It was the result of a lawsuit by one of their major shareholders, Bell Canada, which successfully sued Jones because Jones was offering Internet service. The judge ruled that contrary to Jones' claim of simply providing a new channel, Bell Canada's claim that Jones violated their ownership agreement which said Jones would not offer any communication service except television and satellite rebroadcasts.
Jones lost and got completely out of the telecom business.
Their dislike of upload bandwidth isn't the money - cable modem technology is inherently asymmetric. Cable modem companies had serious performance problems in the early years - cable TV distribution equipment was pretty shoddy, and the cable modem equipment was relatively experimental, so the native performance wasn't very good, and they didn't have any effective way to limit user's upstream bandwidth.
Well, back in the early days here in Alexandria VA, Jones Intercable offered symmetric cable modems, without a single bandwidth-related hickup that I ever experienced, and I was one of the very early adopters. When Jones went belly-up and Comcast took over, they replaced all the cable modems with the asymmetric versions, and imposed the server ban. It probably helped Jones that they had laid fiber all over the city, so it wasn't using the traditional cable plant, but that would only mean Comcast would have had no other reason to limit bandwith except for peering. Or a hide-bound corporate adherence to the rules, of course.:-)
Granted, other cable systems probably hadn't upgraded their plant like Jones did, so maybe standard copper is inherently asymmetric, but I would bet that peering still plays a large part in their decision-making.
Comcast and other cable/DSL providers will never allow servers of any kind, so long as they can't negotiate the kind of "peering" agreements that the major backbones have with each other.
Comcast has to pay for packets that are routed outside their nets, and get to charge for packets coming into their nets, so they throttle upload and open up download rates.
If the judge was a qualified scientist, maybe but not ideally.
Activist judges on the right or left who believe they have a duty to change society are dangerous. Those that interpret laws based on their feelings or personal opinions are even more so.
Several SC justices have already spoken publicly stating that they aren't going to just use the Constitution to decide whether laws are constitutional, and will use international legal precedents.
All we need are judges deciding what is and isn't allowed in textbooks, first science, then who knows, history, philosophy, law? Will a judge claim that a school or public library cannot constitutionally allow Bibles or any other religious books of any kind be available? Will a judge decide that a Christian cannot run for office, due to the appearance of not separating church and state?
Given a precedent, and willing legislators, executives and voters who go along with it, judges can rule on anything, and will.
You have to be careful exercising stock options, as well. A friend of mine worked for a company and received a lot of stock options before the company went public. The options were for something like $3 per share, when the company went public the stock went up as high as $100, so she exercised some of her options. The problem for her (and others there) was that the stock she received was not common stock, which meant she couldn't turn around and sell the stock for the currently traded price. The company controlled when and how much of that "non-convertible" stock could be sold by employees, and so she had lots of shares of stock that, had they ben convertible, would have been worth several hundreds of thousands, but she was not allowed to sell it for that amount. The company finally bought back some non-convertible stock, but only after it had fallen to less than $40/share. The thing is, the employees weren't told that the stock was going to be non-convertible when the options were given. Bottom line, check the options agreement closely.
Personally, I work as an independent contractor, and I never have to worry about bogus 'compensation' like stock options and "health benefits."
Going back to the Google example, if three years from now Google traded at or below $50 / share, your option would be worthless and you would have nothing. That is why you might want to consider getting paid in cash VS. getting paid in options.
BTW, my friend in the above example was held liable by the IRS for the value of the stock at exercise time for all unsold stock, even though the stock by the time she could sell it was worth far less than the value when she exercised it.
If, however, one collects social security and the other doesn't, then the latter is paying taxes disproportionately compared with the first person.
Unfortunately, the only way one of them wouldn't collect is if they died. The SocSecAdmin will disburse money to you, if you paid into it, even if you don't want or need it. You can't opt out of the system in any way, shape, form or fashion. Unless you run away or die, and even then your heirs may get it.
how us a list of hundreds of thousands of species that have been driven to extinction by hydroelectric damns. Go on.
No.
But claiming the current systems of generating electricity are somehow more ecologically damaging than the so-called "renewable" resources is simple hypocrisy. ALL systems are equally ecologically hazardous, they just affect different parts of the ecology. You don't like me calling that hypocrisy? Too bad.
To paraphrase one of my favorite Presidents, "I'm not a troll. I just tell the truth, and people think it's a troll."
(Strangely enough, you're the only one claiming I'm trolling, and as soon as you posted it, I was suddenly moderated down. What was it, Karl Rove? Maybe it was monkeys, giant space monkeys...)
It's amazing people still call hydroelectric power "green", but then hypocrisy in defense of liberal ideas is no vice...
