What strikes me is the terrific Leadership role shown by the teacher. He is even letting his students take all the lime light. I would really like to see an indepth article on how the teacher set up this group and hopw he managed and provided the leadership touches. The project itself is great and the students deserve a lot of credit, more than that in fact:)
But imagine if this teacher could teach his style of...well "teaching" and inspiring kids to other teachers. What progress our educational system might make.
Please someone pick up on this.....
On another subject:
All the talk of alternative fuel engines etc is great. But does everyone realise that in 2006 the USA will be an IMPORTERR of ETHANOL! Why? Because the USA does not produce enough......
1) WiFi isn't universally available
2) Wireless internet is presently crippled with latency delays
3) All wireless companies have to do is slow their adoption of MS Mobile O/S
4) MS themselves will not want to make too many enemies at this time
Hence the roll out is likely to become a rival for a downgraded Free Skype type service ONLY, mainly because of letency and the lack of availability of compatible handsets and/or available WiFi.
5+ years down the road this development points out the merger of wireless Voice and data into one service for data. Question is will the encumbent wrieless companies firht this or will they eventually decide to embrace it? Down the road even further the roll out of a type of WiMax service globally might become an attractive serivice to 8undermine today's wireless cellphone companies. But this is too far off to estimate, at this time.
All IMHO of course.
Re:Business voip? packet8.net.....
on
Vonage IPO
·
· Score: 1
I think that one has the view Vonage from their relatively easy ability, to-date, to raise private capital. Their IPO seems driven from a desire to obatin a firm valuation on the company as a whole. In this contect one should examine Vonage in relation(IMHO) to the Billions EBay paid for Skype. And Skype has neligible Revenue and an unknown ability to convert non-paying customers into paying customers.
You mention Business VoIP product offerings. The number 2 (IMHO) competitor to Vonage (though much smaller in customer numbers) is "Packet8" www.packet8.net (EGHT ticker symbol). They have a range of Business product offerings which even allow for a Cyber Switchboard functionality between different locations etc. Plus they also offer a good Video Telephone system and FULL E911.
Just another form of censorship. In future Books about the Vatican etc. will have to be "proof" read and approved by the Vatican, or they will slap fees upon the authors. In this way the Vatican aims to control 100% of written material on the subject of any Pope.
Not a well thought through strategy IMHO.
SO how does this explain the Vatican's billing?
A Milanese publishing house that had issued an anthology containing 30 lines from Pope Benedict's speech to the conclave that elected him, and an extract from his enthronement speech, is reported to have been sent a bill for 15,000(£10,000). This was made up of 15 per cent of the cover price of each copy sold plus "legal expenses" of 3,500.
Will there be some agreed legal "definition" of what is pornography? Or will it be a subjective defn or list of key "words"?
The results will change dramatically. Of concern here is that we would have a case of "apples" and "oranges" with an ability to produce statistical results to suit any type of requirement of the asking person.
It's my understanding that "some" senior members of congressional intelligence committees now admit to being "briefed" on the bypassing of the FISA court system. At least one expressed their concerns re the legality of this process in writing. However, their correspondence and the basic briefing were subject to "secrecy" so that matter and their objection stopped there.
What's top secret about wiretaps? The NSA has existed for many decades and they have had one main function and employee tens of thousands of people.
Had the FISA court system been used 100% there would be no public debate.
In a democratic society should we allow a Gvt to "interpret law" as they fancy with any and all objections silenced under Gvt secrecy rules and subject to immediate prosection even if the whistle blower correctly interprets the law?
Is this democracy at work?
One of my concerns is that quite a few people now admit to knowing about all this, but were all "silenced" and effectively powerless to debate, within the system, what they now tell us they believe to be wrong. Is this democracy?
We need to know the democratic system has the checks and balances and we need to know the Gvt doesn't routinely lie. If such checks and balances are followed there should be no public debate. Or am I wrong?
What's the real danger here?
