Did they defeat an anti-piracy function, or did they simply not independently implement it?
Also - what is being pirated? I read elsewhere on the site that Blizzard lets the client be downloaded for free - so doing so is not piracy if you get it from them.
Yup - if this school REALLY has that many noticeable side-effects from WiFi use than picking this up in a small-scale clinical trial would be trivial. Just put subjects in a faraday cage for 8 hours per day for a week or two and either subject them to transmissions or not. Or, to save money they could have them wear a transmitter that either does or does not work for a few months (but this obviously will have a higher noise level from ambient RF - well, giving the protesters the benefit of the doubt that there is any effect at all).
I'm pretty sure this has already been studied. If WiFi caused that kind of level of problem it would have been picked up ages ago. Maybe RF has some impact on the human body, but there would probably be three kids in all of Canada with detectable problems, and I'm sure more kids injure themselves cleaning blackboards...
Hmm, I've since learned that WoW doesn't charge for its client, only for the service. I haven't seen any postings indicating that the offender actually distributed any content - just the protocol data.
If that is all the case, then this would be like a movie theater that offers free movies, but you have to pay $20 to park there. Then, this guy opens a lot down the street with $2 parking and people walk to the theater...
Yup - the important lesson is to not rob from your employer. That is, unless you are at the top and your employer is the shareholders. Then it is just fine...
Minimum wage will create incentive to avoid hiring low-pay labor. This will take one of a few forms.
One option is automation. A fancy $1M machine doesn't make much sense if you can pay somebody 10 cents an hour to do the same work (depends on a lot of factors though). On the other hand, with minimum wage that machine starts looking a lot more attractive.
The other common approach is evading the law's jurisdiction. Why pay US workers $7/hr when you can pay somebody in some 3rd-world nation $7/month.
There is really no way to avoid the first problem. The second problem can be avoided by the use of tariffs, but only if the government actually implements them.
My feeling is that there should be less focus on minimum wage, and more focus on other externalities (safety conditions, environmental protections, etc). If some people can't produce labor that is valuable enough to sustain themselves, then that is a place for socialism to step in. Without minimum wage you end up paying partial subsidies to a lot of people to make up for their low wages. With minimum wage you end up having some people who don't get subsidies (well, I'd debate that since our minimum wages are very low), and others who get 100% subsidies since they can't get jobs. I'm not sure that either saves you much money, so you might as well get some labor out of welfare recipients.
I dunno, but when I ditched firefox years ago Konqueror was the first browser I went to. The reason? Page rendering times.
For whatever reason when opening multiple tabs firefox would occasionally go into la-la land and tab after tab would just end up frozen in a loading state (tabs that had rendered worked, new fetches were frozen). It was as if some thread held a lock keeping anything from doing anything. Then all the sudden they'd all load in rapid order (maybe 1-2 mins later). Yes, I checked the various about:config settings on number of parallel fetches and all that...
Not sure if they've gotten their act together. I think I read somewhere that Firefox had re-optimized much of their engine, except that they hadn't done it for 64-bit linux so it was still in the stone ages. Webkit worked just fine, however.
Also, knoqueror was a lot less fussy about locked profiles, which meant I could actually use it in two different X11 DISPLAYs at the same time. For some reason almost nobody else supports this.
Now I'm on chromium/xfce, because KDE decided to stop supporting any system that wasn't bought in the last 2 years, and knoqueror doesn't work so well if the rest of KDE isn't installed. I just wish they'd fix their multiple-DISPLAY problems.
Except that your computer software doesn't need World of Warcraft to run. A pretty big difference.
The summary is light on details. Citation please?
Are they actually distributing the WoW software (client-side)? Or, are they just letting people who bought the client in the store connect to somebody else's servers without paying $x per month to Blizard or whatever?
If they don't distribute anything, then they aren't violating copyright, period. If people are using pirated clients to connect to the service, then perhaps whoever distributed those clients violated copyright.
Surely it's more like they watched a Hollywood movie, then charged people to watch them reenact it in their back yard with their mates?
