Note that this only applies to making copies of sheet music, not merely singing the songs (or arranging, or performing, or anything else). Same sort of thing is in effect here in Canada, and I'm sure many other places. Not a wonderful policy, but not the culture-destroying terror that the summary implies.
You obviously are new to/. Actual RTFA, comprehending what it says and making a rational comment are not the norm. You need to read the sensational headline, and then post a diatribe about the evils of copyright, the music cabal, and anyone that actually wants to make money of what they create; and make a bad car analogy and then rant against anyone who violates the GPL.
I think we will see more of this - as traditional revenue streams dry up, companies will look to extracting money from areas they previously ignored or didn't worry about because they weren't that big.
I don't know, but upsetting the people who write your budget is generally not a good idea. Looked at it that way, $160 mill is cheap insurance to keep funds flowing.
This would seem like a classic ad - "XX wants to protect child abusers...prosecuted someone for warning a parent of potential abuse...weak on crime...wrong then, and wrong for MI..."
According to TFA, her email password was written down in a little book kept by the family computer. And yet, "The guy is a hacker" and "It was password protected, he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained."
Really, I don't see how it can get any more ridiculous than this. I realize the prosecutor has to put on a show to support such ridiculous charges, but good lord...
You obviously have not seen some of the products of the US education system - being able to recognize and open a book, and then actually read what is inside may very well qualify someone as having "wonderful skills" and being "highly trained."
I don't think so. US Postal regulations forbid anyone other than the recipient to open the letter, until delivery. Once a letter is delivered, they don't care what happens to it. After all, I throw out junk mail addressed to my wife. Is that also a crime?
The senders probably think you are stealing from them - after all they pay a lot of money so the postman can stop by your house with their ads, and as a side benefit deliver other mail as well. Think of the children - if you keep stealing mail bandwidth how will letters to Santa get delivered?
Uh,... how hard is it now? What big headache does this new pill solve???
Makes it easier to tag and review? Especially for the average user? I've seen ads that I was interested in, but not right away. Of course, they go away so I never click through. This make sit more magazine like; which is good, IMHO.
Sending that info to the "mothership"" (sic), without my knowledge or permission, is bad because they have no reason to need that data; other than to sell it or use it for marketing.
What are you talking about? When you installed the software you clearly indicated that you had read and understood the terms and conditions, which clearly stated that your camera software would be sending information stored in each image the camera records back to the camera company.
That little check box is legally binding. Some specific parts of some ridiculous EULAs are not legally binding, but on the whole they are legitimate. You gave them permission to do this, I don't see why you are upset about it.
If you actually care about your privacy, you should actually read the Terms and Conditions, in which they actually tell you what they are actually going to do with your private data. If there is something in there you don't agree with, don't check the box, and don't install the software. Either find some other way to use the device, or simply return the device.
Well, if you had read all may post you might understand what I am talking about. I never said
anything about the validity of an EULA, or that I am upset about what is in them. I do think they could be more clear, and think that you should have a legal right to opt out regardless of what is in a EULA. BTW, I do read them and have not bought some products as a result. I also think that if you cannot read the EULA before purchase (and having it on a website would not be sufficient) companies should be required to refund the purchase price if you decline; even if the software package has been opened.
Of course, none of that will come about until some politician gets Borked and sees a career end because of it; then the others will decided that some information needs to be kept private. It will happen, and then it will get interesting.
not that our devices embed information; but how that information is used. For example, having a geo location and serial number on every picture can aid in searching for images as well automating workflow (based on specific sensor characteristics). For me, that is good. Sending that info to the "mothership"" (sic), without my knowledge or permission, is bad because they have no reason to need that data; other than to sell it or use it for marketing.
I'd like to see companies that collect date require a more informed consent than burying it in a 50 page TOS agreement; and perhaps notification the first time teh data is sent.
With the war right now that almost every big company in the smart phone market is battling I hope the judges make all patent claims valid and make all the parties either stop selling their products or to pay ridiculous sums to each other. Maybe then someone will awake and see how much patents really progressing technology.
I would laughing so loud if Nokia, Motorola, Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm, HTC, etc. can't sell any products in the USA anymore because all patent claims would be find valid.
