Finally!...My dreams of building a top-notch deathmatch LAN using old rolls of 1970s speaker wire from my basement could finally come true. Dude, lamp cord; it's really cheap!
BTW, where did the FCC gain the authority to regulate newspapers?
As I point out elsewhere:
The FCC has no jurisdiction over newspapers. It does have jurisdiction over who does or does not get a (temporary) broadcast license, i.e., use of something (spectrum) which is owned by the public, and, if Congress so directs, or seems to, can deny a license to someone who also owns a newspaper so as to avoid too much concentration of ownership of communication outlets. Having been denied a broadcast license, the owner of the newspaper is prefectly (sic) free to continue owning the newspaper.
...regulating what they can say in those channels clearly trods on the First Amendment.
Regulating what they can say in the newspapers would be in violation of the First Amendment, but regulating what can be said over broadcast channels is merely regulating, on behalf of the public, how the (temporary) holder of the broadcast license gets to use the public's property, the airwaves.
The FCC has no jurisdiction over newspapers. It does have jurisdiction over who does or does not get a (temporary) broadcast license, i.e., use of something (spectrum) which is owned by the public, and, if Congress so directs, or seems to, can deny a license to someone who also owns a newspaper so as to avoid too much concentration of ownership of communication outlets. Having been denied a broadcast license, the owner of the newspaper is prefectly free to continue owning the newspaper.
Broadcast licenses are something granted, on a temporary basis, by the federal government in its role as steward of the public's airwaves, i.e., "spectrum". Just because you own a tower and a transmitter does not automatically entitle you to be granted one or to have it renewed, nor, if you sell the physical assets of your broadcast operation, is the government required to transfer the license to the buyer, nor is the new (temporary)licensee obligated to purchase the physical assets of the previous (temporary) holder of the license. Anyone who finds this unacceptable should be in some business other than broadcasting.
This is just common sense. If they aren't required to share wires, what happens? Well, one thing you get is the owner strangling competition. The other thing you get is every single provider stringing their own damn wires.
Actually the other thing you get is that the local politicians give a monopoly on running lines in the right of way to the highest contributor, although, in fairness, putting more than one power company, one telephone company, and one cable TV company on the same poles or under the same ground is really unworkable. (I'll put up with one of each of those companies having to dig up the front yard from time to time for repair or upgrades, but not with Yet Another Utility doing it every week.)
I think Earthlink's inability to find Google (or Slashdot or even Earthlink itself once) occasionally is OS and browser agnostic 'cause I've had the same thing happen a time or three running Firefox one and a half and/or Internet Exploder 5 point sumpin' early (I only keep IE to load sudoku) on Win98SE (on dial up). I just assume that there's something temporarily ailing somewhere between the other end of my phone line and the rest of the world. Things usually get back to normal within an hour or so and even though it's annoying there's usually something else I should have been getting done instead of being on the interweb anyway.
I think with Earthlink tech support it sort of depends on the luck of the draw. Some of them are more clueful than others.
How do you connect to Earthlink, and have you tried the "chat" version of support (which has the advantage of you don't have to press a million buttons on the phone in order to get to a human)?
In other words, basically PayPal (minus a truckload of fees).
Well, sort of, but not really.
For example, if I could remember the PayPal password I haven't used in a few years and wanted to transfer funds to you, I'd be telling PayPal to present my Visa or MasterCard card number to Visa or MasterCard and get some of my money from them and then pass it on to you.
What I'm suggesting is a system where I don't share my Visa or MasterCard card number with anybody but Visa or MasterCard. When I want to transfer some of my money to a merchant, I contact Visa or MasterCard and tell them "Here's the name of the merchant, who has a commercial account with you, and here's the serial number they've attached to the transaction in the middle of which I and they currently are. Move this amount from my account to theirs and notify them that you have done so." This way there's no middleman between me and the credit/debit card company, so no one has access to my information (card number and PIN or other identifier) except the company that already knows it.
a) No storage of credit card numbers by *anybody* other than the card issuer (ie. online merchants like must not store your card numbers anywhere, you need to type it in for each transaction).
How about instead of telling fuzzysandals.com "Here's my credit card number. Tell MasterCard's computer to give you 40 of my dollars.", you connect to MasterCard.com and tell them "Give 40 bucks to fuzzysandals.com on my behalf. Here's their transaction serial number for my order." ?
Slashdot Mirror
What do you think 1970s speaker wire is? :-)
I really wish people would stop calling every random funny thing obligatory...