You fucking troll. It's renewable, not magical. Every action causes a reaction, our energy needs aren't going away, but there are ways to minimise the impact of our actions. Hydroelectric damns cause dammage, but the impact of a local flood is not in the same ballpark as the impact that the floods from melting the artic and antartic with greenhouse gases would have.
Like I said, hypocrisy. You believe that it's "green" to destroy millions of acres of habitat, eradicate species by the hundreds or thousands, because some "dammage(sic)" happens anyway? You have one warped idea of "green," that's for sure.
Draining river basins, sucking aquifers dry by preventing their natural refilling, all perfectly "green"! Astounding.
And good use of moderation points, I raise the same points as another commenter, he's modded "insightful" whereas I'm modded "troll". Well, if I lived my life for Slashdot Karma I'd be a starving man...
Half of the population becomes sterile. Therefore only half of the population reproduces. Of the next generation, half become sterile because of the virus. You have a replacement rate of.5 at best, which means species extinction unless you cure the disease so that no one else gets it after generation or so. Beyond that, you probably wouldn't have enough population to support the economy, or the high technology to look for a cure.
Well, I'm old enough to have watched my parent's black and white cabinet TV, but young enough to have gotten into computer programming and hardware for my profession. This week I'm going to be loaning my sister my TiPowerBook, to replace her pwned Windows box. She's completely disgusted dealing with regular tech support, and just wants to read her mail and do some document writing and photo scanning. I've helped her and my brother when I could, usually with setting up their computers and installing software. She's a fairly competent user, my brother is pretty much clueless, but I love them both!:-)
Personally, I lean to the idea of Revelation as allegorical. However, I'd be opposed to the idea of putting a chip anywhere in my body just in case the pre-millenialists are right.
Which may be a good thing, if it means that people think about the repercussions of some entity (personal, governmental, religious) being able to control an individual's personal property and livelyhood to the extent as the Beast in Revelation.
Exit polls are statistical estimates, not actual enumeration of votes.
But, your logic is the same that people are trying to apply to the census, where actually counting people isn't as important as statistically estimating how many are "undercounted" and "correcting" the actual enumeration.
Fine, whatever. I remember what I read at the time, and the praise heaped on Apple for its innovations and design, including the ease of programming etc. that you list. Of course, my memories can't possibly compete against your powers of authorial divination and illogic, so count yourself in the "winner" column here.
"In many ways, the story sounds eerily familiar. As was the case in computers, Apple has sprinted ahead in the music market with an innovative product, elegant design and tight links between its hardware and software."
I know he doesn't say it, but it sounds as if he's implying that the Mac market share in the 1980's was as big as the iPod's is now, which (IIRC) simply isn't true: the Mac has never had more than a 10% market share.
You know, Apple did make computers before the Macintosh. And some few of us who were around then remember when the AppleII family was the personal computer of choice for most people...
Slashdot Mirror
It was the result of a lawsuit by one of their major shareholders, Bell Canada, which successfully sued Jones because Jones was offering Internet service. The judge ruled that contrary to Jones' claim of simply providing a new channel, Bell Canada's claim that Jones violated their ownership agreement which said Jones would not offer any communication service except television and satellite rebroadcasts.
Jones lost and got completely out of the telecom business.
Well, back in the early days here in Alexandria VA, Jones Intercable offered symmetric cable modems, without a single bandwidth-related hickup that I ever experienced, and I was one of the very early adopters. When Jones went belly-up and Comcast took over, they replaced all the cable modems with the asymmetric versions, and imposed the server ban. It probably helped Jones that they had laid fiber all over the city, so it wasn't using the traditional cable plant, but that would only mean Comcast would have had no other reason to limit bandwith except for peering. Or a hide-bound corporate adherence to the rules, of course.
Granted, other cable systems probably hadn't upgraded their plant like Jones did, so maybe standard copper is inherently asymmetric, but I would bet that peering still plays a large part in their decision-making.
Comcast and other cable/DSL providers will never allow servers of any kind, so long as they can't negotiate the kind of "peering" agreements that the major backbones have with each other.
Comcast has to pay for packets that are routed outside their nets, and get to charge for packets coming into their nets, so they throttle upload and open up download rates.
Always follow the money.
If the judge was a qualified scientist, maybe but not ideally.
Activist judges on the right or left who believe they have a duty to change society are dangerous. Those that interpret laws based on their feelings or personal opinions are even more so.
Several SC justices have already spoken publicly stating that they aren't going to just use the Constitution to decide whether laws are constitutional, and will use international legal precedents.
All we need are judges deciding what is and isn't allowed in textbooks, first science, then who knows, history, philosophy, law? Will a judge claim that a school or public library cannot constitutionally allow Bibles or any other religious books of any kind be available? Will a judge decide that a Christian cannot run for office, due to the appearance of not separating church and state?