Surely it's more like they charged a bunch of people $1 each to arrange a movie night, and everybody bought their own tickets from a licensed distributor and showed up to the theater at the same time?
I see what you're getting at, but there have to be better solutions.
The current model discourages SSL adoption, because it adds a significant cost ($70/CN/yr or so). For an e-commerce site it isn't a big deal, but for myblog.com, it is.
I think the real problem is trust management. I don't trust Verisign, so how do I talk to my bank? The fact that everybody else trusts Verisign means that nobody treats this like an unsolved problem...
Most browsers do not complain "subtly" when you use a self-signed certificate. They complain rather loudly.
I was just saying that the browser should simply not display the padlock at all. They shouldn't treat the connection as less secure than non-SSL, because it isn't less secure than SSL.
Obviously I agree that corrupt CAs is a big problem. I'd consider revoking them all except that there don't appear to be any extensions for chrome that allow for an alternative trust model/etc. Also, the people in my family most likely to leak sensitive info aren't going to be able to handle something like that anyway.
- "self-signed" certificates, which we already have and which aren't worth much more than the bits that carry them unless you have some independent way to trust them.
I'll disagree with this. They're worth at least as much as the bits used to transport non-SSL traffic, which is about 90% of the traffic on the internet.
For some reason we have a model which treats encrypted and non-authenticated traffic as being less secure than unencrypted and non-authenticated traffic. This is completely backwards.
Sure, browsers shouldn't treat these the same as trusted SSL connections, but they shouldn't generate warnings for it that they wouldn't generate for non-SSL traffic. Worried about MITM? Well, if I wanted to MITM your connection I'd just open a non-SSL connection to your browser and an SSL connection to the bank, and your browser wouldn't complain one bit.
Just to confirm, is this part of android itself, and not a proprietary extension?
Unfortunately the AOSP website doesn't even contain a feature list (probably because Google doesn't intend that anybody actually use it like a product that you'd promote). That makes it a bit difficult to track down where this is implemented...
How is it impossible? The US government might have been unwilling to do it, but it clearly was possible (otherwise he couldn't have (imperfectly) redacted the documents himself.
Assange has brought the fog of war into the homes of people who are ill-equipped to deal with it.
Oh brother... Why don't we go ahead and ban voting booths while we're at it - clearly the US population is ill-equipped to properly select its leaders.
"The military," not individuals.
Uh, the military is nothing more than a collection of a few million individuals. You can't have a conversation with "the military" if you want to be that pedantic.
Only people who are incapable of seeing anything beyond their narrow worldview can claim to have cornered the market on absolute truth.
All the more reason to minimize the number of secrets the government keeps. I never claimed I solely had the right to judge the right and wrong of this situation. I fully appreciate the need for operational security, but perhaps if the government were more open about stuff that didn't genuinely need secrecy people would be less likely to leak stuff like this.
Great to see that - now where is the package manager? Oh, and v1.6 is outdated already.
My whole point is that Android is a second-class citizen - it gets code drops months after preferred vendors get it for proprietary derivatives of the OS, and it doesn't have half of the essential features. Projects like the one you linked are going to be second-class citizens.
Contrast that with Ubuntu - where anybody can basically run the same code as Mark Shuttleworth if they want from nightly builds, etc.
Don't get me wrong - it is better than nothing. However, it is far from a capable open source OS. It is an open source OS fragment, which lots of people tack proprietary extensions onto to make it functional.
And can we take it easy on the ad hominems? Nobody said anything nasty about you - perhaps there are some out there who might disagree and that alone doesn't imply that they don't know what they're talking about?
That's like making a fork of Ubuntu, but removing the package manager, and then calling it a great OS.
Android is a lousy OS - it has no package manager at all, full stop. It doesn't even boot on any real-world hardware that I'm aware of - just some emulator.
Now, there are some half-decent Android-based OSes out there which are pretty nice. However, they aren't open source - they're just Android derivatives with proprietary licenses.
