" doesn't mean they're married to each other. Despite the best efforts of the WTO, there are still inter-regional barriers to trade. I wouldn't really start to worry until Australia joins either NAFTA or the EU.
If anything, the recent article about the lapsing of European copyrights should be an example of inter-regional trade issues.
"I do not need to fight nor to die to "do" what I believe in."
Only because you live someplace where somebody did all the dirty work for you.
Using the example of Iraq you brought up earlier, the mere act of pissing and moaning about the actions of the local government (which you seem fond of) would get you thrown into a special prison built just for people like you. They may eventually let you out if it becomes politically expedient, but not until after they've had a chance to use you to discover new and interesting ways of causing pain (a favorite hobby of Uday's, I hear).
But, no, here you're perfectly allowed to wish death on people you don't even know while attempting to put on airs of intellectual superiority. You have the constitutionally gauranteed right to make a total fool of yourself.
"Think about that one..."
If you don't want to do anything at all, most communist regimes have ways of convincing you to put away your selfish attitudes and get to work on the collectivized farms. A worker's paradise has no room for non-workers.
"getting ready to fight for what they believe in and hopefully die there as well"
While you, on the other hand, instead of fighting and dying for what (ever) you believe in, post on Slashdot instead. Way to take the moral high ground!
Hell, I even rate the voluntary human sheilds higher than you. While they may be perpetuating the racist ideals they claim to be fighting against and while they may be confusing "conscientious objecting" with "aiding and abetting," at least they're doing something...
Yes, but where else can you find such bad jokes as "If those are the Raiders, which one is Paul Revere?"
Kickers just keep getting harder to find...
"This kind of stuff has been on the Internet for years"
Yeah, but 99% of it is a bunch of poor-quality cut-and-paste jobs, a bunch of horny prepubescent boys discovering what their warez copies of Photoshop can do. "Disneyland Memorial Orgy," on the other hand, is obviously done by a professional. This guy spent more than five minutes producing it and obviously had something more in mind beyond "heh-heh... they're naked!" This was obviously intended as satire.
"but DirecTV?"
They put commercials on cable TV channels as well. DirecTV is a content provider (as opposed to a content owner) attempting to compete directly with another content provider (ie. Kazaa). While they don't have some of the advantages Kazaa has (Kazaa is free and offers instant gratification), DirecTV provides better quality content (digital music, movie channels) for about the same price as the monthly cost of a broadband connection.
They're attempting to compete in an open market without resorting to trying to buy their own legislation. What a concept!
" Well I hope the poor king doesn't loose his crown jewels to frostbite."
"Kick him in the nards! Kick him in the nards!"
"Lich King don't got nards!"
"Just do it!"
*kick*
"Woah! Lich King's got nards!"
"Ending like WC3 has,... how do you create anything more in that line ? It was all a bad joke ? It was actually someone's bad dream ?"
What the hell is Medivh doing alive again?
Is Sargeras dead or not? Was he or wasn't he supposed to be in his tomb in WCII? And if he really is dead, how come the Burning Legion is still so well-organized?
How has the Lich King been keeping himself busy? What's left of Lordaeron?
How is Azeroth (the kingdom) fairing in all this?
Where did Illidan wander off to?
What about Telly Savalas? What's he been doing lately?*
*(Is obscure movie reference.)
Personally, I'll just be happy with a game that doesn't require me to log in with administrative privileges. That sounds like a potential security problem waiting to happen.
"The US or Australia have no way of enforcing anything in Vanatu or Estonia."
In the case of Estonia, they may have some incentives. Incentives like "If you'd like a free trade agreement.." or "If you'd like to join NATO..."
"Since when did dialup users contribute in a worthwhile way to P2P?"
Yeah, as we all know, the vast majority of internet users (let alone P2P users) have broadband connections.
"They are slow to upload"
Speed is relative. Upload speed from a 56k connection is just fine if you're downloading through a 56k. And vice versa.