Nah, they'll just settle and cross-license. Companies have these spats all the time, and realize that a long drawn out battle is in neither's best interests. It does put other companies on notice, however, that they may be next; and create uncertainty about competitor's products.
Don't think of it as a war; but rather as large scale military maneuvers designed to show the other side what you can do; as well as warn smaller potential adversaries not to mess with you. No one really wants to fight as that is messy, costs money and may break your toys. The big guys look admiringly on each others show of power and come to agreements to avoid actually having to fight. Then you go have a beer together and plot how to get even more money out of the public coffers.
This is why people hate computers. The Common Application is basically lying to its users, because its developers are too lazy to handle a situation that is both easy to stumble into and can produce really bad results. And your solution? Put the burden on the user to work around the developers' laziness.
If the limit is 1000 characters, then tell the user it's 1000 characters. Don't say "150 words". And make sure that you really can fit 1000 characters on the printed version of the application 100% of the time. This really isn't that hard.
While I agree the developers should fix this - it may not be an easy fix. Counting characters is not necessarily intuitive, as opposed to words. The could, OTOH, force everything to a fixed font and warn the user when they exceed the character limit. They, of course, people would wonder way they are out of space at 130 words; and say 1000 characters which are approximately 150 words.
They could also simply have a text field with a high character limit, do a word count and simply truncate after 150 words.
Either way, the submitter should proof it before it is sent. Word count is the least of issues with essays, at least in my experience.
You print out your application, check to see if it truncates, and fix it if it does. They could say - "the essay must fit in an x by y printed space"; but then that would be confusing as well. I wouldn't be surprised if re-reading and editing actually improves the essay.
Did not the state of California try this with tragic consequences? Rolling blackouts to keep prices artificially high.
No. California basically setup a system that was guaranteed to fail. They split generation from distribution, capped prices to customers but allowed the generators to charge market rates to distribution companies, mandated service for all, prevent companies from entering long term supply contracts; and then sat back and disavowed involvement when things went to hell.
CA is essentially two islands when it comes to power - once he inter-ties were fully loaded no more power could be imported and prices(to the distributors) rose as higher price units went online. When they couldn't pass on the costs, and as a result end users weren't driven to cut consumption which would lower demand and prices, bankruptcies ensued. Politicians screamed. Babies cried.
Couple that with companies such as Enron doing roundtrips to drive up prices and things went south quickly.
There were people who said that would happen - but they were largely ignored. Oh well.
Demand goes up as price decreases. There is a point where the profit is maximized by the revenue generated by the volume and the cost to produce.
Lower prices are not necessarily bad in the long run if you can generate enough volume. By finding the right mix of pricing low enough to get the impulse buy bit not so low that the lower price doesn't generate enough incremental volume. If you can hit a sweet spot you can be quite profitable as long as you control costs. Steam gives indies a way to test the demand elasticity and price to maximize profit. Not a bad model if done right.
Finally, if they put out good games people will be more apt to buy them which supports higher prices in the long run.
And a fair lot of ambitioned young artists are very willing to work for little to no money on a game project so they finally have something to tack to their resume.
That is what keeps salaries down - there is always someone willing to work cheap to gain "resume points." which means the ones building their resumes get caught in the "I can get someone cheaper" trap and eventually bemoan the amount of people willing to work for next to nothing to gain experience.
Do you know what you call a doctor if he pronounces you "perfectly healthy" but what he really means is there's an odd spot on your lung but it almost never turns out to be a rapidly developing cancer?
The defendant.
In other words, unlike the doctor, the bank KNEW that it was only provisionally cleared but chose not to inform the man of that rather important bit of information. It sounds to me like exactly the sort of "let's not worry about the impossible" that lead to the big financial meltdown.
Uh, no. In the first case the MD has a legal responsibility to practice within the normal standards of his profession, just like any other licensed professional. The bank is following the law; and the account agreement a person signed probably explained the clearance process. While I think the bank should have at least informed the person about the clearance process for such a sum of money or at least inquired due to the unusual nature of the transaction, the are not legally bound to do that.
Wrong. It is patently absurd to suggest that telecom is not a natural monopoly. Logistical, as well as economic reasons make it impossible for more than a very few to enter the market. Indeed, telecom and railroads are the very textbook definition of the natural monopoly.
