I paid $35/mo for 5/2 Fios for over a year (It ran just under $40 wth taxes and 'fees'). No POTS, and no TV, just Internet. Install was free w/ 1yr committment.
Now, I have the tripple play with TV and POTS for $110/mo. Not because they force me too, but because I asked for it.
I have the 5 down/ 2 up FIOS where I live, and I pay exactly $35/mo for it, so there are some smaller packages available. You just have to call in and ask for them.
Your post actually convinced me to do something I almost never do with a slashdot posting.... read the article.
Re:Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this...
on
WinXP on a Mac, Hoax?
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Who would put up 12,000 bucks for something that's not really needed? I mean, sure, hacking the hardware to get it to run is kinda cool and all...but 12 grand?!?! Is it THAT important to buy Mac hardware to put Windows on?
One obvious answer might be Apple. They have stated over and over again that it would be impossible for someone to boot XP on a Intel Mac. Now we have claims by someone that it can be done.
I can see two obvious reasons they would pay the bounty.
1. Hush money - they pay the $12k and insist that the user sign an agreement not to realse it to anyone, ever.
2. Apple engineers have no idea how in the world this guy did it, and they need to know in order to engineer a 'fix' to prevent anyone else from doing it.
Maybe this is more of a ransom or a threat to Apple than a legitimate offer to share iformation with the community.
The staistic is that only 10% of all Muslims are considered Radical or Extremist.
Well, there are about 215 million Muslims worldwids.
That means over 20 million radical or extremist Muslims.
Thats a pretty big threat if you're a big, world-wide corporation, and you see them going nuts over a cartoon. The last thing Yahoo wants is their India offices being burned to the ground.
I have no idea regarding the validity of these photos, they could be 100% doctored, but I'll just provide the link and the/. community can judge for theirselves.
You said "Some cost benefit analysis in two or three years may put these units into the majority of car dealerships."
Yes, I can definately see that as a possibility. But I think there will be a significant force preventing that from happening: customers with good credit.
For instance, customer A with poor or no credit needs a car, and goes to 4 different dealerships, and no one can sell them a car because of the customers poor credit and the inability to get them financed. Finally, they go to the 5th dealership, and they agree to sell the car, with the condition of the 'big brother' box. Since they need a car, they comply.
Now, customer B with great credit goes to the same 5 different dealerships to get their car. All 5 are able to get customer B financed. Now, if this customer is looking at all other things being equal, their going to choose the best financing deal availble. I'm willing to say, this isn't going to include the dealership which installs the cut-off boxes.
So, while these are going to become more popular, I doubt we will ever see such wide spread adoption as your post suggests.
These aren't for everyone
on
High-Tech RepoMan
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Before we get too far into the comments going on and on about how we wouldn't accept these in our cars and yadda yadda, we have to stop and remember one thing.
For the majority of people, you wouldn't need a system like this. Why? Because the majority of people, especially here, have reputable credit and can get a car loan, or have cash on hand to put a significant amount down.
I have a good friend who works in auto sales, and things in the used car business have become so bad, in terms of financing, that they were getting customers on the lot, essentially 'sold' them the car, and then couldn't get any banks to finance them. So what were they left doing? Financing the sale themselves.
Basically, you agree to pay the car dealership directly, instead of a bank. This puts a lot of pressure on the dealership, because instead of getting, say $12,000 upfront, in one payment from a bank, they are now getting monthly payments of $250 for the next 5 years or so. In doing this, they are really hanging their rear out, because if that customer makes two payments, and disapears off the face of the earth, that dealership has no way of tracking them, or their car, down.
That's why these systems are catching on so quickly, not as another form of 'big brother', but as an alternative for someone out there who needs a car, and can make payments, but can't get financed through a bank. This way, a dealership can move cars off their lot, and still protect their investment.
If you don't want a system like this in your car, the solution is simple, keep good credit. If you do that, then you'll be able to get bank financing, not get ripped off by a car dealership, and don't have to worry about 'big brother' in the passanger seat.
I use Safari myself, and most people out there are running IE. The intellectuial majority uses Mozilla, but I have yet to find someone useing a google web browser.
I even checked google labs, they have no browser in development. Is this a new top secret google project that no one knows about yet?
Wait a minute, I'm sure we've all seen the M$ ads here on slash. I know that the OSDN dosen't specifically get M$ money, but they're through doubleclick.
This is probably what's going to have to happen. Let me make a smimlar analogy with the highways & automobiles.