See my point? When talking about what is nice about Android we don't talk about Android at all - but rather Android plus a bunch of proprietary extensions. That is, unless we talk about how open it is, and then we talk about Android itself, even though in that regard it isn't very functional.
So, you're basically just making the guy's point. Android does not have any voice command capability. Google makes one available for free to anybody who uses their Market App. It isn't available to anybody running Android.
Well, my G1 is just about dead after work, and it is on the charger right before I walk into the office. This is on CM5 (I hear 6 is better - I'll switch once we have a release version that supports apps2sd (non-Froyo) or a reliable way of DIY for this that is likely to be stable across releases).
I don't use the phone much at all during the day - just leave it idling with bluetooth on, and wifi off. I'd toggle bluetooth, but it doesn't always come back on and it is a PITA.
Um, I'm pretty sure "what was dangerous to the US armed forces" is CLASSIFIED and would come with some hefty jail time if it were disclosed by someone with a security clearance. Please stop using this idiotic argument. It only makes you look completely ignorant of how the military works.
Well, clearly he wasn't asking for any information he didn't already have. He asked for help redacting it. One can't yell at him for not being competent to properly redact a document when they had a part in denying him this competence in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that there are very specific guidelines governing exactly who can classify/declassify information, what information is to be classified at what level, and how it is to be done. This is not a matter of opinion, it is an absolute fact.
It is a fact that US law issues the guidelines you describe. Whether US law should be the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong in this case seems to be very much in debate - particularly when the person doing the publication isn't within its jurisdiction. Sure, the US can ban publishing classified information, just as I can ban wearing the color blue. The only difference is the US government has more guns than I do, so generally speaking it is prudent to listen to what they say. Moral right/wrong is related to civil law, but not with 100% correspondence. I would ask in this case whether this guy has done more good for society, or ill.
Do you really believe that there is a document out there that says "anything showing us with our pants down is to be classified at level X, anything showing us without pants is to be classified at level Y," and so on?
Clearly not. By your logic then, the matter is settled. Clearly nobody in the military would possibly misuse the law without written orders to do so. This is also why lobbying isn't a problem either - clearly there are no written policies granting exceptions to bribery laws, so our elected officials would never accept them. I suppose you'll be claiming that there were no written policies that the CIA and the President should lie about WMD in Iraq either? Guess we need to keep looking...
Depends on how you look at it - space everywhere is filled with background radiation from the big bang, which effectively gives it a temperature. Space is also full of all kinds of particles/etc flying around (solar wind, heat from sun, cosmic rays, etc). When you're trying to keep something at 16K it matters. Biggest issues have to be the sun, the earth, and any equipment on-board (maybe even the moon).
Yup - the vertical integration is what is killing us.
How about this - split the pipes from the traffic entirely.
The telco provides a cable that routes ethernet packets from your house to a central office. Full stop. They can sell by the byte - just like your water bill. They are PUC regulated - costs plus minor profit - just like the water company. If the uplink is dedicated (no shared wires between the home and the CO), then they couldn't meter use at all - only charge to rent/maintain the line (and that is based on technology - no implementing intentional bottlenecks to abuse billing).
Once the packets get to the central office they can go to any number of ISPs, and the telco isn't allowed to own any of them, or invest in any of them. The telco charges by the rack and kWh to have space in that office - full stop. You pick your ISP, who provides traffic to the internet, email, etc. Since ISPs don't own the last mile, I'd expect there to be a fair amount of competition. Oh, and if you want you can be your own ISP if you put a router in that CO and pay for the power and uplink (probably not a practical solution for small customers, but companies could do this).
The last mile is the natural monopoly, so the goal should be to make the last mile boring. Last mile providers should get nice steady incomes, and little company growth. Your water company doesn't need to grow (unless you build more homes) - it needs to keep your water going. Utilities get steady almost-guaranteed rates of return, in exchange for heavy regulation and PUC-set prices.
This really isn't a complicated model - we've been doing it for a century.