You clearly do not understand the concept of "natural monopoly" as evidenced by your use of two examples that relied on government action to create their positions.
As for the crappy service we get, how is it then, that in so many other places, service well in excess of your "T1 to the home" yardstick is delivered for far less than we pay for the same thing here? If, that is, we can get it at all?
Some clues; population density, government subsidy
in a company the size of yahoo, i can't imagine that laying off 400 will really bring them to profitability.
If you assume an all in cost (not just salary) of $100k/employee; that's an annual saving of $40mil. It may not balance the books but it is a start. Anybody know YAHOO's cash flow last year?
A "Utilities Commission" enforces minimum distribution and quality of service. Without that type of requirement, we wouldn't have the power infrastructure we have today. Without that type of requirement, we wouldn't have telephone service everywhere in the form it is in today. Guaranteeing and enforcing minimum standards is what is required. The FCC is nearly powerless with currently interfering politics as they are today.
You have a very naive view of a Utility Commission - they exist to ensure a utility gets it fixed rate of retune on its capitalized assets; and to provide preferential rates to whatever corporation politicians want to help.
Most of us live under this backward belief that free market means everyone competes to deliver the "best" of anything. That's simply not true and I am not sure it ever was. Business competes with other businesses. That's true. But it's usually a race to the bottom to deliver the bare minimum without losing business. They get MORE business through marketing (specials and advertising), not through quality and good reputation -- that's so 40 years ago.
No, a free market does not guarantee a"bets" - it simp;ly provides the level of service people are willing to pay for; if you want "best" you simply must pay the cost of best. Most people want "best" while paying for cheap; and when they can't get it they whine about the "failure of the free market."
For the love of GOD won't they please declare that internet service is a "utility" and regulate it as such?
Oh yea, you really want politicians to decide how internet access is provided and who subsidizes whom. The plus side would be we'd get huge investments in infrastructure so the utility gets it's 10% or so return.
Uh..., hell yes? Because in all those places where it''s better than the crap we're served here in the U.S., internet access is, ZOMG!, regulated. The free-market fairy is a myth. Time to grow up and face the reality about how things work in any market where there exists a "natural monopoly".
First off all, it's not a natural monopoly - it's an artificial one created by, surprise, government regulators. The problem is not that we have crappy service, it's that people want first class service at cut rate prices. You want fast internet - pay for it. I don't want my rates to go up to pay for extra speed that I do not need. Forcing 90% of the users to subsidize the 10% that want T1 to the home is not an efficient use of resources.
For the love of GOD won't they please declare that internet service is a "utility" and regulate it as such?
Oh yea, you really want politicians to decide how internet access is provided and who subsidizes whom....
It is certainly preferable to having the corporations make those decisions.
The only reason rural America can send and receive mail at a reasonable cost (the same cost as everyone else, and the cheapest rates in the world) is that the USPS is a government regulated "utility". The only reason rural America got electrical power and a phone system was also due to government regulation and "interference" via the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) which was abolished in 1994 after completing its job of bringing those service to all Americans.
Actually, you mean the only reason we have "cheap" mail service is because the government forces them to run a money losing business; if they had to be fully self sustaining rates would rise. Of course, we could let the USPS run broadband and bring us plenty of cheap spam er bulk rate email to help keep costs down and provide a service to the consumer. Of course, only the USPS could deliver email to your inbox. Once a day. Not on Sundays.
You could, of course, cross subsidize broader broadband rollouts by charging more for the easily accessed areas to cover the cost of hard to service areas; as well as providing companies low cost service that ultimately is paid for by consumers.
All the while allowing a fixed return on assists; encouraging the building of large capital bases to ensure the largest possible cash flow to pay out to investors
Or, you could take the airline model and charge by distance or usage.
In fact, a regulated utility would probably tier charges as well simply "brownout" service when demand exceeds bandwidth.
A corporation is only interested in its bottom line (they are compelled to do this by law in fact) not the national interest. So raking in large fees for service that is far below international standards is perfectly fine for them. If you believe that the Internet is important and that new industries and productive activities can grow out of state-of-the-art high speed data access then the U.S. is at a competitive disadvantage. You cable company doesn't care about this but national politicians should.
It is, but a government regulated utility won't be any better and may be far worse.