When cars first came out, it created a lot of similar problems as we are now seeing with cell phones. The people that had these new-fangles automobiles loved em. Why, because it allowed them to get from A to B a heck of a lot faster than they could on a horse, and they weren't tied to train schedules. But the people that didn't ahve automobiles hated them. Why, because they ran otehr traditional forms of transportation off the road. A peron on a horse & buggy stood no chance against someone in an automobile. Hence, there was a lot of resentment between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'.
So what did we do, we created laws to govern the 'haves' We told them where they could drive their cars, and how fast they can go. We also gave them restrictions, such as stoplights & such. As the technology matured, more and more people adopted it. And as more and more people adopted it, there became fewer 'have-nots' to complaint about the have's.
Right now, cell phone adoption is in a similar stage as the early automobile. There are the cell phone 'have's and the 'have-nots.' As more and more people become 'haves' we are going to have to create rules & laws to govern the use, just like we did with the automobile. We've created pedestrain only streets, primarily in shopping districts. Why can't we create cell-phone free areas on trains, theaters, and other places.
Now, I'm never to be one in favor of big government, but just as they did in the early years of the Auto, they're going to have to step in and make some regulations to control the use of Cell Phones.
Not only is this (a) rude and (b) probably illegal (it is in the US, but (c) dangerous.
Dangerous you say. How in the world is blocking someones phone call harming anyone? Well, what if, when you're busy enjoying your peace & quiet, someone else nearby is without cell phone service. Now what if, that someone has a mission-critical position somehwere (Doctor, EMT, Fireman, or even a IT sys admin). Lets say there's a problem (Operation, car accident, house fire, or the latest varient of Netsky) and one of these people NEEDS to be contacted IMMEDIATELY. But of course, they can't. Why? Because in your selfishness, you decided that you can't be bothered with the minor inconvience of listening to someones conversation.
Look, I know cell phone users can be annoying, but is that any reason to punish the whole lot? We don't close down an entire highway just because someone is driving like an ass, do we? No, we try to be understanding of people and let it pass. In the same sense, we can't just block all cell phones in a certain area just because of one or two inconsiderate users.
I agree that the curtural differences between the Western World (Specifically the states) and Asis might play a part, but widespread adoption here is just starting to pick up.
I'm relatively new to cell phone technology, considering that I first got a phone about 1.5 years ago. Now I remember, in my pre-cellphone days, of being extremly annoyed at cell phone users. People not paying attention while they drive. People talking really loud on public transportation. Even people talking in 'quiet areas' such as movie theaters, churches (yes, I've been to church where someone actually picked up their phone and started talking), ect.
Now that I'm 'one of them', them being a cell phone user, I'm much more understanding of the things that used to annoy me greatly. My frustrations not witthstanding, I still get peeved when people aren't paying attention to where they are driving because they are on the phone. And there's just no excuse for people having their phones on in a movie theater or church! But all-in-all, when I'm in public, and someone's yapping away loudly into a phone, I just don't give it much second thought. Probably because now I'm just as guilty of the offense that they are.
We're just beginning to see the wide-spread adoption of cell phones, similar to what's going on in Asia. I predict that as more and more Americans get mobile phones, the number of people annoyed with them will decrease, because the number of people in society that will be 'guilty' of the offending offense will increase. This points out a seemingly critical piece of data that the study seemed to miss. Is there a coorelation to people being annoyed against weather or not they are cell phone users themselves.
They did mention that his wife has a work at home business. She probably brings in more cash than he does.
$40k/year in New York City isn't a whole lot of money. Heck, you can make $100k/yr in New York and just be considered middle class, based on the cost of living.
By now, many of you have heard of oru agreement with SCO. What you have probably heard, though, is misinformation about the arrangement.
We license Linux through Red Hat. They provide our distribution and support/updates for the Enterprise distribution. Plus, they do an awesome job at delivering. Their support and dedication is second to none. Our agreement with SCO is in no way any kind of indictment on Red Hat.
We did not license a linux distribution or any software covered by a referenced EULA from SCO. We did, however, license certain IP from SCO.
We fullly support the GPL and the open source movement.
It has been argued by a Linux Journal reporter that I have essentially called the various GPL Linux developers plaugerists. This is false as I would never make such a claim against them. They are some of the brightest minds for whom I hold a great deal of respect.
Other have claimed that we're essentially funding SCOs various lawsuits. This is not true. SCO already has like $60 million on hand and our small fee would not go very far defending an action such as this, much less prosecuting one.
We make no endorsement of SCO nor do we make any admission as to their claims.
HOWEVER, what we did do was make a prudent business decision based upon our circumstances and our customers needs and the need to bring certainty to their businesses.