Well we have a Govt interpreting the law and taking a swing around the FISA court system. We also have senior Gvt people stating categorically, in the last year, that they are not doing what they now admit to doing.
All this probably to allow a version of dataminning to take place, post 911, which would likely have been readily approved by the FISA court system. Let's face it, not even the NSA has the resources, or the ambition, to listen to spurious useless conversations with no possible connection to terrorism.
But the risk is this:
Because the issue has now become a source of public and Congressional debate the Gvt may lose the legal argument and be told to come back in line with the existing FISA system. Various people and entities might also be possibly reprimanded and new stiffer safeguards put into place. These new safeguards and individual concerns to stay "legal" might then discourage, or even hinder the genuine dataminning our Gvt really needs to be doing. Who would be to blame for this negative outcome? And how do we stop this from happening?
It seems to me that pushing the legal boundaries could ultimately negatively impact intelligence gathering and those who pushed the current legal interpretation, for intelligence gathering, may become responsible for a much more constrained intelligence gathering ability in the near future. That would be a shocking conclusion and would reflect poorly on those who got us where we are today.
Since the FISA Judges very very rarely turn down any wire tap request and since 911 the need for good information has been reicognised, why would the Gvt think that a FISA court would not approve any such lstening to conversations given the scenario you describe?
Like most here I am not agains such wire taps. I just feel that they should be done the formal way, even if retro-active by several days (or even longer in certain allowed circumstances). Then at least we have the comfort of knowing that the Justice system truly acts as an overseer of such actions. And we can draw comfort from knowing that it's not just pure random taps, just for the heck of it. Let's face it the Gvt doesn't have the resources, or motivation, to listen to spurious civilian conversations, it would bog down the NSA even with their resources and detract from the really important functions they carry out on our behalf.
What I object to is missinformation. The saying that important calls would not be listened to if the Gvt went through the FISA system. I see no circumstance whereby a FISA Judge would object to approving (including retor-actively) any wire tap even very remotely connected to a known "bad" number or even loosely connected. So I cannot fathom the Gvts logic.
By contuing to embrace FISA courts and carry out necessary wire taps we have both protection and a democatic system at work. This indeed is victory for our system. But to abandon it is to admit the defeat of our system, surely?
The Gvt pursuing the "leak" is also disingenuous. The Gvt's position isn't clearly legally based, there is considerable debate. So if everyone with knowledge of the rejection of FISA is held to secrecy, w/o a reasonable debate at some level, then we have lost our democratic system already.
By quasi silencing this blogger MS has now given his blog much more significant publicity than he could ever have got had MS not taken any action. It shows how "censorship" seldom works.
Those of us residing overseas probably pay more money, per hour of BBC TV watched, than those in the UK paying for it with their license fees!
How come?
Well we PAY for several Cable channels, including, but not limited to PBS, A&E etc. etc. for the skant BBC TV offerings which appear and many are not the newer stuff. In turn these Cable Channels BUY the product from the BBC. Hence, we overseas (America for me) actually arrange for the BBC to be paid by program. On top of that many donate to the PBS which in turn uses the money to also BUY BBC programming. All of this provides the BBC with decent overseas income and that's not even including cxhannels which the BBBC partcipates in directly, such as BBCAmerica.
Hence overseas people are helping to fund the BBC over and above the UK TV license fee. So we should have some use of the websites. I see that in the proposed BBC programme streaming, we people overseas will be excluded. Smacks of indirect taxation w/o representation IMHO.
The BBC seems to often ask "too much" for newer programing. The new Dr. Who (in it's second year) is not shown in America, presumably because the price being asked for each episode is TOO HIGH.
Strangely, in America one can receive, over Cable (or satellite), French, Italian, German, Korean, Japanese, mainland China (you get the message) current TV for a monthly small fee. But the BBC does not have such a current offering. Probably because of (dare I say it?) BBC greed because they want us ONLY to watch 30 year old programming (mostly) on BBCAmerica (not picked up by my cable company) and/or whatever other programming turns up on other channels. i.e. the BBC thinks they make MORE money from us the way it is.
