Pay for the download? All I have to do to drive up your bill is flood your computer with garbage traffic that you did not request. ISP does not know the difference. They could charge based on traffic going out from the subscriber, but in a world of computer viruses and worms, that does not seem very consumer freindly.
Held by incumbents? Of course they are held by incumbents. I am not sure how it could be held by non-incumbents or how they could be incumbents without holding it.
You are short-sighted. You are willing to re-engineer the internet for better television. I prefer to imagine all of the innovative things that could come from providing increased bandwidth for all applications and allowing the users at the networks ends do whatever the heck they want with that bandwidth. The Internet 2 has brought an incredible amount of value to Universities and government agencies. It will be an enormous benefit to the economy when home-users, large businesses, and small businesses all have similar high-speed internet. It is sad that the only thing some people want is yet another way to distribute television.
Or maybe VOIP is just a crappy technology that is not ideal for the internet. It never fails to amaze me how short-sighted people can be when it comes to this. Unfortunately, that is what this debate is really about; Distribution of voice and video. We want to throw away the opportunity for future technology growth so that we can rot our brains with more television. Brilliant!
A lot of people seem to have forgetten that multiple networks already exist which are optimized for distributing video and voice communication. Higher speed broadband can be used for so much more than this. Look at the things that Universities are doing with Internet 2. Now take that concept and imagine all of the innovative uses that could emerge if small businesses, large businesses, and home users all had internet speeds similar to what is achieved on Internet 2. If portions of the internet are allowed to be re-engineered, this will not happen. Other countries will realize an enormous technological and economical advantage over the US by not bastardizing their networks.
There is the data he uses to make his claims. I see no need to debate this further until someone presents an argument (either opposing or supporting global warming) that is not utter and obvious BS.
STL is one of the most boring airports to get stuck at. I could not even find wifi a few weeks ago. Food selection stinks and the whole airport smells like mildew.
The GP is showing a lot of knowledge about Linux and distributions. You clearly do not understand much about Linux. There are numerous distributions that allow you to customize a kernel at install time. That however, is completely irrelevant. Since all of Negreponte's laptops are going to be running the exact same hardware, they can all use the same kernel. My Zaurus has a linux kernel and a graphic interface and it runs on a 200 MHz ARM. If this can run on a Linux kernel, then so can Negreponte's laptop. Instead of calling the GP a zealot, perhaps you can defend you position with an argument that is relevant to the topic.
Between Windows XP, OSX, and Linux; Linux is the only one that would even have the possiblity of running half decent on this machine. Linux can be slimmed down. Those others cannot.
It is funny, because Ubuntu, Redhat, and Novell (Suse) are all Gnome camps, so I would expect that KDE's share of the desktop pie will be rapidly decreasing.
I share your preference for KDE, but these companies need a desktop that they can unleash upon the masses and they have all concluded time and again that Gnome is the better desktop for this.
The author makes it sound like the world is full of vendors trying to sell collaboration solutions without email. Most office collaboration suites include email. It is just one more tool in the toolbox. The author should be asking himself 'who would build a collaboration suite without email?'
I consider drugs and pharmaceuticals to be somewhat unique in this. However it is not the cost of developing and manufacturing a drug that creates the long delay to market as it would in say the wireless market. It is the extreme testing and FDA approval that takes so much time and money. One idea I support in the addition to limiting patent length is special extensions of patents which are held up by regulatory agencies such as the FDA. Maybe patent coverage should go 5 years after the product gets regulatory approval.
Not to mention the additional benefit that defensive and submarine patents would now be greatly weakened. Money which innovative companies previously had to throw at lawyers could now be spent toward the pursuit of new ideas.
From what I have heard, Suse plans to continue supporting the KDE desktop. They just want Gnome to be the default for the "corporate" desktop. Apparently KDE eye candy is considered unprofessional.
I think that the Suse Enterprise Desktop is replacing the Novell Desktop Linux, not Suse Linux.
So Novell will have three Suse Linux products: Suse Linux, Suse Enterprise Server, and Suse Enterprise Desktop.
I plan to continue using Suse so long as their KDE support does not fall into disrepair.
