Nope, I just have a side interest in economics. I really don't care who buys the rights to the spectrum so long as the government, and by extension the people, gets the best possible price and the best way to ensure that is with an auction.
The flip side is that if this kind of deal is widely implemented, then the quality of people in the field will suffer. For every talented graduate whose fees are waved, there will be several untalented individuals who choose the field just because the fees are waved, too.
There is no rule that says that a particular university has to admit you to their engineering school just because you have the tuition in hand. I remember that the competition in CS was very intense and by the time I completed my final year and earned my degree, less than half of the people that I started with remained. In fact, to be admitted to the major as a freshman the requirement was 3.75 or better high school GPA and at least 1375 on the SAT or equivalent ACT score. If you wanted to transfer from another major or undeclared then you had to complete the entire lower division course series (enough for a minor) with a perfect 4.0 GPA to be guaranteed a transfer into the major, otherwise there were a very limited number of seats that were awarded on a merit basis (never more the 4 or so extra seats per quarter) so transfers were rare (i.e. most people who could meet the transfer requirements knew that they wanted to do CS before they got in and thus were already in the CS major as freshmen). Engineering majors are very expensive to offer compared to other majors on campus (some universities have talked about increasing tuition for more expensive majors such as engineering above the normal tuition charged for students who major in the humanities or comparative literature for example) so they generally try to limit the available seats to the most motivated and meritorious students so that a seat in the upper division courses is not "wasted" when somebody washes out (most of the upper division students, the ones who make it out of lower division, tend to complete the undergraduate course of study and earn a degree or at least they did at my school).
The universities, and the engineering schools in particular, will absolutely not lower their standards and it is very unlikely that a mediocre student would successfully pass all of the difficult lower division weeder courses. Those engineering profs can be harsh...they really don't care if you don't make it, especially if you seem unmotivated, don't show up for lecture, or ask stupid questions that indicate lack of understanding.
If the goal is to stay competitive in science, they should be increasing the number of merit based scholarships instead.
I agree with you here. The United States, if they choose to invest the publics' money in this way, should model their system after the testing system used by India for their IIT schools. This will ensure that only the most promising and motivated candidates are funded by the program while weeding out the less promising candidates.
No, I argue that the spectrum should not be sold in the first place. It is a public resource, like air, water or light.
You are confusing the EM spectrum with a Public Good. It is *not* the case, for example, that your unfettered use of the EM spectrum does not interfere with my unfettered ability to use that same EM spectrum. Thus the EM spectrum, particularly within a specific geographic region, is more correctly understood to be a Private Good.
I didn't elect anyone to sell it.
You agreed to be bound by the laws of United States by living in the United States. If you don't agree then don't live here or don't enter the country...our country our rules. The government has the right to regulate interstate commerce as granted by the Constitution and the regulation of the EM spectrum falls under that jurisdiction.
Because the government claims to act in the best interests of the public doesn't make it so.
Perhaps not, but they have a duty to the American people, which they cannot lawfully and knowingly breach, to do precisely that.
Except that a lot of that money doesn't go back to the public but to line the pockets of politicians, corporate friends, all of who are eager to have it. You think that government agents don't personally benefit when they make money from these auctions?
That is irrelevant to the point of the discussion. The government has a fiduciary duty to the people, just as any company would have to its shareholders, to maximize profits from the property, in this case the EM spectrum, and the best way to do that is for the government to *rent* the rights at auction. What the government does with that money is an entirely separate discussion.
If the government did not auction air, public roadways and every other kind of public property it would have to raise taxes to make up the deficit... Except that that's not true at all
Air cannot be auctioned because it is a public good (see above) although the right to pollute may be, it depends upon how one defines pollution. The roadways should be privatized as well, but that is a different discussion. The government does not cost zero dollars to run so it has to be funded somehow and there are only so many ways to do that so take your pick. I would prefer that the EM spectrum auction, mineral rights on public lands, etc be sold to the highest bidder rather than paying additional taxes, but that is why we have elections, to decide such things or rather to elect those people who will decide on our behalf.
Granting a monopoly/oligopoly is the antithesis of competition.
We are not "granting" exclusivity, we are *selling* it on the open market...there is a difference.
Open spectrum advocates don't argue for increased government control, but rather less.
And it will never work. The spectrum cannot be open because it cannot support infinite bandwidth and what is to stop me from interfering with you if the spectrum is wide open? It would be anarchy without regulation. The protection of property rights, by law preferably and force if necessary, is properly understood to be the role of the government.
You will have your phones (and more importantly new innovative services), cheaper, faster, with more features when the spectrum is opened to everyone.
Not if I cannot make a profit because everyone is interfering with everyone else in a free-for-all cage match for the spectrum.
With open access comes innovation and competition.
That is the point of the auction. The bidding is open to anybody who wants to bid. We live in a capitalist society. Priorities are decided by the marketplace and whoever is willing and able to pay the most will receive the good or service. The theory being that those able to pay the most are those most able to properly develop the property and manage the risk of taking on such a large liability (i.e. paying the winning bid).
The public doesn't own the airwaves. It's owned by corporate america because they are the only ones that can afford the ridiculous auction prices.
It is *rented* by corporate America with certain rights and privileges, including exclusivity of their right to transmit on the selected frequencies, it is not *owned* by corporate America. I don't care that I cannot personally afford the cost of exclusive access to a desirable band of public frequencies. I for one would rather have the money than be able to play amateur radio hobbyist with parts of the EM spectrum that are worth billions on the open market. The voters collectively decided that we would be happier selling the rights to use the property rather than reserving the property for our direct and personal use. You may have a different set of personal priorities (i.e. you are an avid amateur radio enthusiast) but the rest of us do not have those same priorities...we would rather have money and spend on other things.
You may find it shocking but maybe our government spends money excessively just to buy votes. Some political experts do suggest this as happening.