So to summarize:
The Press in the UK is WRONG about us overseas freeloading. We do PAY, just indirectly and as I say, more per hour of programming watched than UK citizens at home. BBCAmerica isn't freely available and anyway is 80% really old stuff.
The BBC such look at the premium channel "Starz" and their today's PR about www.wonago.com For $10.00 p.m. one will get the current Starz programming and be able to download from a library of 1,000 Films. ome On BBC we who live outside the UK can become your direct customers...it's up to YOU.
GPS is both a fantastic tool and a potentially dangerous tool.
Having two independantly controlled services increases the "risk" of one being kept live under a future potential "attack scenario". Yep this is the worst case scenario, but everyone thought that 911 wouldn't happen and it did...sadly...
I really don't see the rationale for Europe building what already exists, on the premise that "Europe" made need to keep "their GPS" UP, when the US militarily shuts their's down.
Spending billions of Euros beacuse of NIH seems a waste IMHO. Couldn't Europe invest that money in a new "free for all" technology which would benefit Europe, the US and the rest of the world?
The DVD set of the TV show has sold well.
Perhaps the DVD of the movie, which went ofn Sale today, will also SELL WELL.
I have my copy coming to me as a Christmas gift (if it doesn't come I will buy it next week). Go buy your copy as well:)
I Have owned a Squeezebox for 18 months. It performs extremely well. Best of all I can remotely control the device using my WiFi PDA and it's 'browser. This gives me the complete freedom to use the server software to chose down to individual tracks. It's also a conversation piece and jawdropper to sit in a chair, infront of guests, asking them what music they want and dialing it up immediately! Incidentally I also use it with Shoutcast which has some very high quality feeds thesew days.
Martha is investiated for "insider trading" and it's judged she did ZNOT do it. But because she lied to a Federal Officer she is now convicted felon and served 6 months in jail.
The court here finds Larry is guilty of "insider teading" and he apparently settles w/o a Felony conviction and with no jail time.
Doesn't make any sense to me.
Another example of "Made in America', but the daily operating it OUT-sourced, not only overseas, but to an outside Plant, Mars.
Seriously this project's succes has exceeded even Nasa's wildest hopes. Well done guys.....
The hidden value proposition of analog cable has, for a long time, been that one did not need the expense of a cablebox for additional TVs (to receive non encrypted service one was already paying for). I doubt that analog will be encryped now as the future is digital (though I find the digital sound WORSE than analog and sometimes more difficult to hear speech). IF ALL digital becomes encrpted as a way for cable companies to MAX out their Revenue (extras like a Cablebox and remote etc etc for every TV) the value proposition of Cable TV service falls......
With other services becoming available it's not a good time for Cable companies to try to MAX OUT their Revenue IMHO.
Yup I am aware that some Cable companies already encrypt. That's one of the reasons whu I suggested users do their due diligence up front re type of signal etc.
Three letters QAM:
I presently get my Cable TV without a Cablebox. It wasn't really an intentional decision on my part (I hate to admit this, so maybe I will delete that bit when I finish). I was rebuilding the familyroom and the new Samsung HL-R6168W was delivered too early:). I am paying my Cable company for "Basic" and "Family" and was able to receive them in Analog.
So I had to test the new TV within 30 days (30 day return no questions) so I just plugged it into the Coaxial and set it to "find" all the channels. So so it did, for ALL my analog channels and then surprise it kept going and going... In all seriousness it found the "digital" (480P)equivalent of the Basic + Family set I am paying for, well at least when those channels have a digital signal. Then it found all the Broadcast channels in "HD"! Surprise!!!!
I asked around a few questions of senior people on forums, from the Cable company I use (helpful and honest people) and they "admitted" that TVs with "QAM" tuners can decode all the digital and HD signals NOT encrypted. So that means that I still don't get HBO either analog, or HD, or ESPN HD, or SHowtime HD. NONE of the chanels I don't pay for can I receive. Fair enough isn't it?