I would love to see Yahoo, Google, or MSN say "two can play that game", and start blocking BellSouth's users until they fork up some doe. Trying to charge content providers additional cost for access to their networks is the second dumbest idea propesed by telecom companies. The dumbest is AT&T buying BellSouth to acquire their outdated copper wires.
It is extremely short sighted for telecom companies to do anything other than support this bill. They see this as an opportunity to use the internet for phone and television. The way I see things is that everyone already has these services available through existing networks (cable and telephone) that are more suitable for these purposes. People pay for internet access because they want the internet. The openness of the internet is what makes it so appealing. If Verizon wants to add value to the FIOS investment, they need to encourage new and original content on the internet, not offer the same services that the cable companies have been offering for years.
They fail to see that it is the content providers that add the most value to the internet, not the wires. If they can charge Google and Yahoo for access to their lines, then Google and Yahoo can do the same. Every search request has to travel on their lines as well, so what if they decided to block all Verizon and SBC requests to both their regular and mobile services? If I was a DSL subscriber and could not access Google, I would drop their service in a heartbeat for cable.
This is true, maybe some content has to be given priority over others. However, should we allow for SBC to hinder one VOIP provider while helping another based on a fee structure? Doesn't that actually hurt the consumer in the end by limiting their choice?
The best way to prevent any electronic interference is to take any external wiring on the electronic device and wrap it in coils. I guarantee that this will prevent the device from interfering with other devices.
Also, Yahoo has an API for their local search service which can allow you to integrate a lot of nice searches with their maps (or any other maps for that matter).
Well, ummm... I believe it is called Lawyer-Client privelige, not Lawyer-Client-Temp privelige. So do not let your temps see the documents that you are trying to hide.
I would argue that what he did is not even legally wrong. "felony access to computer data" (he looked at data he had access too as a contractor), "commercial burglary" (he recognized fraud and made a copy as proof), "and receiving stolen property" (When did someone else give him something stolen?). If he assists in hiding this information, is he not an accomplice to Diebold's fraud.
I have to believe that this case is politically motivated. It is hard to get prosecutors to take most cases. Even when the proof is solid.
The problem that this all stems from is a basic misunderstanding of what the internet is and some companies wanting to make it into something that it is not. The internet works by copying. That is its' nature. Companies that make money by publishing content want it to be equivalent to going to a store and purchasing a magazine. The problem continues to be further confounded by laws made by individuals who do not understand this basic technology and users who do not understand the true simplicity of the internet.
By putting bits on an internet server, you are by the very nature of the internet requesting that somebody copy your bits. The transfer of bits from one computer to another is the ONLY reason for the internet to exists. It is impossible to restrict or prohibit the copying of bits without breaking the internet protocol.
The grandparent was clearly pointing out the irony in the reaction of violence to a cartoon that depicts a prophet as violent. I fail to see any similar irony in your response.
Slashdot Mirror
Pay for the download? All I have to do to drive up your bill is flood your computer with garbage traffic that you did not request. ISP does not know the difference. They could charge based on traffic going out from the subscriber, but in a world of computer viruses and worms, that does not seem very consumer freindly.
Held by incumbents? Of course they are held by incumbents. I am not sure how it could be held by non-incumbents or how they could be incumbents without holding it.
You are short-sighted. You are willing to re-engineer the internet for better television. I prefer to imagine all of the innovative things that could come from providing increased bandwidth for all applications and allowing the users at the networks ends do whatever the heck they want with that bandwidth. The Internet 2 has brought an incredible amount of value to Universities and government agencies. It will be an enormous benefit to the economy when home-users, large businesses, and small businesses all have similar high-speed internet. It is sad that the only thing some people want is yet another way to distribute television.
A lot of people seem to have forgetten that multiple networks already exist which are optimized for distributing video and voice communication. Higher speed broadband can be used for so much more than this. Look at the things that Universities are doing with Internet 2. Now take that concept and imagine all of the innovative uses that could emerge if small businesses, large businesses, and home users all had internet speeds similar to what is achieved on Internet 2. If portions of the internet are allowed to be re-engineered, this will not happen. Other countries will realize an enormous technological and economical advantage over the US by not bastardizing their networks.