It certainly does happen and there is nothing that a free society can do about it, because every citizen or group of citizens has the right to petition their government without restriction. In the absence of a clear quid pro quo (aka bribe offered in exchange for distinct actions) there is nothing that can be done to stop this. If you want free speech then you have to be willing to live with the side effects.
What would happen to the average citizen if they broadcast something on unused piece of spectrum owned by the private sector? If you guessed thrown to jail, you would be right.
If you trespass on the property of another then you can expect the same result. Private property is just that...private and if the right to use a public property has been exclusively granted by lawful contract then it is the same result if you trespass on the right of the contract holder to use and enjoy the property as per the terms of the contract.
And if the government is so good with our money then lets give them 'all' of our money. That would surely solve all of our problems.
Markets work and governments don't...that is the whole reason why we are selling the right to use the property at auction rather than having the government run the wireless industry. The government exists to prevent violence and coercion and enforce the rule of law. They need resources or the money to purchase them in order to do this and I would prefer that they get that money from auctions of spectrum rather than by raising taxes.
Creating a monopoly for just 'ONE COMPANY' to horde spectrum does not equal the free market.
It sure can, provided that the auction nets enough value for the asset being sold (spectrum in this case). The value of any monopoly is never infinite so provided that the public receives a high enough price in the auction, exclusivity (i.e. monopoly) can be part of the deal. To see why check out the article on Present Value.
The gov makes makes a buck and that doesn't always filter down to average Joe citizen
It doesn't have to provided that the government uses this money to perform its duties rather than taxing our incomes. A tax break is functionally equivalent to a direct payment from the government in the form of goods and services and it is more efficient too because the money didn't "leak" on its way through the system.
Belongs to the public. The public needs to fight to regain the airwaves.
The public never lost its property rights to those airwaves, we simply elected to rent them out to the highest bidder so that the proceeds of that auction could be used to fund the purchase other goods and services that we the public wish to conusme rather than attempting to operate them directly ourselves with all of the risks and costs that that entails. The government, acting on behalf of and in the interest of the people, is our agent in that sale. Now, you might argue that the government is squandering the proceeds or not getting the best possible price, but really we never lost control of the airwaves.
Spectrum shouldn't be held hostage for filling government coffers.
The government coffers are really *our* coffers in that the government uses this money to provide us with public goods that we like to consume. If the government did not receive this money from the auctions then it would have to raise the cash necessary to provide these public goods in other less desirable ways, such as raising taxes.
We could have very cheap phones for everyone. Not with ATT guy running the FCC.
Selling the right to use the spectrum at auction and then allowing the market with competition to decide the outcome yields the best and most fair result for everyone. You will have your cheap phone for everyone much faster, and at a much better price, from the market than you would from government control and central planning. Remember here that wireless spectrum is not entangled in "natural monopoly" scenarios with last mile physical infrastructure problems so the market is much more able to reach the optimal result more quickly than might be the case in fiber optic or cables and other utilities.
Microsoft would be very difficult to outbid if they *really* wanted the spectrum bad enough. It would probably take a coalition of telcos to amass enough capital to outbid them, they have $40+ billion in high liquidity short term securities (basically the same as cash) and cash. What is the market capitalization of the individual telcos like Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, etc?
People in favour of these auctions seem to forget that companies are not in it for charity, and investors like to see a reasonable return on the money they put in. The cash for these licenses have to come from someone, and that someone is you, the dumbass consumer.
On the contrary, we are keenly aware of this fact. It does not matter that some companies overpaid, their licenses will be liquidated along with the rest of their assets in bankruptcy and resold to the highest bidders. This process will continue until an equilibrium is reached where pricing that consumers are willing to accept aligns closely with the prices paid in the auctions. The market works and works well to solve these problems. If you really *want* UMTS bad enough then indicate your desire by being one of the first early adopters, presumably you want it badly enough to pay those high early adopter prices. If it is not that important to you then you should be happy to accept the money, in the form of more government service or less taxes, in exchange for having to wait while the companies cut each others throats in these auctions.
It bombed cuz' dey tried t'combine too many new elements into some game which wuz, right out uh de gate, goin' into haid t'haid competishun in some crowded market. Man! Dey should gots used an older, mo'e fleshed out, and betta' settin' den deir new "Eberon" campaign settin' (which dey hardly produce any scribblin's fo' now anyway). De marketin' drones gots deir hands on dis one and dought dat it would be great if dese two new products could roll each oder's sales...unfo'tunately dey fo'gots o' chose t'igno'e da damn strengds uh long standin' 'esistin' D&D settin's, likes Fo'gotsten Realms, and da damn fact dat Wo'ld uh Warcraft wuz firmly entrenched in de numba' one spot wid some several year haid start. Man! De game actually wuzn't dat baaaad, but instead uh bein' smart and usin' Fo'gotsten Realms (de settin' fo' de Baldurs Gate series) dey went and tried t'boost sales uh one uh deir sheet products, Eberon, which had crappy sales eva' since it wuz released. It wuz some huge longshot bet dat some combinashun uh underdogs could mosey on down out and unseat WoW and nobody, ah' dink, wuz suprised when dey failed. It could gots been better, but dey screwed it all down. De D&D dojigger gots a long and venerable dojigger in clunker gamin' fum de early gold box days, drough Baldurs Gate, and Neverwinta' Nights, but somehow de sucka's at WotC managed t'snatch defeat fum de jaws uh victo'y wid DDO Sto'mreach. Lop some boogie.
And even then it wouldn't be perfect, because it's plausible they could start limiting traffic on listening ports that get a lot of traffic.