Please note if you have a QAM enabled tuner you MUST check that the Cable signal is compatible, mostly the answer is yes...but do check first.
SO to summarize I get:
o All the original channels I pay for: in analog
o The equivalent: in digital 480P
0 The equivalent broadcast type channels: in HD 720P/1080i
o I even pick up at least one PBS HD channel
It all depends what you want.
If you want a decent service thru HD w/o Premium channel content, you don't need a Cablebox of any kind. And a PC with a QAM based HD Tuner, like the Fusion, would also be able to record ALL the above and replay in the same quality received.
If you want Premium Channels and especially if you want them in HD, then you have not only to pay for the extra service, but also the digital HD decoding Cablebox and remote.
If you put up satellites at a quicker rate then you have too much redunancy in the skies and too much junk in space. It's all a balance, as it should be.
Another timely "This is why Europe should run everything" spin story. Be good if Europe invented something really new and useful, for American's to play with (for free)....
As users why should we trust giving moe "control" over the internet to a party claiming the internet could "fall apart" in a very short time frame, when this statement is palpably untrue and missleading? Or would their associates in Brazil, Saudi Arabia, China etc. hold them to a higher standard of truthfulness going forward? ICANN, in all it's years of "control" over the internet, has never made any such missleading or untruthful statements.
Slashdot Mirror
What strikes me is the terrific Leadership role shown by the teacher. He is even letting his students take all the lime light. I would really like to see an indepth article on how the teacher set up this group and hopw he managed and provided the leadership touches. The project itself is great and the students deserve a lot of credit, more than that in fact:) But imagine if this teacher could teach his style of ...well "teaching" and inspiring kids to other teachers. What progress our educational system might make.
Please someone pick up on this.....
On another subject:
All the talk of alternative fuel engines etc is great. But does everyone realise that in 2006 the USA will be an IMPORTERR of ETHANOL! Why? Because the USA does not produce enough......
1) WiFi isn't universally available 2) Wireless internet is presently crippled with latency delays 3) All wireless companies have to do is slow their adoption of MS Mobile O/S 4) MS themselves will not want to make too many enemies at this time Hence the roll out is likely to become a rival for a downgraded Free Skype type service ONLY, mainly because of letency and the lack of availability of compatible handsets and/or available WiFi. 5+ years down the road this development points out the merger of wireless Voice and data into one service for data. Question is will the encumbent wrieless companies firht this or will they eventually decide to embrace it? Down the road even further the roll out of a type of WiMax service globally might become an attractive serivice to 8undermine today's wireless cellphone companies. But this is too far off to estimate, at this time. All IMHO of course.
I think that one has the view Vonage from their relatively easy ability, to-date, to raise private capital. Their IPO seems driven from a desire to obatin a firm valuation on the company as a whole. In this contect one should examine Vonage in relation(IMHO) to the Billions EBay paid for Skype. And Skype has neligible Revenue and an unknown ability to convert non-paying customers into paying customers. You mention Business VoIP product offerings. The number 2 (IMHO) competitor to Vonage (though much smaller in customer numbers) is "Packet8" www.packet8.net (EGHT ticker symbol). They have a range of Business product offerings which even allow for a Cyber Switchboard functionality between different locations etc. Plus they also offer a good Video Telephone system and FULL E911.
Just another form of censorship. In future Books about the Vatican etc. will have to be "proof" read and approved by the Vatican, or they will slap fees upon the authors. In this way the Vatican aims to control 100% of written material on the subject of any Pope. Not a well thought through strategy IMHO.
SO how does this explain the Vatican's billing? A Milanese publishing house that had issued an anthology containing 30 lines from Pope Benedict's speech to the conclave that elected him, and an extract from his enthronement speech, is reported to have been sent a bill for 15,000(£10,000). This was made up of 15 per cent of the cover price of each copy sold plus "legal expenses" of 3,500.