For the love of GOD won't they please declare that internet service is a "utility" and regulate it as such?
Oh yea, you really want politicians to decide how internet access is provided and who subsidizes whom. The plus side would be we'd get huge investments in infrastructure so the utility gets it's 10% or so return.
If there's one thing Tron Paul gets it's the Constitution.
Without getting into a debate over RP views, he did make one (minor) constitutional flaw:
The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional record by Senator Mike Gravel, with no charges of any kind being made of breaking any national security laws.
Senators and Congressmen are specifically not prosecutable for any remarks on the House or Senate floor; which would mean remarks in the record would be protected.
Per Article I, Sec 6:
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
While some might argue that except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace would not be restricted, the ; and makes it a separate clause. The Senate could have chosen to take action based on Senate rules; but those aren't laws.
WTF are you talking about. Unix and Linux are used extensively on mission systems with in the DoD. You think they use Windows to manage the Missile systems you need to think again.
of course a rebuttal of this is simply to point you at the USS Yorktown. True that the "missile"systems were not controlled by NT, but being dead in the water would not have helped firing any weapon at all.
The failure appears not to be an OS issue but an application issue; something that can happen with any OS.
No, what’s important about how Linux and open-source software is created isn’t the side issues of politics or how its developers are perceived; it’s that its fundamental methodology produces better software. That’s why businesses invest in Linux’s development. Linux works. If it didn’t, big business wouldn’t bother with it.
I am not sure the methodology produces better software; it does however produce software companies can use and modify to their needs without paying ongoing license fees. That's why they use it - it allows them to develop other, higher-value, products and maintain control over the source and not be beholden to some third party company. The methodology does work to produce high quality software since many people are looking for bugs, with that part I agree - but companies don't invest in software because others are QC'ing it; they invest because it enables them to make money. While what the author says is, IMHO, true about the Linux kernal, I don't think it is true for many other FOSS projects; unless they are used as part of a larger product, such as a server. There simply isn't the same incentive to spend time and money on an application, such as an office suite, that you can't use to sell something more profitable.
Slashdot Mirror
Note that this only applies to making copies of sheet music, not merely singing the songs (or arranging, or performing, or anything else). Same sort of thing is in effect here in Canada, and I'm sure many other places. Not a wonderful policy, but not the culture-destroying terror that the summary implies.
You obviously are new to /. Actual RTFA, comprehending what it says and making a rational comment are not the norm. You need to read the sensational headline, and then post a diatribe about the evils of copyright, the music cabal, and anyone that actually wants to make money of what they create; and make a bad car analogy and then rant against anyone who violates the GPL.
I think we will see more of this - as traditional revenue streams dry up, companies will look to extracting money from areas they previously ignored or didn't worry about because they weren't that big.
How bad would the penalties be?
I don't know, but upsetting the people who write your budget is generally not a good idea. Looked at it that way, $160 mill is cheap insurance to keep funds flowing.
This would seem like a classic ad - "XX wants to protect child abusers...prosecuted someone for warning a parent of potential abuse...weak on crime...wrong then, and wrong for MI..."
According to TFA, her email password was written down in a little book kept by the family computer. And yet, "The guy is a hacker" and "It was password protected, he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained." Really, I don't see how it can get any more ridiculous than this. I realize the prosecutor has to put on a show to support such ridiculous charges, but good lord...
You obviously have not seen some of the products of the US education system - being able to recognize and open a book, and then actually read what is inside may very well qualify someone as having "wonderful skills" and being "highly trained."
I don't think so. US Postal regulations forbid anyone other than the recipient to open the letter, until delivery. Once a letter is delivered, they don't care what happens to it. After all, I throw out junk mail addressed to my wife. Is that also a crime?
The senders probably think you are stealing from them - after all they pay a lot of money so the postman can stop by your house with their ads, and as a side benefit deliver other mail as well. Think of the children - if you keep stealing mail bandwidth how will letters to Santa get delivered?
CTRL-D, tag on del.icio.us.
Uh, ... how hard is it now? What big headache does this new pill solve???
Makes it easier to tag and review? Especially for the average user? I've seen ads that I was interested in, but not right away. Of course, they go away so I never click through. This make sit more magazine like; which is good, IMHO.