The solution might be to modify the protocol to allow for randomized shuffling of request and response ports as the the session progresses, while maintaining encryption of course, so that the incoming and outgoing ports are randomized for each block of transmissions and the protocol allows users to let their peers (in the torrent swarm) know what ports are going to be used for the next block and so on. This would be similar to the frequency hopping employed on encrypted radios for example.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but with Bittorrent the trackers are only there to connect you into the swarm of peers who are transfering parts of the file. Once one is in the swarm the trackers only serve to periodically update the list of hosts currently in the swarm and how long could that possibly take compared to the amount of data being transferred? I suppose that they could still throttle the tracking protocol with the trackers but actual load is coming from data transfers between peers in the swarm, right?
From the article, "The absorption refrigerator is a refrigerator that utilizes a heat source to provide the energy needed to drive the cooling system rather than being dependent on electricity to run a compressor."
Sounds like just the thing for that excess wasted heat...
So is this the point where we starting hearing that blocking ads is just like running out of the store with a pair of blue jeans? I mean really
It reminds me of the MAFIAA propaganda that they sometimes show during the previews at the theaters or on retail DVDs where a series of "hand camera" shaky vignettes showing a "shady" street dealer selling "counterfeit" DVDs, a carjacker, a purse snatcher, etc are all compared to some suburban kid at his home computer engaging in "illegal downloading". I laughed hysterically the first time I saw this little film and although it was probably not their intent to be funny one cannot help but laugh at the absurdity of their analogies.
People use corporations as a shield against prosecution all the time. It sickens me to see what they get away with, and that's just what we hear about.
The point that I was trying to make is that they do not, in fact, always "get away with it", particularly if there has been malfeasance. They can try and use the corporation a shield against tort actions arising out of the demise of their corporation, but depending upon the circumstances the corporation may not provide absolute immunity under law.
As for the Warren Anderson case it would appear that the courts here in the United States made the correct decision regarding the case. The central issue is this, was Warren Anderson directly and knowingly responsible for what occurred in Bhopal? Was he negligent or did he just happen to be the CEO of a foreign company, with operations in India, at the time that was poorly run by local subordinates? It would set a very bad precedent for the United States to agree to extradition in cases where there is not clear and direct personal responsibility and involvement.
Suppose that the United States agreed to extradite an American citizen for the crime of speaking ill of the Prophet to say Saudi Arabia. Now, it may be the case that insulting the Prophet is illegal in some countries, but here in the United States it is free as in speech. No, extradition cases must be handled very carefully and the judgment of a foreign court, particularly on the basis of laws or circumstances which would not pass muster here in the United States, against an American citizen is to be viewed with a great deal of suspicion and high burdens of proof to secure extradition or even to establish jurisdiction.
Turning off the firewall is not as uncommon as you might think, especially at smaller companies where the inexperienced network administrator (the company didn't want to shell out for a decent admin) is under pressure from above to just "make it work" or "turn off the firewall so that our sales drone can demo the product to a client". The managers attempt to override objections from the engineers with promises that, "it is only for 15 minutes" or other false assurances, as if the engineers are only issuing warnings because they like to put the manager in a pickle in front of the client. The proper response from the engineer in these cases is to get the request in writing from the low level manager that is asking for it...you would be surprised how quickly they back off when they are forced to authorize a request in writing to "turn off the firewall".
Limited liability is a double edged sword to be sure, but IMHO society is better of with the concept than without it. Consider bankruptcy for example, that is a form of "limited liability" as it applies to the individual. It ensures that your creditors cannot pursue you until to your dying day for your last penny due to circumstances beyond your control. There are abuses sometimes yes, and do not think that this investor is home free, if a lawyer can prove negligence in the breaches AND that the investor knew about the problems and did nothing then the investor can be held accountable for negligence, limited liability or not. The concept of limited liability exists to protect people from personal ruin from forces beyond their control, but it is not carte blanch to commit fraud, breach contract, or engage in negligent behavior.
Sadly there doesn't seem to be enough of a reward to motivate anyone to do so yet.
NYCountryLawyer and his firm are gaining lots of good publicity and notoriety for mounting successful defenses of ordinary people against a widely reviled group of corporate big money plaintiffs and their trade organization. You cannot buy this type of good will and press publicity at any price. This David and Goliath (think Erin Brockovich) kind of thing is what lawyers, particularly smaller independent firms, live for because it increases their chances of landing newer and bigger clients who will ultimately bring the firm even more money. They can also, if they are savvy, parley that goodwill into a political career or a term in elected office.
Agreed...getting out of a hot shower and then taking a fresh sharp razor to 3 day old stubble covered in soft foam is one of the simple pleasures in life.
This is like the time I traced a network meltdown to a 4 port hub (not a switch, and unmanaged hub) that was plugged into (not a joke) a T-3 concentrator on one port, and and three subnets of around 200 computers each on the other 3 ports. Every single one of the outbound cables from the $15.00 hub terminated in a piece of networking infrastructure costing not less than $10,000 dollars.
Did you find the "network administrator" who was responsible for that hardware choice? If he didn't have an autographed get of jail free card from a manager saying that there was no money in the budget (after buying those $10,000 devices) to replace that $15 hub with (at least temporarily) a $50 switch from your nearest big box electronics outlet, until you can order something more appropriate then the "network administrator" should have been fired for incompetence and if the manager signed the piece of paper then they should fire him instead. They should really stop selling hubs, they are just about worthless now that switches are so darn cheap.
It's the kind of thing completely outside most people's experience, and not easy to explain with a few words.
There is a good scene in the admittedly obscure anime The Wings of Honneamise where the main character describes spaceflight comparing the space craft in the film to a rock which one throws (something that most of us have tried at one time or another). The explanation goes something along the lines of if you throw a rock then it lands some distance away and if you throw another rock, but harder, then it lands farther away than the first, and if you could throw a rock hard enough then it would eventually reach a speed that would not let it come down, falling always towards and around the horizon. He then likens the space capsule to an engineered rock, built to be thrown and then fall down, only this one falls to the ground when the pilot wants it to.
because K-12 science education in the US is a disaster.