Will there be some agreed legal "definition" of what is pornography? Or will it be a subjective defn or list of key "words"? The results will change dramatically. Of concern here is that we would have a case of "apples" and "oranges" with an ability to produce statistical results to suit any type of requirement of the asking person.
It's my understanding that "some" senior members of congressional intelligence committees now admit to being "briefed" on the bypassing of the FISA court system. At least one expressed their concerns re the legality of this process in writing. However, their correspondence and the basic briefing were subject to "secrecy" so that matter and their objection stopped there.
What's top secret about wiretaps? The NSA has existed for many decades and they have had one main function and employee tens of thousands of people. Had the FISA court system been used 100% there would be no public debate. In a democratic society should we allow a Gvt to "interpret law" as they fancy with any and all objections silenced under Gvt secrecy rules and subject to immediate prosection even if the whistle blower correctly interprets the law? Is this democracy at work? One of my concerns is that quite a few people now admit to knowing about all this, but were all "silenced" and effectively powerless to debate, within the system, what they now tell us they believe to be wrong. Is this democracy? We need to know the democratic system has the checks and balances and we need to know the Gvt doesn't routinely lie. If such checks and balances are followed there should be no public debate. Or am I wrong?
What's the real danger here? Well we have a Govt interpreting the law and taking a swing around the FISA court system. We also have senior Gvt people stating categorically, in the last year, that they are not doing what they now admit to doing. All this probably to allow a version of dataminning to take place, post 911, which would likely have been readily approved by the FISA court system. Let's face it, not even the NSA has the resources, or the ambition, to listen to spurious useless conversations with no possible connection to terrorism. But the risk is this: Because the issue has now become a source of public and Congressional debate the Gvt may lose the legal argument and be told to come back in line with the existing FISA system. Various people and entities might also be possibly reprimanded and new stiffer safeguards put into place. These new safeguards and individual concerns to stay "legal" might then discourage, or even hinder the genuine dataminning our Gvt really needs to be doing. Who would be to blame for this negative outcome? And how do we stop this from happening? It seems to me that pushing the legal boundaries could ultimately negatively impact intelligence gathering and those who pushed the current legal interpretation, for intelligence gathering, may become responsible for a much more constrained intelligence gathering ability in the near future. That would be a shocking conclusion and would reflect poorly on those who got us where we are today.
Since the FISA Judges very very rarely turn down any wire tap request and since 911 the need for good information has been reicognised, why would the Gvt think that a FISA court would not approve any such lstening to conversations given the scenario you describe? Like most here I am not agains such wire taps. I just feel that they should be done the formal way, even if retro-active by several days (or even longer in certain allowed circumstances). Then at least we have the comfort of knowing that the Justice system truly acts as an overseer of such actions. And we can draw comfort from knowing that it's not just pure random taps, just for the heck of it. Let's face it the Gvt doesn't have the resources, or motivation, to listen to spurious civilian conversations, it would bog down the NSA even with their resources and detract from the really important functions they carry out on our behalf. What I object to is missinformation. The saying that important calls would not be listened to if the Gvt went through the FISA system. I see no circumstance whereby a FISA Judge would object to approving (including retor-actively) any wire tap even very remotely connected to a known "bad" number or even loosely connected. So I cannot fathom the Gvts logic. By contuing to embrace FISA courts and carry out necessary wire taps we have both protection and a democatic system at work. This indeed is victory for our system. But to abandon it is to admit the defeat of our system, surely? The Gvt pursuing the "leak" is also disingenuous. The Gvt's position isn't clearly legally based, there is considerable debate. So if everyone with knowledge of the rejection of FISA is held to secrecy, w/o a reasonable debate at some level, then we have lost our democratic system already.
By quasi silencing this blogger MS has now given his blog much more significant publicity than he could ever have got had MS not taken any action. It shows how "censorship" seldom works.