Sending that info to the "mothership"" (sic), without my knowledge or permission, is bad because they have no reason to need that data; other than to sell it or use it for marketing.
What are you talking about? When you installed the software you clearly indicated that you had read and understood the terms and conditions, which clearly stated that your camera software would be sending information stored in each image the camera records back to the camera company.
That little check box is legally binding. Some specific parts of some ridiculous EULAs are not legally binding, but on the whole they are legitimate. You gave them permission to do this, I don't see why you are upset about it.
If you actually care about your privacy, you should actually read the Terms and Conditions, in which they actually tell you what they are actually going to do with your private data. If there is something in there you don't agree with, don't check the box, and don't install the software. Either find some other way to use the device, or simply return the device.
Well, if you had read all may post you might understand what I am talking about. I never said anything about the validity of an EULA, or that I am upset about what is in them. I do think they could be more clear, and think that you should have a legal right to opt out regardless of what is in a EULA. BTW, I do read them and have not bought some products as a result. I also think that if you cannot read the EULA before purchase (and having it on a website would not be sufficient) companies should be required to refund the purchase price if you decline; even if the software package has been opened.
Of course, none of that will come about until some politician gets Borked and sees a career end because of it; then the others will decided that some information needs to be kept private. It will happen, and then it will get interesting.
not that our devices embed information; but how that information is used. For example, having a geo location and serial number on every picture can aid in searching for images as well automating workflow (based on specific sensor characteristics). For me, that is good. Sending that info to the "mothership"" (sic), without my knowledge or permission, is bad because they have no reason to need that data; other than to sell it or use it for marketing.
I'd like to see companies that collect date require a more informed consent than burying it in a 50 page TOS agreement; and perhaps notification the first time teh data is sent.
With the war right now that almost every big company in the smart phone market is battling I hope the judges make all patent claims valid and make all the parties either stop selling their products or to pay ridiculous sums to each other. Maybe then someone will awake and see how much patents really progressing technology.
I would laughing so loud if Nokia, Motorola, Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm, HTC, etc. can't sell any products in the USA anymore because all patent claims would be find valid.
Nah, they'll just settle and cross-license. Companies have these spats all the time, and realize that a long drawn out battle is in neither's best interests. It does put other companies on notice, however, that they may be next; and create uncertainty about competitor's products.
Don't think of it as a war; but rather as large scale military maneuvers designed to show the other side what you can do; as well as warn smaller potential adversaries not to mess with you. No one really wants to fight as that is messy, costs money and may break your toys. The big guys look admiringly on each others show of power and come to agreements to avoid actually having to fight. Then you go have a beer together and plot how to get even more money out of the public coffers.
This is why people hate computers. The Common Application is basically lying to its users, because its developers are too lazy to handle a situation that is both easy to stumble into and can produce really bad results. And your solution? Put the burden on the user to work around the developers' laziness.
If the limit is 1000 characters, then tell the user it's 1000 characters. Don't say "150 words". And make sure that you really can fit 1000 characters on the printed version of the application 100% of the time. This really isn't that hard.
While I agree the developers should fix this - it may not be an easy fix. Counting characters is not necessarily intuitive, as opposed to words. The could, OTOH, force everything to a fixed font and warn the user when they exceed the character limit. They, of course, people would wonder way they are out of space at 130 words; and say 1000 characters which are approximately 150 words.
They could also simply have a text field with a high character limit, do a word count and simply truncate after 150 words.
Either way, the submitter should proof it before it is sent. Word count is the least of issues with essays, at least in my experience.
You print out your application, check to see if it truncates, and fix it if it does. They could say - "the essay must fit in an x by y printed space"; but then that would be confusing as well. I wouldn't be surprised if re-reading and editing actually improves the essay.
Did not the state of California try this with tragic consequences? Rolling blackouts to keep prices artificially high.
No. California basically setup a system that was guaranteed to fail. They split generation from distribution, capped prices to customers but allowed the generators to charge market rates to distribution companies, mandated service for all, prevent companies from entering long term supply contracts; and then sat back and disavowed involvement when things went to hell.
CA is essentially two islands when it comes to power - once he inter-ties were fully loaded no more power could be imported and prices(to the distributors) rose as higher price units went online. When they couldn't pass on the costs, and as a result end users weren't driven to cut consumption which would lower demand and prices, bankruptcies ensued. Politicians screamed. Babies cried.