That is part of the problem, but it is not the root of it. The real problem is that science and engineering are no longer as valued in society as they were during the space race and among the generation who grew up watching those early successes and failures as the cold war and the space race between the United States and the Soviet Union unfolded upon their television screens and in their imaginations. If you ask the more ambitious youngsters today what they want to be when they grow up then you will hear lawyer, CEO, real estate investor, professional athlete, and the next American Idol long before you will hear scientist or engineer. Combine this with the generally poor treatment that many scientists and engineers have received in the US job market lately, threatened with outsourcing and offshoring, burdened with long and difficult studies for, in many cases, very modest pay given the amount of work required to complete a degree in engineering, and finally low pay and seniority based pay, regardless of skill or merit, for teachers thereby ensuring that what scientists and engineers we do produce will almost never work in our primary and secondary schools. It is not just the United States either, the world today is in more danger of sliding back into the dark ages than at any other time in recent history. The war on terror, the dumbing down of our schools, the glorification of the pop idol, the rise of young earth creationism at the expense of scientific truth, the denial of global warming, and the general deference given to anyone who for whatever reason has something against scientific truth. Is it any wonder that we are falling behind?
They just installed a booster (which I could have done), overcharged us for it and the call, and threw their hands up.
Which begs the question, for both you and the parent...why do you continue to pay them for such low quality service? I realize that they might be the only game in town, but they have little or no incentive to improve service if they know that you will give into their high rates and abuse simply because there is nobody else. They are basically saying, "we will continue to rip you off for as long as we feel like providing poor service in your area and you will like it that way".
Perhaps, by way of comparison, you could provide an example of a development platform that *is* excellent in your opinion. Microsoft 's development tools are not perfect sure, but are there alternatives that are substantially better? It seems to me that just about every environment is going to be missing this piece that that one over there has or it has the same feature but it is more advanced on platform X than platform Y. This just proves that no one single group of developers has all of the best ideas and features occur to them all at once.
Perhaps you misunderstood me, I was not implying that one should *never* work hard, but there is something to be said for working *smarter* and not necessarily harder. I can honestly say that some of the hardest working people that I have known were from Asian countries (Korea, China, Japan, etc), but it was also frequently the case that their leadership skills in particular were very severely lacking. They do not have the same cultural imperitives that we have here in America, the rough and tumble culture where the entrepreneurs and risk takers are rewarded and encouraged for being bold and disruptive. In fact, their culture is almost completely opposite from ours in that people are taught to always obey authority without question, play be the rules, work hard, don't step out of line, etc. Just try speaking bluntly or saying "no" to people the next time you are traveling in Asia, they recoil because of the concept of "saving face", but here in America we care about results and if that means breaking a few eggs to make an omellete then we will do it because that is what it takes to win. Now there are some businessmen in China, particularly those educated in Europe or here in America, who are more Americanzied in their business style and they are generally the ones running the companies over there, but a great leader, tested under fire, is more likely to come out of the cutthroat American style of business competition, without apologies or "face saving" compromises, than the Asian one of conservatism and conformity.
Now, if you bury your nose in your work all of the time and you fail to see the forest for the trees then you miss key strategic opporutnities because you are stuck in the details. The Chinese are masters of working harder yes, just look at their factories, but what is missing from those factories? Automation. The Chinese will beat us at the ten people working hard to replace one machine game yes, but more advanced economies, such as those which exist in the United States, Europe, and Japan, have a large head start in robotics, software architecture and design, and automation of manufacturing and production. The United States should compete against China and the rest, but not by trying to beat them on their terms, they have 2 billion people so we cannot win with the throw more people working harder at the problem strategy. Instead we must play to our strengths while we are still ahead in key areas. The Chinese understand well their weakness in this regard and they are racing to catch us, but if we remain sharp then we can stay ahead of their game and beat them to the punch.
The attitude of the entitled worker that you speak of is a product of Socialism and the European system and while there are people on the left that want to import that failed system into the United States, they will fail because Americans are used to the idea of competition and we thrive on that competition (i.e the whole Americans love a winner and cannot stand a loser speach from Patton). The Europeans have not and will never beat us in economic competition and long term GDP growth, because they are not willing to take the gloves off and introduce more risk taking into their societies. The workers who are enamoured of that system are very quickly weeded out of the American system because they can be fired at any time here wheraes in France, for example, it is practicaly impossible to fire a worker no matter how poorly he performs. So do you see my point now? Working hard is worth very little if the work is not contributing to a larger strategy of sucess. Save your overtime hours and efforts for the battles that really count, otherwise you will find yourself spent and unable to pursue unexpected opportunities effectively when they present themselves.
They probably have a poison pill in place somewhere in the corporate bylaws to prevent hostile take overs of this very sort (most companies do these days) so Darl will probably keep his job until the authorities come down to chain the doors shut and secure the remaining assets for liquidation by the creditors.
there was a lengthy period where it was clear to us geeks that SCOX had no case (when they were finally forced to produce some evidence, and came up with nothing better than a few lines from standard header files) but wouldn't have been to the majority of investors. This was also around the time their stock was riding high.
Perhaps I am missing something, but why not pitch an investor with money to lend to loan you the money for the venture, based upon your expert knowledge and appraisal of the situation, then agree to split the profits with him when the short finally closes? The only reason that I can think of is that all of the available shares (that could be loaned out for shorts) were already loaned out months before that when the lawsuit became public knowledge (even then it was a fairly safe bet that SCO would crater and after IBM got into the mix with their lawyers it became almost a forgone conclusion...whether SCO was right or not since they would never survive the retaliatory patent lawsuits even if they won against Novell).
Slashdot Mirror
So, do you work at or are paid for by Verizon?