This way the "internet" itself can stay nice and unregulated, like the free-marketers want. Once you get past the CO ISPs are no longer a natural monoply, and barriers to entry are much lower. Your town could run a co-op if they wanted. ISPs like AOL could flourish next to ISPs that provide nothing more than IP carriage (no email, no web, no support, no home router, etc). Some ISPs would throttle connections, some would not but charge by the byte. You can buy whatever you want that way.
Uh, can we perhaps find a balance between butter knives and embezzlement? If I falsified an expense report deliberately it would be punished.
If as a CEO he approved a $35M contract and somewhere on page 805 of the contract there was some fine print the lawyers missed that cost the company $20k, I'd say that this was an oversight that should be overlooked. When you expense things that do not have to do with the running of the company, then you are violating policy, and likely the law (tax implications).
See my last paragraph. The Arizona law isn't intended to only lower violent crime near the border - it is intended to lower violent crime in general (both near and away from the border).
When you think about it, crimes committed during the actual border crossing can't be prevented by the Arizona law. It deals with deporting people who have already gotten past the border area.
The part of your post I most objected to was your talk of crime rates near the border region.
Also, somebody has to do the busboy jobs. There are plenty of unemployed people who could be doing them. If we really don't have enough, then the solution is to increase immigration quotas, not to let people sneak over the border.
Even crime along the US/Mexican border has decreased for each of the last 5 years.
I'm a bit skeptical of that. Citation?
Perhaps you mean violentcrime? If somebody sneaks into the country without stabbing anybody, a crime has still been committed.
From all the hollering in Arizona, you'd think that it was completely lawless, when in fact, crime rates are significantly down.
I think their main concern is the impact on the economy and social services, and not just on direct crime. Also, crime associated with illegal immigration is not limited to the border region itself, which is how you phrased your argument. If illegal immigrants commit a crime in Kansas, they're going to want to try to change that even though they are not near a border.
Slashdot Mirror
Did they defeat an anti-piracy function, or did they simply not independently implement it?
Also - what is being pirated? I read elsewhere on the site that Blizzard lets the client be downloaded for free - so doing so is not piracy if you get it from them.
Yup - if this school REALLY has that many noticeable side-effects from WiFi use than picking this up in a small-scale clinical trial would be trivial. Just put subjects in a faraday cage for 8 hours per day for a week or two and either subject them to transmissions or not. Or, to save money they could have them wear a transmitter that either does or does not work for a few months (but this obviously will have a higher noise level from ambient RF - well, giving the protesters the benefit of the doubt that there is any effect at all).
I'm pretty sure this has already been studied. If WiFi caused that kind of level of problem it would have been picked up ages ago. Maybe RF has some impact on the human body, but there would probably be three kids in all of Canada with detectable problems, and I'm sure more kids injure themselves cleaning blackboards...
Hmm, I've since learned that WoW doesn't charge for its client, only for the service. I haven't seen any postings indicating that the offender actually distributed any content - just the protocol data.
If that is all the case, then this would be like a movie theater that offers free movies, but you have to pay $20 to park there. Then, this guy opens a lot down the street with $2 parking and people walk to the theater...
Didn't know that. Well, then what did they do wrong? What did they redistribute that was copyrighted? Certainly the protocol cannot be copyrighted.
Now, if they scraped downloaded content off of the Blizzard servers and then hosted that for their own clients, that would be a violation.
Yup - the important lesson is to not rob from your employer. That is, unless you are at the top and your employer is the shareholders. Then it is just fine...
Minimum wage will create incentive to avoid hiring low-pay labor. This will take one of a few forms.
One option is automation. A fancy $1M machine doesn't make much sense if you can pay somebody 10 cents an hour to do the same work (depends on a lot of factors though). On the other hand, with minimum wage that machine starts looking a lot more attractive.
The other common approach is evading the law's jurisdiction. Why pay US workers $7/hr when you can pay somebody in some 3rd-world nation $7/month.
There is really no way to avoid the first problem. The second problem can be avoided by the use of tariffs, but only if the government actually implements them.