Whatever your position on the various suits, which SCO has said will increase. These suits have a very real and significant cost, even if proven unsuccessful. These are costs we were prepared to bear as we did in the Free Speech case with CI Host. the vast majority of smaller hosts using our services do not have our resources to defend/prosecute such an action. While our decision may not be popular, it does ensure that our customers (to the extent that they operate servers in our data centers) are protected from action by SCO with respect to those servers.
No legal action is certain. The outcome of every legal action is subject to risk. (Just look at the OJ Simpson case.. who would have figured that one) There is significcant risk on both sides of this equation.
In every step building the EV1 business, I've had to make decisions that I believed in my heart were in the best interests of my clients and my shareholders. My team and I have worked to bring the best possible service at the best possible price to our customers. In this case, the same decision making tools were employed and only after significant thought and analysis, an action taken.
As a result of this action, our customers can be assured that as these cases work their way through the legal system, that thay have no worry that SCO will take action against them for servers in our data centers.
I do appreciate the positive comments and emails that many of you have sent as I also understand the negative positions that others have taken. We are fortunate to live in a country where it is possible to speak your mind freely.
Robert Marsh Head Surfer
DC2 Opens on Wednesday with limited server availability. Initial deployments are likely to be dual drive/1 GB configurations. Additional configurations will follow as time and space allow.
Re:Photos are Archived Here
on
Borg Cube Case
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Yea, it was down before we even had a mere 10 comments posted to it.
Damn those "Premium" subscribers, slashdotting a site before us masses can even get to it.
OK, so you've established the need to get reliable & useful from the support staff, but gave no insight as to what that reliable & useful information would be?
How about a clue here, where would we begin, what information do we really need to qrangle here, and why is it so sensitive that the staff would be reluctant to give it up?
Slashdot Mirror
I paid $35/mo for 5/2 Fios for over a year (It ran just under $40 wth taxes and 'fees'). No POTS, and no TV, just Internet. Install was free w/ 1yr committment.
Now, I have the tripple play with TV and POTS for $110/mo. Not because they force me too, but because I asked for it.
I have the 5 down/ 2 up FIOS where I live, and I pay exactly $35/mo for it, so there are some smaller packages available. You just have to call in and ask for them.
I live in the Pittsburgh, PA area.
Your post actually convinced me to do something I almost never do with a slashdot posting .... read the article.
One obvious answer might be Apple. They have stated over and over again that it would be impossible for someone to boot XP on a Intel Mac. Now we have claims by someone that it can be done.
I can see two obvious reasons they would pay the bounty.
1. Hush money - they pay the $12k and insist that the user sign an agreement not to realse it to anyone, ever.
2. Apple engineers have no idea how in the world this guy did it, and they need to know in order to engineer a 'fix' to prevent anyone else from doing it.
Maybe this is more of a ransom or a threat to Apple than a legitimate offer to share iformation with the community.
Are you master of your domain?
The staistic is that only 10% of all Muslims are considered Radical or Extremist.
Well, there are about 215 million Muslims worldwids.
That means over 20 million radical or extremist Muslims.
Thats a pretty big threat if you're a big, world-wide corporation, and you see them going nuts over a cartoon. The last thing Yahoo wants is their India offices being burned to the ground.
What about posting a video showing the end of their webserver after posting a link on /.
Tech e Blog posted photos of a possible Apple iPhone Concept
/. community can judge for theirselves.
I have no idea regarding the validity of these photos, they could be 100% doctored, but I'll just provide the link and the
Dan
You said "Some cost benefit analysis in two or three years may put these units into the majority of car dealerships."
Yes, I can definately see that as a possibility. But I think there will be a significant force preventing that from happening: customers with good credit.
For instance, customer A with poor or no credit needs a car, and goes to 4 different dealerships, and no one can sell them a car because of the customers poor credit and the inability to get them financed. Finally, they go to the 5th dealership, and they agree to sell the car, with the condition of the 'big brother' box. Since they need a car, they comply.
Now, customer B with great credit goes to the same 5 different dealerships to get their car. All 5 are able to get customer B financed. Now, if this customer is looking at all other things being equal, their going to choose the best financing deal availble. I'm willing to say, this isn't going to include the dealership which installs the cut-off boxes.
So, while these are going to become more popular, I doubt we will ever see such wide spread adoption as your post suggests.
Before we get too far into the comments going on and on about how we wouldn't accept these in our cars and yadda yadda, we have to stop and remember one thing.
For the majority of people, you wouldn't need a system like this. Why? Because the majority of people, especially here, have reputable credit and can get a car loan, or have cash on hand to put a significant amount down.