Nope, I just have a side interest in economics. I really don't care who buys the rights to the spectrum so long as the government, and by extension the people, gets the best possible price and the best way to ensure that is with an auction.
The flip side is that if this kind of deal is widely implemented, then the quality of people in the field will suffer. For every talented graduate whose fees are waved, there will be several untalented individuals who choose the field just because the fees are waved, too.
There is no rule that says that a particular university has to admit you to their engineering school just because you have the tuition in hand. I remember that the competition in CS was very intense and by the time I completed my final year and earned my degree, less than half of the people that I started with remained. In fact, to be admitted to the major as a freshman the requirement was 3.75 or better high school GPA and at least 1375 on the SAT or equivalent ACT score. If you wanted to transfer from another major or undeclared then you had to complete the entire lower division course series (enough for a minor) with a perfect 4.0 GPA to be guaranteed a transfer into the major, otherwise there were a very limited number of seats that were awarded on a merit basis (never more the 4 or so extra seats per quarter) so transfers were rare (i.e. most people who could meet the transfer requirements knew that they wanted to do CS before they got in and thus were already in the CS major as freshmen). Engineering majors are very expensive to offer compared to other majors on campus (some universities have talked about increasing tuition for more expensive majors such as engineering above the normal tuition charged for students who major in the humanities or comparative literature for example) so they generally try to limit the available seats to the most motivated and meritorious students so that a seat in the upper division courses is not "wasted" when somebody washes out (most of the upper division students, the ones who make it out of lower division, tend to complete the undergraduate course of study and earn a degree or at least they did at my school).
The universities, and the engineering schools in particular, will absolutely not lower their standards and it is very unlikely that a mediocre student would successfully pass all of the difficult lower division weeder courses. Those engineering profs can be harsh...they really don't care if you don't make it, especially if you seem unmotivated, don't show up for lecture, or ask stupid questions that indicate lack of understanding.
If the goal is to stay competitive in science, they should be increasing the number of merit based scholarships instead.
I agree with you here. The United States, if they choose to invest the publics' money in this way, should model their system after the testing system used by India for their IIT schools. This will ensure that only the most promising and motivated candidates are funded by the program while weeding out the less promising candidates.
No, I argue that the spectrum should not be sold in the first place. It is a public resource, like air, water or light.
You are confusing the EM spectrum with a Public Good. It is *not* the case, for example, that your unfettered use of the EM spectrum does not interfere with my unfettered ability to use that same EM spectrum. Thus the EM spectrum, particularly within a specific geographic region, is more correctly understood to be a Private Good. I didn't elect anyone to sell it.
You agreed to be bound by the laws of United States by living in the United States. If you don't agree then don't live here or don't enter the country...our country our rules. The government has the right to regulate interstate commerce as granted by the Constitution and the regulation of the EM spectrum falls under that jurisdiction.
Because the government claims to act in the best interests of the public doesn't make it so.
Perhaps not, but they have a duty to the American people, which they cannot lawfully and knowingly breach, to do precisely that.
Except that a lot of that money doesn't go back to the public but to line the pockets of politicians, corporate friends, all of who are eager to have it. You think that government agents don't personally benefit when they make money from these auctions?
That is irrelevant to the point of the discussion. The government has a fiduciary duty to the people, just as any company would have to its shareholders, to maximize profits from the property, in this case the EM spectrum, and the best way to do that is for the government to *rent* the rights at auction. What the government does with that money is an entirely separate discussion.
If the government did not auction air, public roadways and every other kind of public property it would have to raise taxes to make up the deficit... Except that that's not true at all
Air cannot be auctioned because it is a public good (see above) although the right to pollute may be, it depends upon how one defines pollution. The roadways should be privatized as well, but that is a different discussion. The government does not cost zero dollars to run so it has to be funded somehow and there are only so many ways to do that so take your pick. I would prefer that the EM spectrum auction, mineral rights on public lands, etc be sold to the highest bidder rather than paying additional taxes, but that is why we have elections, to decide such things or rather to elect those people who will decide on our behalf.
Granting a monopoly/oligopoly is the antithesis of competition.
We are not "granting" exclusivity, we are *selling* it on the open market...there is a difference.
Open spectrum advocates don't argue for increased government control, but rather less.
And it will never work. The spectrum cannot be open because it cannot support infinite bandwidth and what is to stop me from interfering with you if the spectrum is wide open? It would be anarchy without regulation. The protection of property rights, by law preferably and force if necessary, is properly understood to be the role of the government.
You will have your phones (and more importantly new innovative services), cheaper, faster, with more features when the spectrum is opened to everyone.
Not if I cannot make a profit because everyone is interfering with everyone else in a free-for-all cage match for the spectrum.
With open access comes innovation and competition.
That is the point of the auction. The bidding is open to anybody who wants to bid. We live in a capitalist society. Priorities are decided by the marketplace and whoever is willing and able to pay the most will receive the good or service. The theory being that those able to pay the most are those most able to properly develop the property and manage the risk of taking on such a large liability (i.e. paying the winning bid).
The public doesn't own the airwaves. It's owned by corporate america because they are the only ones that can afford the ridiculous auction prices.
It is *rented* by corporate America with certain rights and privileges, including exclusivity of their right to transmit on the selected frequencies, it is not *owned* by corporate America. I don't care that I cannot personally afford the cost of exclusive access to a desirable band of public frequencies. I for one would rather have the money than be able to play amateur radio hobbyist with parts of the EM spectrum that are worth billions on the open market. The voters collectively decided that we would be happier selling the rights to use the property rather than reserving the property for our direct and personal use. You may have a different set of personal priorities (i.e. you are an avid amateur radio enthusiast) but the rest of us do not have those same priorities...we would rather have money and spend on other things.
You may find it shocking but maybe our government spends money excessively just to buy votes. Some political experts do suggest this as happening.