My feeling is that there should be less focus on minimum wage, and more focus on other externalities (safety conditions, environmental protections, etc). If some people can't produce labor that is valuable enough to sustain themselves, then that is a place for socialism to step in. Without minimum wage you end up paying partial subsidies to a lot of people to make up for their low wages. With minimum wage you end up having some people who don't get subsidies (well, I'd debate that since our minimum wages are very low), and others who get 100% subsidies since they can't get jobs. I'm not sure that either saves you much money, so you might as well get some labor out of welfare recipients.
I dunno, but when I ditched firefox years ago Konqueror was the first browser I went to. The reason? Page rendering times.
For whatever reason when opening multiple tabs firefox would occasionally go into la-la land and tab after tab would just end up frozen in a loading state (tabs that had rendered worked, new fetches were frozen). It was as if some thread held a lock keeping anything from doing anything. Then all the sudden they'd all load in rapid order (maybe 1-2 mins later). Yes, I checked the various about:config settings on number of parallel fetches and all that...
Not sure if they've gotten their act together. I think I read somewhere that Firefox had re-optimized much of their engine, except that they hadn't done it for 64-bit linux so it was still in the stone ages. Webkit worked just fine, however.
Also, knoqueror was a lot less fussy about locked profiles, which meant I could actually use it in two different X11 DISPLAYs at the same time. For some reason almost nobody else supports this.
Now I'm on chromium/xfce, because KDE decided to stop supporting any system that wasn't bought in the last 2 years, and knoqueror doesn't work so well if the rest of KDE isn't installed. I just wish they'd fix their multiple-DISPLAY problems.
Except that your computer software doesn't need World of Warcraft to run. A pretty big difference.
The summary is light on details. Citation please?
Are they actually distributing the WoW software (client-side)? Or, are they just letting people who bought the client in the store connect to somebody else's servers without paying $x per month to Blizard or whatever?
If they don't distribute anything, then they aren't violating copyright, period. If people are using pirated clients to connect to the service, then perhaps whoever distributed those clients violated copyright.
Surely it's more like they charged a bunch of people $1 each to arrange a movie night, and everybody bought their own tickets from a licensed distributor and showed up to the theater at the same time?
I see what you're getting at, but there have to be better solutions.
The current model discourages SSL adoption, because it adds a significant cost ($70/CN/yr or so). For an e-commerce site it isn't a big deal, but for myblog.com, it is.
I think the real problem is trust management. I don't trust Verisign, so how do I talk to my bank? The fact that everybody else trusts Verisign means that nobody treats this like an unsolved problem...
Most browsers do not complain "subtly" when you use a self-signed certificate. They complain rather loudly.
I was just saying that the browser should simply not display the padlock at all. They shouldn't treat the connection as less secure than non-SSL, because it isn't less secure than SSL.
Obviously I agree that corrupt CAs is a big problem. I'd consider revoking them all except that there don't appear to be any extensions for chrome that allow for an alternative trust model/etc. Also, the people in my family most likely to leak sensitive info aren't going to be able to handle something like that anyway.
- "self-signed" certificates, which we already have and which aren't worth much more than the bits that carry them unless you have some independent way to trust them.
I'll disagree with this. They're worth at least as much as the bits used to transport non-SSL traffic, which is about 90% of the traffic on the internet.
For some reason we have a model which treats encrypted and non-authenticated traffic as being less secure than unencrypted and non-authenticated traffic. This is completely backwards.
Sure, browsers shouldn't treat these the same as trusted SSL connections, but they shouldn't generate warnings for it that they wouldn't generate for non-SSL traffic. Worried about MITM? Well, if I wanted to MITM your connection I'd just open a non-SSL connection to your browser and an SSL connection to the bank, and your browser wouldn't complain one bit.
Just to confirm, is this part of android itself, and not a proprietary extension?
Unfortunately the AOSP website doesn't even contain a feature list (probably because Google doesn't intend that anybody actually use it like a product that you'd promote). That makes it a bit difficult to track down where this is implemented...