Couple that with companies such as Enron doing roundtrips to drive up prices and things went south quickly.
There were people who said that would happen - but they were largely ignored. Oh well.
Demand goes up as price decreases. There is a point where the profit is maximized by the revenue generated by the volume and the cost to produce.
Lower prices are not necessarily bad in the long run if you can generate enough volume. By finding the right mix of pricing low enough to get the impulse buy bit not so low that the lower price doesn't generate enough incremental volume. If you can hit a sweet spot you can be quite profitable as long as you control costs. Steam gives indies a way to test the demand elasticity and price to maximize profit. Not a bad model if done right.
Finally, if they put out good games people will be more apt to buy them which supports higher prices in the long run.
And a fair lot of ambitioned young artists are very willing to work for little to no money on a game project so they finally have something to tack to their resume.
That is what keeps salaries down - there is always someone willing to work cheap to gain "resume points." which means the ones building their resumes get caught in the "I can get someone cheaper" trap and eventually bemoan the amount of people willing to work for next to nothing to gain experience.
Do you know what you call a doctor if he pronounces you "perfectly healthy" but what he really means is there's an odd spot on your lung but it almost never turns out to be a rapidly developing cancer?
The defendant.
In other words, unlike the doctor, the bank KNEW that it was only provisionally cleared but chose not to inform the man of that rather important bit of information. It sounds to me like exactly the sort of "let's not worry about the impossible" that lead to the big financial meltdown.
Uh, no. In the first case the MD has a legal responsibility to practice within the normal standards of his profession, just like any other licensed professional. The bank is following the law; and the account agreement a person signed probably explained the clearance process. While I think the bank should have at least informed the person about the clearance process for such a sum of money or at least inquired due to the unusual nature of the transaction, the are not legally bound to do that.
Wrong. It is patently absurd to suggest that telecom is not a natural monopoly. Logistical, as well as economic reasons make it impossible for more than a very few to enter the market. Indeed, telecom and railroads are the very textbook definition of the natural monopoly.
You clearly do not understand the concept of "natural monopoly" as evidenced by your use of two examples that relied on government action to create their positions.
As for the crappy service we get, how is it then, that in so many other places, service well in excess of your "T1 to the home" yardstick is delivered for far less than we pay for the same thing here? If, that is, we can get it at all?
Some clues; population density, government subsidy
in a company the size of yahoo, i can't imagine that laying off 400 will really bring them to profitability.
If you assume an all in cost (not just salary) of $100k/employee; that's an annual saving of $40mil. It may not balance the books but it is a start. Anybody know YAHOO's cash flow last year?
Yes. Yes I do. Here's why.
A "Utilities Commission" enforces minimum distribution and quality of service. Without that type of requirement, we wouldn't have the power infrastructure we have today. Without that type of requirement, we wouldn't have telephone service everywhere in the form it is in today. Guaranteeing and enforcing minimum standards is what is required. The FCC is nearly powerless with currently interfering politics as they are today.
You have a very naive view of a Utility Commission - they exist to ensure a utility gets it fixed rate of retune on its capitalized assets; and to provide preferential rates to whatever corporation politicians want to help.
Most of us live under this backward belief that free market means everyone competes to deliver the "best" of anything. That's simply not true and I am not sure it ever was. Business competes with other businesses. That's true. But it's usually a race to the bottom to deliver the bare minimum without losing business. They get MORE business through marketing (specials and advertising), not through quality and good reputation -- that's so 40 years ago.
No, a free market does not guarantee a"bets" - it simp;ly provides the level of service people are willing to pay for; if you want "best" you simply must pay the cost of best. Most people want "best" while paying for cheap; and when they can't get it they whine about the "failure of the free market."
For the love of GOD won't they please declare that internet service is a "utility" and regulate it as such?
Oh yea, you really want politicians to decide how internet access is provided and who subsidizes whom. The plus side would be we'd get huge investments in infrastructure so the utility gets it's 10% or so return.
Uh..., hell yes? Because in all those places where it''s better than the crap we're served here in the U.S., internet access is, ZOMG!, regulated. The free-market fairy is a myth. Time to grow up and face the reality about how things work in any market where there exists a "natural monopoly".