It certainly does happen and there is nothing that a free society can do about it, because every citizen or group of citizens has the right to petition their government without restriction. In the absence of a clear quid pro quo (aka bribe offered in exchange for distinct actions) there is nothing that can be done to stop this. If you want free speech then you have to be willing to live with the side effects.
What would happen to the average citizen if they broadcast something on unused piece of spectrum owned by the private sector? If you guessed thrown to jail, you would be right.
If you trespass on the property of another then you can expect the same result. Private property is just that...private and if the right to use a public property has been exclusively granted by lawful contract then it is the same result if you trespass on the right of the contract holder to use and enjoy the property as per the terms of the contract.
And if the government is so good with our money then lets give them 'all' of our money. That would surely solve all of our problems.
Markets work and governments don't...that is the whole reason why we are selling the right to use the property at auction rather than having the government run the wireless industry. The government exists to prevent violence and coercion and enforce the rule of law. They need resources or the money to purchase them in order to do this and I would prefer that they get that money from auctions of spectrum rather than by raising taxes.
Creating a monopoly for just 'ONE COMPANY' to horde spectrum does not equal the free market.
It sure can, provided that the auction nets enough value for the asset being sold (spectrum in this case). The value of any monopoly is never infinite so provided that the public receives a high enough price in the auction, exclusivity (i.e. monopoly) can be part of the deal. To see why check out the article on Present Value.
The gov makes makes a buck and that doesn't always filter down to average Joe citizen
It doesn't have to provided that the government uses this money to perform its duties rather than taxing our incomes. A tax break is functionally equivalent to a direct payment from the government in the form of goods and services and it is more efficient too because the money didn't "leak" on its way through the system.
Belongs to the public. The public needs to fight to regain the airwaves.
The public never lost its property rights to those airwaves, we simply elected to rent them out to the highest bidder so that the proceeds of that auction could be used to fund the purchase other goods and services that we the public wish to conusme rather than attempting to operate them directly ourselves with all of the risks and costs that that entails. The government, acting on behalf of and in the interest of the people, is our agent in that sale. Now, you might argue that the government is squandering the proceeds or not getting the best possible price, but really we never lost control of the airwaves.
Spectrum shouldn't be held hostage for filling government coffers.
The government coffers are really *our* coffers in that the government uses this money to provide us with public goods that we like to consume. If the government did not receive this money from the auctions then it would have to raise the cash necessary to provide these public goods in other less desirable ways, such as raising taxes.
We could have very cheap phones for everyone. Not with ATT guy running the FCC.
Selling the right to use the spectrum at auction and then allowing the market with competition to decide the outcome yields the best and most fair result for everyone. You will have your cheap phone for everyone much faster, and at a much better price, from the market than you would from government control and central planning. Remember here that wireless spectrum is not entangled in "natural monopoly" scenarios with last mile physical infrastructure problems so the market is much more able to reach the optimal result more quickly than might be the case in fiber optic or cables and other utilities.
Microsoft would be very difficult to outbid if they *really* wanted the spectrum bad enough. It would probably take a coalition of telcos to amass enough capital to outbid them, they have $40+ billion in high liquidity short term securities (basically the same as cash) and cash. What is the market capitalization of the individual telcos like Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, etc?
People in favour of these auctions seem to forget that companies are not in it for charity, and investors like to see a reasonable return on the money they put in. The cash for these licenses have to come from someone, and that someone is you, the dumbass consumer.
On the contrary, we are keenly aware of this fact. It does not matter that some companies overpaid, their licenses will be liquidated along with the rest of their assets in bankruptcy and resold to the highest bidders. This process will continue until an equilibrium is reached where pricing that consumers are willing to accept aligns closely with the prices paid in the auctions. The market works and works well to solve these problems. If you really *want* UMTS bad enough then indicate your desire by being one of the first early adopters, presumably you want it badly enough to pay those high early adopter prices. If it is not that important to you then you should be happy to accept the money, in the form of more government service or less taxes, in exchange for having to wait while the companies cut each others throats in these auctions.
Their own DDO Stormreach bombed.
It bombed cuz' dey tried t'combine too many new elements into some game which wuz, right out uh de gate, goin' into haid t'haid competishun in some crowded market. Man! Dey should gots used an older, mo'e fleshed out, and betta' settin' den deir new "Eberon" campaign settin' (which dey hardly produce any scribblin's fo' now anyway). De marketin' drones gots deir hands on dis one and dought dat it would be great if dese two new products could roll each oder's sales...unfo'tunately dey fo'gots o' chose t'igno'e da damn strengds uh long standin' 'esistin' D&D settin's, likes Fo'gotsten Realms, and da damn fact dat Wo'ld uh Warcraft wuz firmly entrenched in de numba' one spot wid some several year haid start. Man! De game actually wuzn't dat baaaad, but instead uh bein' smart and usin' Fo'gotsten Realms (de settin' fo' de Baldurs Gate series) dey went and tried t'boost sales uh one uh deir sheet products, Eberon, which had crappy sales eva' since it wuz released. It wuz some huge longshot bet dat some combinashun uh underdogs could mosey on down out and unseat WoW and nobody, ah' dink, wuz suprised when dey failed. It could gots been better, but dey screwed it all down. De D&D dojigger gots a long and venerable dojigger in clunker gamin' fum de early gold box days, drough Baldurs Gate, and Neverwinta' Nights, but somehow de sucka's at WotC managed t'snatch defeat fum de jaws uh victo'y wid DDO Sto'mreach. Lop some boogie.
And even then it wouldn't be perfect, because it's plausible they could start limiting traffic on listening ports that get a lot of traffic.