There is the data he uses to make his claims. I see no need to debate this further until someone presents an argument (either opposing or supporting global warming) that is not utter and obvious BS.
STL is one of the most boring airports to get stuck at. I could not even find wifi a few weeks ago. Food selection stinks and the whole airport smells like mildew.
The GP is showing a lot of knowledge about Linux and distributions. You clearly do not understand much about Linux. There are numerous distributions that allow you to customize a kernel at install time. That however, is completely irrelevant. Since all of Negreponte's laptops are going to be running the exact same hardware, they can all use the same kernel. My Zaurus has a linux kernel and a graphic interface and it runs on a 200 MHz ARM. If this can run on a Linux kernel, then so can Negreponte's laptop. Instead of calling the GP a zealot, perhaps you can defend you position with an argument that is relevant to the topic.
Between Windows XP, OSX, and Linux; Linux is the only one that would even have the possiblity of running half decent on this machine. Linux can be slimmed down. Those others cannot.
You should have just sued.
I share your preference for KDE, but these companies need a desktop that they can unleash upon the masses and they have all concluded time and again that Gnome is the better desktop for this.
The author makes it sound like the world is full of vendors trying to sell collaboration solutions without email. Most office collaboration suites include email. It is just one more tool in the toolbox. The author should be asking himself 'who would build a collaboration suite without email?'
I consider drugs and pharmaceuticals to be somewhat unique in this. However it is not the cost of developing and manufacturing a drug that creates the long delay to market as it would in say the wireless market. It is the extreme testing and FDA approval that takes so much time and money. One idea I support in the addition to limiting patent length is special extensions of patents which are held up by regulatory agencies such as the FDA. Maybe patent coverage should go 5 years after the product gets regulatory approval.
Not to mention the additional benefit that defensive and submarine patents would now be greatly weakened. Money which innovative companies previously had to throw at lawyers could now be spent toward the pursuit of new ideas.
And lord knows we would not want those minority groups to have ANY representation. Otherwise the majority may not be able to trample them.
I think that the Suse Enterprise Desktop is replacing the Novell Desktop Linux, not Suse Linux.
So Novell will have three Suse Linux products: Suse Linux, Suse Enterprise Server, and Suse Enterprise Desktop.
I plan to continue using Suse so long as their KDE support does not fall into disrepair.
I would love to see Yahoo, Google, or MSN say "two can play that game", and start blocking BellSouth's users until they fork up some doe. Trying to charge content providers additional cost for access to their networks is the second dumbest idea propesed by telecom companies. The dumbest is AT&T buying BellSouth to acquire their outdated copper wires.
They fail to see that it is the content providers that add the most value to the internet, not the wires. If they can charge Google and Yahoo for access to their lines, then Google and Yahoo can do the same. Every search request has to travel on their lines as well, so what if they decided to block all Verizon and SBC requests to both their regular and mobile services? If I was a DSL subscriber and could not access Google, I would drop their service in a heartbeat for cable.
This is true, maybe some content has to be given priority over others. However, should we allow for SBC to hinder one VOIP provider while helping another based on a fee structure? Doesn't that actually hurt the consumer in the end by limiting their choice?
The best way to prevent any electronic interference is to take any external wiring on the electronic device and wrap it in coils. I guarantee that this will prevent the device from interfering with other devices.
Also, Yahoo has an API for their local search service which can allow you to integrate a lot of nice searches with their maps (or any other maps for that matter).
Which has nothing to do with the usefulness of the Yahoo geocoding API. sheesh.
Well, ummm... I believe it is called Lawyer-Client privelige, not Lawyer-Client-Temp privelige. So do not let your temps see the documents that you are trying to hide.
I have to believe that this case is politically motivated. It is hard to get prosecutors to take most cases. Even when the proof is solid.
By putting bits on an internet server, you are by the very nature of the internet requesting that somebody copy your bits. The transfer of bits from one computer to another is the ONLY reason for the internet to exists. It is impossible to restrict or prohibit the copying of bits without breaking the internet protocol.
The grandparent was clearly pointing out the irony in the reaction of violence to a cartoon that depicts a prophet as violent. I fail to see any similar irony in your response.