Given a precedent, and willing legislators, executives and voters who go along with it, judges can rule on anything, and will.
Trying to hide the poor server from approx. 30 million rabid slashdotters...
Cap.
"Constitutionally correct" science that is.
Just what we need.
Not to mention a whole 'nother world of US and interntional telecom regulations they'd have to adhere to or not violate.
Because tax policy is a political matter, not a matter of your rights online.
HTH.
Cap.
Personally, I work as an independent contractor, and I never have to worry about bogus 'compensation' like stock options and "health benefits."
BTW, my friend in the above example was held liable by the IRS for the value of the stock at exercise time for all unsold stock, even though the stock by the time she could sell it was worth far less than the value when she exercised it.
Cap.
Yeah, I saw that on a video, "Nature Gone Wild."
Or something like that...
Unfortunately, the only way one of them wouldn't collect is if they died. The SocSecAdmin will disburse money to you, if you paid into it, even if you don't want or need it. You can't opt out of the system in any way, shape, form or fashion. Unless you run away or die, and even then your heirs may get it.
Well, Ethernet already has Cat5, Cat5e, and Cat6, how many more Cats do you want (he asked, doggedly)?
Where else are you gonna get oil?
how us a list of hundreds of thousands of species that have been driven to extinction by hydroelectric damns. Go on.
No.
But claiming the current systems of generating electricity are somehow more ecologically damaging than the so-called "renewable" resources is simple hypocrisy. ALL systems are equally ecologically hazardous, they just affect different parts of the ecology. You don't like me calling that hypocrisy? Too bad.
To paraphrase one of my favorite Presidents, "I'm not a troll. I just tell the truth, and people think it's a troll."
(Strangely enough, you're the only one claiming I'm trolling, and as soon as you posted it, I was suddenly moderated down. What was it, Karl Rove? Maybe it was monkeys, giant space monkeys...)
Like I said, hypocrisy. You believe that it's "green" to destroy millions of acres of habitat, eradicate species by the hundreds or thousands, because some "dammage(sic)" happens anyway? You have one warped idea of "green," that's for sure.
Draining river basins, sucking aquifers dry by preventing their natural refilling, all perfectly "green"! Astounding.
And good use of moderation points, I raise the same points as another commenter, he's modded "insightful" whereas I'm modded "troll". Well, if I lived my life for Slashdot Karma I'd be a starving man...
So, where are all the dams going to go that will supply 90 % of our power?
How many species of fish will they wipe out (snail darter, anyone?) in the building and operation of them?
What about the disruption of microclimates caused by the introduction of new lakes where there were only streams before?
What about the wetlands that would be disrupted, either by drying out or being flooded (see "new lakes" above)?
It's amazing people still call hydroelectric power "green", but then hypocrisy in defense of liberal ideas is no vice...
I'll have to remember that next time I order a Salmonella omelet with a side of Botulism soup.
With extra E.Coli for flavor...
Half of the population becomes sterile. Therefore only half of the population reproduces. Of the next generation, half become sterile because of the virus. You have a replacement rate of .5 at best, which means species extinction unless you cure the disease so that no one else gets it after generation or so. Beyond that, you probably wouldn't have enough population to support the economy, or the high technology to look for a cure.
The only problem it would cause would be our own extinction as a species.
Dropping each generation's fertility rate by 50% is long-term death.
Well, I'm old enough to have watched my parent's black and white cabinet TV, but young enough to have gotten into computer programming and hardware for my profession. This week I'm going to be loaning my sister my TiPowerBook, to replace her pwned Windows box. She's completely disgusted dealing with regular tech support, and just wants to read her mail and do some document writing and photo scanning. I've helped her and my brother when I could, usually with setting up their computers and installing software. She's a fairly competent user, my brother is pretty much clueless, but I love them both! :-)
Which may be a good thing, if it means that people think about the repercussions of some entity (personal, governmental, religious) being able to control an individual's personal property and livelyhood to the extent as the Beast in Revelation.
Exit polls are statistical estimates, not actual enumeration of votes.
But, your logic is the same that people are trying to apply to the census, where actually counting people isn't as important as statistically estimating how many are "undercounted" and "correcting" the actual enumeration.
*Sigh*
Fine, whatever. I remember what I read at the time, and the praise heaped on Apple for its innovations and design, including the ease of programming etc. that you list. Of course, my memories can't possibly compete against your powers of authorial divination and illogic, so count yourself in the "winner" column here.
You know, Apple did make computers before the Macintosh. And some few of us who were around then remember when the AppleII family was the personal computer of choice for most people...