First off all, it's not a natural monopoly - it's an artificial one created by, surprise, government regulators. The problem is not that we have crappy service, it's that people want first class service at cut rate prices. You want fast internet - pay for it. I don't want my rates to go up to pay for extra speed that I do not need. Forcing 90% of the users to subsidize the 10% that want T1 to the home is not an efficient use of resources.
For the love of GOD won't they please declare that internet service is a "utility" and regulate it as such?
Oh yea, you really want politicians to decide how internet access is provided and who subsidizes whom....
It is certainly preferable to having the corporations make those decisions.
The only reason rural America can send and receive mail at a reasonable cost (the same cost as everyone else, and the cheapest rates in the world) is that the USPS is a government regulated "utility". The only reason rural America got electrical power and a phone system was also due to government regulation and "interference" via the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) which was abolished in 1994 after completing its job of bringing those service to all Americans.
Actually, you mean the only reason we have "cheap" mail service is because the government forces them to run a money losing business; if they had to be fully self sustaining rates would rise. Of course, we could let the USPS run broadband and bring us plenty of cheap spam er bulk rate email to help keep costs down and provide a service to the consumer. Of course, only the USPS could deliver email to your inbox. Once a day. Not on Sundays.
You could, of course, cross subsidize broader broadband rollouts by charging more for the easily accessed areas to cover the cost of hard to service areas; as well as providing companies low cost service that ultimately is paid for by consumers.
All the while allowing a fixed return on assists; encouraging the building of large capital bases to ensure the largest possible cash flow to pay out to investors
Or, you could take the airline model and charge by distance or usage.
In fact, a regulated utility would probably tier charges as well simply "brownout" service when demand exceeds bandwidth.
A corporation is only interested in its bottom line (they are compelled to do this by law in fact) not the national interest. So raking in large fees for service that is far below international standards is perfectly fine for them. If you believe that the Internet is important and that new industries and productive activities can grow out of state-of-the-art high speed data access then the U.S. is at a competitive disadvantage. You cable company doesn't care about this but national politicians should.
It is, but a government regulated utility won't be any better and may be far worse.
For the love of GOD won't they please declare that internet service is a "utility" and regulate it as such?
Oh yea, you really want politicians to decide how internet access is provided and who subsidizes whom. The plus side would be we'd get huge investments in infrastructure so the utility gets it's 10% or so return.
If there's one thing Tron Paul gets it's the Constitution.
Without getting into a debate over RP views, he did make one (minor) constitutional flaw:
The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional record by Senator Mike Gravel, with no charges of any kind being made of breaking any national security laws.
Senators and Congressmen are specifically not prosecutable for any remarks on the House or Senate floor; which would mean remarks in the record would be protected.
Per Article I, Sec 6:
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
While some might argue that except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace would not be restricted, the ; and makes it a separate clause. The Senate could have chosen to take action based on Senate rules; but those aren't laws.
The failure appears not to be an OS issue but an application issue; something that can happen with any OS.
The point was that the DOD is/was using Windows technology in critical applications.
No one said they weren't - just that *Nix was also used; and that Windows was not the cause of the Yorktown's failure.
WTF are you talking about. Unix and Linux are used extensively on mission systems with in the DoD. You think they use Windows to manage the Missile systems you need to think again.
of course a rebuttal of this is simply to point you at the USS Yorktown. True that the "missile"systems were not controlled by NT, but being dead in the water would not have helped firing any weapon at all.
The failure appears not to be an OS issue but an application issue; something that can happen with any OS.
I am not sure the methodology produces better software; it does however produce software companies can use and modify to their needs without paying ongoing license fees. That's why they use it - it allows them to develop other, higher-value, products and maintain control over the source and not be beholden to some third party company. The methodology does work to produce high quality software since many people are looking for bugs, with that part I agree - but companies don't invest in software because others are QC'ing it; they invest because it enables them to make money. While what the author says is, IMHO, true about the Linux kernal, I don't think it is true for many other FOSS projects; unless they are used as part of a larger product, such as a server. There simply isn't the same incentive to spend time and money on an application, such as an office suite, that you can't use to sell something more profitable.