On Slashdot, applying impact incentive to deceased equines is always obligatory.
I haven't seen "time" spelled "tyme" (as opposed to "thyme") since some band name in the '60s. Thanks for the flashback :-)
As I point out elsewhere:
The FCC has no jurisdiction over newspapers. It does have jurisdiction over who does or does not get a (temporary) broadcast license, i.e., use of something (spectrum) which is owned by the public, and, if Congress so directs, or seems to, can deny a license to someone who also owns a newspaper so as to avoid too much concentration of ownership of communication outlets. Having been denied a broadcast license, the owner of the newspaper is prefectly (sic) free to continue owning the newspaper.
...regulating what they can say in those channels clearly trods on the First Amendment.Regulating what they can say in the newspapers would be in violation of the First Amendment, but regulating what can be said over broadcast channels is merely regulating, on behalf of the public, how the (temporary) holder of the broadcast license gets to use the public's property, the airwaves.
Uh, make that "...perfectly free to continue owning the newspaper."
The FCC has no jurisdiction over newspapers. It does have jurisdiction over who does or does not get a (temporary) broadcast license, i.e., use of something (spectrum) which is owned by the public, and, if Congress so directs, or seems to, can deny a license to someone who also owns a newspaper so as to avoid too much concentration of ownership of communication outlets. Having been denied a broadcast license, the owner of the newspaper is prefectly free to continue owning the newspaper.
Broadcast licenses are something granted, on a temporary basis, by the federal government in its role as steward of the public's airwaves, i.e., "spectrum". Just because you own a tower and a transmitter does not automatically entitle you to be granted one or to have it renewed, nor, if you sell the physical assets of your broadcast operation, is the government required to transfer the license to the buyer, nor is the new (temporary)licensee obligated to purchase the physical assets of the previous (temporary) holder of the license. Anyone who finds this unacceptable should be in some business other than broadcasting.
Don't you just love the eloquence, grammatical elegance, and calm even-handedness with which the Limbaugh worshippers express themselves?
Actually the other thing you get is that the local politicians give a monopoly on running lines in the right of way to the highest contributor, although, in fairness, putting more than one power company, one telephone company, and one cable TV company on the same poles or under the same ground is really unworkable. (I'll put up with one of each of those companies having to dig up the front yard from time to time for repair or upgrades, but not with Yet Another Utility doing it every week.)
I think with Earthlink tech support it sort of depends on the luck of the draw. Some of them are more clueful than others.
How do you connect to Earthlink, and have you tried the "chat" version of support (which has the advantage of you don't have to press a million buttons on the phone in order to get to a human)?
Would that be the same Iraqi army that wound up killing Iranian children sent out to be "martyrs"?
The best humor often is, although I was really posting more in a bitter tone of voice than a sarcastic one, and so I was surprised by the mod as well.
Well, sort of, but not really.
For example, if I could remember the PayPal password I haven't used in a few years and wanted to transfer funds to you, I'd be telling PayPal to present my Visa or MasterCard card number to Visa or MasterCard and get some of my money from them and then pass it on to you.
What I'm suggesting is a system where I don't share my Visa or MasterCard card number with anybody but Visa or MasterCard. When I want to transfer some of my money to a merchant, I contact Visa or MasterCard and tell them "Here's the name of the merchant, who has a commercial account with you, and here's the serial number they've attached to the transaction in the middle of which I and they currently are. Move this amount from my account to theirs and notify them that you have done so." This way there's no middleman between me and the credit/debit card company, so no one has access to my information (card number and PIN or other identifier) except the company that already knows it.
Maybe they meant "can antennas". :-)
How about instead of telling fuzzysandals.com "Here's my credit card number. Tell MasterCard's computer to give you 40 of my dollars.", you connect to MasterCard.com and tell them "Give 40 bucks to fuzzysandals.com on my behalf. Here's their transaction serial number for my order." ?
That's great and all, but will we still be limited to 4 primary partitions?
Yeah, but can you believe that they were paying Katz, and not the other way around ?!?
What, you never heard of "Super 8" ?
Except for that's the way you're supposed to do it.
It does make for improved readability.
So what, lots of people avoid being seen with Taco :-)
Don't you mean 11110 % ?
Not really, although there are more and more days when it feels that way :-)
At least you'll be on 85 and can easily get to Charlotte or the RTP depending on where the party is/parties are.
As long as we're quibling, birthdays come but once, it's all anniversaries of that day thereafter.
Just out of curiosity, in what part of NC will you be stuck?