The solution might be to modify the protocol to allow for randomized shuffling of request and response ports as the the session progresses, while maintaining encryption of course, so that the incoming and outgoing ports are randomized for each block of transmissions and the protocol allows users to let their peers (in the torrent swarm) know what ports are going to be used for the next block and so on. This would be similar to the frequency hopping employed on encrypted radios for example.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but with Bittorrent the trackers are only there to connect you into the swarm of peers who are transfering parts of the file. Once one is in the swarm the trackers only serve to periodically update the list of hosts currently in the swarm and how long could that possibly take compared to the amount of data being transferred? I suppose that they could still throttle the tracking protocol with the trackers but actual load is coming from data transfers between peers in the swarm, right?
How about something like a gas absorption refrigerator?
From the article, "The absorption refrigerator is a refrigerator that utilizes a heat source to provide the energy needed to drive the cooling system rather than being dependent on electricity to run a compressor."
Sounds like just the thing for that excess wasted heat...
So is this the point where we starting hearing that blocking ads is just like running out of the store with a pair of blue jeans? I mean really
It reminds me of the MAFIAA propaganda that they sometimes show during the previews at the theaters or on retail DVDs where a series of "hand camera" shaky vignettes showing a "shady" street dealer selling "counterfeit" DVDs, a carjacker, a purse snatcher, etc are all compared to some suburban kid at his home computer engaging in "illegal downloading". I laughed hysterically the first time I saw this little film and although it was probably not their intent to be funny one cannot help but laugh at the absurdity of their analogies.
People use corporations as a shield against prosecution all the time. It sickens me to see what they get away with, and that's just what we hear about.
The point that I was trying to make is that they do not, in fact, always "get away with it", particularly if there has been malfeasance. They can try and use the corporation a shield against tort actions arising out of the demise of their corporation, but depending upon the circumstances the corporation may not provide absolute immunity under law.
As for the Warren Anderson case it would appear that the courts here in the United States made the correct decision regarding the case. The central issue is this, was Warren Anderson directly and knowingly responsible for what occurred in Bhopal? Was he negligent or did he just happen to be the CEO of a foreign company, with operations in India, at the time that was poorly run by local subordinates? It would set a very bad precedent for the United States to agree to extradition in cases where there is not clear and direct personal responsibility and involvement.
Suppose that the United States agreed to extradite an American citizen for the crime of speaking ill of the Prophet to say Saudi Arabia. Now, it may be the case that insulting the Prophet is illegal in some countries, but here in the United States it is free as in speech. No, extradition cases must be handled very carefully and the judgment of a foreign court, particularly on the basis of laws or circumstances which would not pass muster here in the United States, against an American citizen is to be viewed with a great deal of suspicion and high burdens of proof to secure extradition or even to establish jurisdiction.
Turning off the firewall is not as uncommon as you might think, especially at smaller companies where the inexperienced network administrator (the company didn't want to shell out for a decent admin) is under pressure from above to just "make it work" or "turn off the firewall so that our sales drone can demo the product to a client". The managers attempt to override objections from the engineers with promises that, "it is only for 15 minutes" or other false assurances, as if the engineers are only issuing warnings because they like to put the manager in a pickle in front of the client. The proper response from the engineer in these cases is to get the request in writing from the low level manager that is asking for it...you would be surprised how quickly they back off when they are forced to authorize a request in writing to "turn off the firewall".
Please mod the parent up, he is exactly right.
Limited liability is a double edged sword to be sure, but IMHO society is better of with the concept than without it. Consider bankruptcy for example, that is a form of "limited liability" as it applies to the individual. It ensures that your creditors cannot pursue you until to your dying day for your last penny due to circumstances beyond your control. There are abuses sometimes yes, and do not think that this investor is home free, if a lawyer can prove negligence in the breaches AND that the investor knew about the problems and did nothing then the investor can be held accountable for negligence, limited liability or not. The concept of limited liability exists to protect people from personal ruin from forces beyond their control, but it is not carte blanch to commit fraud, breach contract, or engage in negligent behavior.
Sadly there doesn't seem to be enough of a reward to motivate anyone to do so yet.
NYCountryLawyer and his firm are gaining lots of good publicity and notoriety for mounting successful defenses of ordinary people against a widely reviled group of corporate big money plaintiffs and their trade organization. You cannot buy this type of good will and press publicity at any price. This David and Goliath (think Erin Brockovich) kind of thing is what lawyers, particularly smaller independent firms, live for because it increases their chances of landing newer and bigger clients who will ultimately bring the firm even more money. They can also, if they are savvy, parley that goodwill into a political career or a term in elected office.
Agreed...getting out of a hot shower and then taking a fresh sharp razor to 3 day old stubble covered in soft foam is one of the simple pleasures in life.
This is like the time I traced a network meltdown to a 4 port hub (not a switch, and unmanaged hub) that was plugged into (not a joke) a T-3 concentrator on one port, and and three subnets of around 200 computers each on the other 3 ports. Every single one of the outbound cables from the $15.00 hub terminated in a piece of networking infrastructure costing not less than $10,000 dollars.
Did you find the "network administrator" who was responsible for that hardware choice? If he didn't have an autographed get of jail free card from a manager saying that there was no money in the budget (after buying those $10,000 devices) to replace that $15 hub with (at least temporarily) a $50 switch from your nearest big box electronics outlet, until you can order something more appropriate then the "network administrator" should have been fired for incompetence and if the manager signed the piece of paper then they should fire him instead. They should really stop selling hubs, they are just about worthless now that switches are so darn cheap.
It's the kind of thing completely outside most people's experience, and not easy to explain with a few words.
There is a good scene in the admittedly obscure anime The Wings of Honneamise where the main character describes spaceflight comparing the space craft in the film to a rock which one throws (something that most of us have tried at one time or another). The explanation goes something along the lines of if you throw a rock then it lands some distance away and if you throw another rock, but harder, then it lands farther away than the first, and if you could throw a rock hard enough then it would eventually reach a speed that would not let it come down, falling always towards and around the horizon. He then likens the space capsule to an engineered rock, built to be thrown and then fall down, only this one falls to the ground when the pilot wants it to.
because K-12 science education in the US is a disaster.