I have a good friend who works in auto sales, and things in the used car business have become so bad, in terms of financing, that they were getting customers on the lot, essentially 'sold' them the car, and then couldn't get any banks to finance them. So what were they left doing? Financing the sale themselves.
Basically, you agree to pay the car dealership directly, instead of a bank. This puts a lot of pressure on the dealership, because instead of getting, say $12,000 upfront, in one payment from a bank, they are now getting monthly payments of $250 for the next 5 years or so. In doing this, they are really hanging their rear out, because if that customer makes two payments, and disapears off the face of the earth, that dealership has no way of tracking them, or their car, down.
That's why these systems are catching on so quickly, not as another form of 'big brother', but as an alternative for someone out there who needs a car, and can make payments, but can't get financed through a bank. This way, a dealership can move cars off their lot, and still protect their investment.
If you don't want a system like this in your car, the solution is simple, keep good credit. If you do that, then you'll be able to get bank financing, not get ripped off by a car dealership, and don't have to worry about 'big brother' in the passanger seat.
An 'unexpected' child gets you a huge refund for the entire year, not just from the day they're born.
Yea, but filing by mail delay your refund check by 6-8 weeks, because some IRS guy has to type it in.
The IRS states 1-2 weeks for your refund check if you e-file. If you have your refund done via direct deposit, it's even faster (5-7) days.
I e-files and got my return in about 5 days, and I had some complicated business expenses to boot.
So yea, you can 'stick it' to the IRS by snail-mail filing, but they'll stick it right back to you by keeping your money longer.
Here's a list of who owns all the Class A IP blocks
e
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-spac
What browsers besides google are people using?
I use Safari myself, and most people out there are running IE. The intellectuial majority uses Mozilla, but I have yet to find someone useing a google web browser.
I even checked google labs, they have no browser in development. Is this a new top secret google project that no one knows about yet?
Wait a minute, I'm sure we've all seen the M$ ads here on slash. I know that the OSDN dosen't specifically get M$ money, but they're through doubleclick.
So maybe we should start boycotting slash too?
At least it'll create a few hundred IT jobs.
Yea, but they'll probably be in India
You must be a manager for AT&T Wireless
And look what happened to that sorry excuse for a company.
This is probably what's going to have to happen. Let me make a smimlar analogy with the highways & automobiles.
When cars first came out, it created a lot of similar problems as we are now seeing with cell phones. The people that had these new-fangles automobiles loved em. Why, because it allowed them to get from A to B a heck of a lot faster than they could on a horse, and they weren't tied to train schedules. But the people that didn't ahve automobiles hated them. Why, because they ran otehr traditional forms of transportation off the road. A peron on a horse & buggy stood no chance against someone in an automobile. Hence, there was a lot of resentment between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'.
So what did we do, we created laws to govern the 'haves' We told them where they could drive their cars, and how fast they can go. We also gave them restrictions, such as stoplights & such. As the technology matured, more and more people adopted it. And as more and more people adopted it, there became fewer 'have-nots' to complaint about the have's.
Right now, cell phone adoption is in a similar stage as the early automobile. There are the cell phone 'have's and the 'have-nots.' As more and more people become 'haves' we are going to have to create rules & laws to govern the use, just like we did with the automobile. We've created pedestrain only streets, primarily in shopping districts. Why can't we create cell-phone free areas on trains, theaters, and other places.
Now, I'm never to be one in favor of big government, but just as they did in the early years of the Auto, they're going to have to step in and make some regulations to control the use of Cell Phones.
Not only is this (a) rude and (b) probably illegal (it is in the US, but (c) dangerous.
Dangerous you say. How in the world is blocking someones phone call harming anyone? Well, what if, when you're busy enjoying your peace & quiet, someone else nearby is without cell phone service. Now what if, that someone has a mission-critical position somehwere (Doctor, EMT, Fireman, or even a IT sys admin). Lets say there's a problem (Operation, car accident, house fire, or the latest varient of Netsky) and one of these people NEEDS to be contacted IMMEDIATELY. But of course, they can't. Why? Because in your selfishness, you decided that you can't be bothered with the minor inconvience of listening to someones conversation.
Look, I know cell phone users can be annoying, but is that any reason to punish the whole lot? We don't close down an entire highway just because someone is driving like an ass, do we? No, we try to be understanding of people and let it pass. In the same sense, we can't just block all cell phones in a certain area just because of one or two inconsiderate users.
I agree that the curtural differences between the Western World (Specifically the states) and Asis might play a part, but widespread adoption here is just starting to pick up.