He asked for something that was impossible.
How is it impossible? The US government might have been unwilling to do it, but it clearly was possible (otherwise he couldn't have (imperfectly) redacted the documents himself.
Assange has brought the fog of war into the homes of people who are ill-equipped to deal with it.
Oh brother... Why don't we go ahead and ban voting booths while we're at it - clearly the US population is ill-equipped to properly select its leaders.
"The military," not individuals.
Uh, the military is nothing more than a collection of a few million individuals. You can't have a conversation with "the military" if you want to be that pedantic.
Only people who are incapable of seeing anything beyond their narrow worldview can claim to have cornered the market on absolute truth.
All the more reason to minimize the number of secrets the government keeps. I never claimed I solely had the right to judge the right and wrong of this situation. I fully appreciate the need for operational security, but perhaps if the government were more open about stuff that didn't genuinely need secrecy people would be less likely to leak stuff like this.
Great to see that - now where is the package manager? Oh, and v1.6 is outdated already.
My whole point is that Android is a second-class citizen - it gets code drops months after preferred vendors get it for proprietary derivatives of the OS, and it doesn't have half of the essential features. Projects like the one you linked are going to be second-class citizens.
Contrast that with Ubuntu - where anybody can basically run the same code as Mark Shuttleworth if they want from nightly builds, etc.
Don't get me wrong - it is better than nothing. However, it is far from a capable open source OS. It is an open source OS fragment, which lots of people tack proprietary extensions onto to make it functional.
And can we take it easy on the ad hominems? Nobody said anything nasty about you - perhaps there are some out there who might disagree and that alone doesn't imply that they don't know what they're talking about?
Ok, when you can host those on your website without getting a C&D I'll concede your point.
That's like making a fork of Ubuntu, but removing the package manager, and then calling it a great OS.
Android is a lousy OS - it has no package manager at all, full stop. It doesn't even boot on any real-world hardware that I'm aware of - just some emulator.
Now, there are some half-decent Android-based OSes out there which are pretty nice. However, they aren't open source - they're just Android derivatives with proprietary licenses.
See my point? When talking about what is nice about Android we don't talk about Android at all - but rather Android plus a bunch of proprietary extensions. That is, unless we talk about how open it is, and then we talk about Android itself, even though in that regard it isn't very functional.
So, you're basically just making the guy's point. Android does not have any voice command capability. Google makes one available for free to anybody who uses their Market App. It isn't available to anybody running Android.
Well, my G1 is just about dead after work, and it is on the charger right before I walk into the office. This is on CM5 (I hear 6 is better - I'll switch once we have a release version that supports apps2sd (non-Froyo) or a reliable way of DIY for this that is likely to be stable across releases).
I don't use the phone much at all during the day - just leave it idling with bluetooth on, and wifi off. I'd toggle bluetooth, but it doesn't always come back on and it is a PITA.
Um, I'm pretty sure "what was dangerous to the US armed forces" is CLASSIFIED and would come with some hefty jail time if it were disclosed by someone with a security clearance. Please stop using this idiotic argument. It only makes you look completely ignorant of how the military works.
Well, clearly he wasn't asking for any information he didn't already have. He asked for help redacting it. One can't yell at him for not being competent to properly redact a document when they had a part in denying him this competence in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that there are very specific guidelines governing exactly who can classify/declassify information, what information is to be classified at what level, and how it is to be done. This is not a matter of opinion, it is an absolute fact.
It is a fact that US law issues the guidelines you describe. Whether US law should be the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong in this case seems to be very much in debate - particularly when the person doing the publication isn't within its jurisdiction. Sure, the US can ban publishing classified information, just as I can ban wearing the color blue. The only difference is the US government has more guns than I do, so generally speaking it is prudent to listen to what they say. Moral right/wrong is related to civil law, but not with 100% correspondence. I would ask in this case whether this guy has done more good for society, or ill.