That is part of the problem, but it is not the root of it. The real problem is that science and engineering are no longer as valued in society as they were during the space race and among the generation who grew up watching those early successes and failures as the cold war and the space race between the United States and the Soviet Union unfolded upon their television screens and in their imaginations. If you ask the more ambitious youngsters today what they want to be when they grow up then you will hear lawyer, CEO, real estate investor, professional athlete, and the next American Idol long before you will hear scientist or engineer. Combine this with the generally poor treatment that many scientists and engineers have received in the US job market lately, threatened with outsourcing and offshoring, burdened with long and difficult studies for, in many cases, very modest pay given the amount of work required to complete a degree in engineering, and finally low pay and seniority based pay, regardless of skill or merit, for teachers thereby ensuring that what scientists and engineers we do produce will almost never work in our primary and secondary schools. It is not just the United States either, the world today is in more danger of sliding back into the dark ages than at any other time in recent history. The war on terror, the dumbing down of our schools, the glorification of the pop idol, the rise of young earth creationism at the expense of scientific truth, the denial of global warming, and the general deference given to anyone who for whatever reason has something against scientific truth. Is it any wonder that we are falling behind?
They just installed a booster (which I could have done), overcharged us for it and the call, and threw their hands up.
Which begs the question, for both you and the parent...why do you continue to pay them for such low quality service? I realize that they might be the only game in town, but they have little or no incentive to improve service if they know that you will give into their high rates and abuse simply because there is nobody else. They are basically saying, "we will continue to rip you off for as long as we feel like providing poor service in your area and you will like it that way".
Perhaps, by way of comparison, you could provide an example of a development platform that *is* excellent in your opinion. Microsoft 's development tools are not perfect sure, but are there alternatives that are substantially better? It seems to me that just about every environment is going to be missing this piece that that one over there has or it has the same feature but it is more advanced on platform X than platform Y. This just proves that no one single group of developers has all of the best ideas and features occur to them all at once.
Perhaps you misunderstood me, I was not implying that one should *never* work hard, but there is something to be said for working *smarter* and not necessarily harder. I can honestly say that some of the hardest working people that I have known were from Asian countries (Korea, China, Japan, etc), but it was also frequently the case that their leadership skills in particular were very severely lacking. They do not have the same cultural imperitives that we have here in America, the rough and tumble culture where the entrepreneurs and risk takers are rewarded and encouraged for being bold and disruptive. In fact, their culture is almost completely opposite from ours in that people are taught to always obey authority without question, play be the rules, work hard, don't step out of line, etc. Just try speaking bluntly or saying "no" to people the next time you are traveling in Asia, they recoil because of the concept of "saving face", but here in America we care about results and if that means breaking a few eggs to make an omellete then we will do it because that is what it takes to win. Now there are some businessmen in China, particularly those educated in Europe or here in America, who are more Americanzied in their business style and they are generally the ones running the companies over there, but a great leader, tested under fire, is more likely to come out of the cutthroat American style of business competition, without apologies or "face saving" compromises, than the Asian one of conservatism and conformity.
Now, if you bury your nose in your work all of the time and you fail to see the forest for the trees then you miss key strategic opporutnities because you are stuck in the details. The Chinese are masters of working harder yes, just look at their factories, but what is missing from those factories? Automation. The Chinese will beat us at the ten people working hard to replace one machine game yes, but more advanced economies, such as those which exist in the United States, Europe, and Japan, have a large head start in robotics, software architecture and design, and automation of manufacturing and production. The United States should compete against China and the rest, but not by trying to beat them on their terms, they have 2 billion people so we cannot win with the throw more people working harder at the problem strategy. Instead we must play to our strengths while we are still ahead in key areas. The Chinese understand well their weakness in this regard and they are racing to catch us, but if we remain sharp then we can stay ahead of their game and beat them to the punch.
The attitude of the entitled worker that you speak of is a product of Socialism and the European system and while there are people on the left that want to import that failed system into the United States, they will fail because Americans are used to the idea of competition and we thrive on that competition (i.e the whole Americans love a winner and cannot stand a loser speach from Patton). The Europeans have not and will never beat us in economic competition and long term GDP growth, because they are not willing to take the gloves off and introduce more risk taking into their societies. The workers who are enamoured of that system are very quickly weeded out of the American system because they can be fired at any time here wheraes in France, for example, it is practicaly impossible to fire a worker no matter how poorly he performs. So do you see my point now? Working hard is worth very little if the work is not contributing to a larger strategy of sucess. Save your overtime hours and efforts for the battles that really count, otherwise you will find yourself spent and unable to pursue unexpected opportunities effectively when they present themselves.
They probably have a poison pill in place somewhere in the corporate bylaws to prevent hostile take overs of this very sort (most companies do these days) so Darl will probably keep his job until the authorities come down to chain the doors shut and secure the remaining assets for liquidation by the creditors.
there was a lengthy period where it was clear to us geeks that SCOX had no case (when they were finally forced to produce some evidence, and came up with nothing better than a few lines from standard header files) but wouldn't have been to the majority of investors. This was also around the time their stock was riding high.
Perhaps I am missing something, but why not pitch an investor with money to lend to loan you the money for the venture, based upon your expert knowledge and appraisal of the situation, then agree to split the profits with him when the short finally closes? The only reason that I can think of is that all of the available shares (that could be loaned out for shorts) were already loaned out months before that when the lawsuit became public knowledge (even then it was a fairly safe bet that SCO would crater and after IBM got into the mix with their lawyers it became almost a forgone conclusion...whether SCO was right or not since they would never survive the retaliatory patent lawsuits even if they won against Novell).