I'm relatively new to cell phone technology, considering that I first got a phone about 1.5 years ago. Now I remember, in my pre-cellphone days, of being extremly annoyed at cell phone users. People not paying attention while they drive. People talking really loud on public transportation. Even people talking in 'quiet areas' such as movie theaters, churches (yes, I've been to church where someone actually picked up their phone and started talking), ect.
Now that I'm 'one of them', them being a cell phone user, I'm much more understanding of the things that used to annoy me greatly. My frustrations not witthstanding, I still get peeved when people aren't paying attention to where they are driving because they are on the phone. And there's just no excuse for people having their phones on in a movie theater or church! But all-in-all, when I'm in public, and someone's yapping away loudly into a phone, I just don't give it much second thought. Probably because now I'm just as guilty of the offense that they are.
We're just beginning to see the wide-spread adoption of cell phones, similar to what's going on in Asia. I predict that as more and more Americans get mobile phones, the number of people annoyed with them will decrease, because the number of people in society that will be 'guilty' of the offending offense will increase. This points out a seemingly critical piece of data that the study seemed to miss. Is there a coorelation to people being annoyed against weather or not they are cell phone users themselves.
They did mention that his wife has a work at home business. She probably brings in more cash than he does.
$40k/year in New York City isn't a whole lot of money. Heck, you can make $100k/yr in New York and just be considered middle class, based on the cost of living.
Just some random musing.
I did do my bit for Karmah horing.
It just so happens I was browsing on that page BEOFRE the article was posted.
I intended to click the "post as AC" button, but merely forgot.
Ah well, please forgive my whoreness 8:)
After Yesterdays /.'ing of their forums, here's the full text of the commnet before the whole thing bork's out
.. who would have figured that one) There is significcant risk on both sides of this equation.
Additional Headsurfer Comments Regarding SCO Contract
By now, many of you have heard of oru agreement with SCO. What you have probably heard, though, is misinformation about the arrangement.
We license Linux through Red Hat. They provide our distribution and support/updates for the Enterprise distribution. Plus, they do an awesome job at delivering. Their support and dedication is second to none. Our agreement with SCO is in no way any kind of indictment on Red Hat.
We did not license a linux distribution or any software covered by a referenced EULA from SCO. We did, however, license certain IP from SCO.
We fullly support the GPL and the open source movement.
It has been argued by a Linux Journal reporter that I have essentially called the various GPL Linux developers plaugerists. This is false as I would never make such a claim against them. They are some of the brightest minds for whom I hold a great deal of respect.
Other have claimed that we're essentially funding SCOs various lawsuits. This is not true. SCO already has like $60 million on hand and our small fee would not go very far defending an action such as this, much less prosecuting one.
We make no endorsement of SCO nor do we make any admission as to their claims.
HOWEVER, what we did do was make a prudent business decision based upon our circumstances and our customers needs and the need to bring certainty to their businesses.
Whatever your position on the various suits, which SCO has said will increase. These suits have a very real and significant cost, even if proven unsuccessful. These are costs we were prepared to bear as we did in the Free Speech case with CI Host. the vast majority of smaller hosts using our services do not have our resources to defend/prosecute such an action. While our decision may not be popular, it does ensure that our customers (to the extent that they operate servers in our data centers) are protected from action by SCO with respect to those servers.
No legal action is certain. The outcome of every legal action is subject to risk. (Just look at the OJ Simpson case
In every step building the EV1 business, I've had to make decisions that I believed in my heart were in the best interests of my clients and my shareholders. My team and I have worked to bring the best possible service at the best possible price to our customers. In this case, the same decision making tools were employed and only after significant thought and analysis, an action taken.
As a result of this action, our customers can be assured that as these cases work their way through the legal system, that thay have no worry that SCO will take action against them for servers in our data centers.
I do appreciate the positive comments and emails that many of you have sent as I also understand the negative positions that others have taken. We are fortunate to live in a country where it is possible to speak your mind freely.
Robert Marsh
Head Surfer
DC2 Opens on Wednesday with limited server availability. Initial deployments are likely to be dual drive/1 GB configurations. Additional configurations will follow as time and space allow.
Yea, it was down before we even had a mere 10 comments posted to it.
Damn those "Premium" subscribers, slashdotting a site before us masses can even get to it.
OK, so you've established the need to get reliable & useful from the support staff, but gave no insight as to what that reliable & useful information would be?
How about a clue here, where would we begin, what information do we really need to qrangle here, and why is it so sensitive that the staff would be reluctant to give it up?