Do you really believe that there is a document out there that says "anything showing us with our pants down is to be classified at level X, anything showing us without pants is to be classified at level Y," and so on?
Clearly not. By your logic then, the matter is settled. Clearly nobody in the military would possibly misuse the law without written orders to do so. This is also why lobbying isn't a problem either - clearly there are no written policies granting exceptions to bribery laws, so our elected officials would never accept them. I suppose you'll be claiming that there were no written policies that the CIA and the President should lie about WMD in Iraq either? Guess we need to keep looking...
Depends on how you look at it - space everywhere is filled with background radiation from the big bang, which effectively gives it a temperature. Space is also full of all kinds of particles/etc flying around (solar wind, heat from sun, cosmic rays, etc). When you're trying to keep something at 16K it matters. Biggest issues have to be the sun, the earth, and any equipment on-board (maybe even the moon).
Yup - the vertical integration is what is killing us.
How about this - split the pipes from the traffic entirely.
The telco provides a cable that routes ethernet packets from your house to a central office. Full stop. They can sell by the byte - just like your water bill. They are PUC regulated - costs plus minor profit - just like the water company. If the uplink is dedicated (no shared wires between the home and the CO), then they couldn't meter use at all - only charge to rent/maintain the line (and that is based on technology - no implementing intentional bottlenecks to abuse billing).
Once the packets get to the central office they can go to any number of ISPs, and the telco isn't allowed to own any of them, or invest in any of them. The telco charges by the rack and kWh to have space in that office - full stop. You pick your ISP, who provides traffic to the internet, email, etc. Since ISPs don't own the last mile, I'd expect there to be a fair amount of competition. Oh, and if you want you can be your own ISP if you put a router in that CO and pay for the power and uplink (probably not a practical solution for small customers, but companies could do this).
The last mile is the natural monopoly, so the goal should be to make the last mile boring. Last mile providers should get nice steady incomes, and little company growth. Your water company doesn't need to grow (unless you build more homes) - it needs to keep your water going. Utilities get steady almost-guaranteed rates of return, in exchange for heavy regulation and PUC-set prices.
This really isn't a complicated model - we've been doing it for a century.
This way the "internet" itself can stay nice and unregulated, like the free-marketers want. Once you get past the CO ISPs are no longer a natural monoply, and barriers to entry are much lower. Your town could run a co-op if they wanted. ISPs like AOL could flourish next to ISPs that provide nothing more than IP carriage (no email, no web, no support, no home router, etc). Some ISPs would throttle connections, some would not but charge by the byte. You can buy whatever you want that way.
Uh, can we perhaps find a balance between butter knives and embezzlement? If I falsified an expense report deliberately it would be punished.
If as a CEO he approved a $35M contract and somewhere on page 805 of the contract there was some fine print the lawyers missed that cost the company $20k, I'd say that this was an oversight that should be overlooked. When you expense things that do not have to do with the running of the company, then you are violating policy, and likely the law (tax implications).
See my last paragraph. The Arizona law isn't intended to only lower violent crime near the border - it is intended to lower violent crime in general (both near and away from the border).
When you think about it, crimes committed during the actual border crossing can't be prevented by the Arizona law. It deals with deporting people who have already gotten past the border area.
The part of your post I most objected to was your talk of crime rates near the border region.
Also, somebody has to do the busboy jobs. There are plenty of unemployed people who could be doing them. If we really don't have enough, then the solution is to increase immigration quotas, not to let people sneak over the border.
Even crime along the US/Mexican border has decreased for each of the last 5 years.
I'm a bit skeptical of that. Citation?
Perhaps you mean violentcrime? If somebody sneaks into the country without stabbing anybody, a crime has still been committed.
From all the hollering in Arizona, you'd think that it was completely lawless, when in fact, crime rates are significantly down.
I think their main concern is the impact on the economy and social services, and not just on direct crime. Also, crime associated with illegal immigration is not limited to the border region itself, which is how you phrased your argument. If illegal immigrants commit a crime in Kansas, they're going to want to try to change that even though they are not near a border.