Those of us residing overseas probably pay more money, per hour of BBC TV watched, than those in the UK paying for it with their license fees! How come? Well we PAY for several Cable channels, including, but not limited to PBS, A&E etc. etc. for the skant BBC TV offerings which appear and many are not the newer stuff. In turn these Cable Channels BUY the product from the BBC. Hence, we overseas (America for me) actually arrange for the BBC to be paid by program. On top of that many donate to the PBS which in turn uses the money to also BUY BBC programming. All of this provides the BBC with decent overseas income and that's not even including cxhannels which the BBBC partcipates in directly, such as BBCAmerica. Hence overseas people are helping to fund the BBC over and above the UK TV license fee. So we should have some use of the websites. I see that in the proposed BBC programme streaming, we people overseas will be excluded. Smacks of indirect taxation w/o representation IMHO. The BBC seems to often ask "too much" for newer programing. The new Dr. Who (in it's second year) is not shown in America, presumably because the price being asked for each episode is TOO HIGH. Strangely, in America one can receive, over Cable (or satellite), French, Italian, German, Korean, Japanese, mainland China (you get the message) current TV for a monthly small fee. But the BBC does not have such a current offering. Probably because of (dare I say it?) BBC greed because they want us ONLY to watch 30 year old programming (mostly) on BBCAmerica (not picked up by my cable company) and/or whatever other programming turns up on other channels. i.e. the BBC thinks they make MORE money from us the way it is. So to summarize: The Press in the UK is WRONG about us overseas freeloading. We do PAY, just indirectly and as I say, more per hour of programming watched than UK citizens at home. BBCAmerica isn't freely available and anyway is 80% really old stuff. The BBC such look at the premium channel "Starz" and their today's PR about www.wonago.com For $10.00 p.m. one will get the current Starz programming and be able to download from a library of 1,000 Films. ome On BBC we who live outside the UK can become your direct customers...it's up to YOU.
GPS is both a fantastic tool and a potentially dangerous tool. Having two independantly controlled services increases the "risk" of one being kept live under a future potential "attack scenario". Yep this is the worst case scenario, but everyone thought that 911 wouldn't happen and it did...sadly... I really don't see the rationale for Europe building what already exists, on the premise that "Europe" made need to keep "their GPS" UP, when the US militarily shuts their's down. Spending billions of Euros beacuse of NIH seems a waste IMHO. Couldn't Europe invest that money in a new "free for all" technology which would benefit Europe, the US and the rest of the world?
The DVD set of the TV show has sold well. Perhaps the DVD of the movie, which went ofn Sale today, will also SELL WELL. I have my copy coming to me as a Christmas gift (if it doesn't come I will buy it next week). Go buy your copy as well:)
I Have owned a Squeezebox for 18 months. It performs extremely well. Best of all I can remotely control the device using my WiFi PDA and it's 'browser. This gives me the complete freedom to use the server software to chose down to individual tracks. It's also a conversation piece and jawdropper to sit in a chair, infront of guests, asking them what music they want and dialing it up immediately! Incidentally I also use it with Shoutcast which has some very high quality feeds thesew days.
Martha is investiated for "insider trading" and it's judged she did ZNOT do it. But because she lied to a Federal Officer she is now convicted felon and served 6 months in jail. The court here finds Larry is guilty of "insider teading" and he apparently settles w/o a Felony conviction and with no jail time. Doesn't make any sense to me.
What makes you think that your own country does not collect personal data also?
Another example of "Made in America', but the daily operating it OUT-sourced, not only overseas, but to an outside Plant, Mars. Seriously this project's succes has exceeded even Nasa's wildest hopes. Well done guys.....
The hidden value proposition of analog cable has, for a long time, been that one did not need the expense of a cablebox for additional TVs (to receive non encrypted service one was already paying for). I doubt that analog will be encryped now as the future is digital (though I find the digital sound WORSE than analog and sometimes more difficult to hear speech). IF ALL digital becomes encrpted as a way for cable companies to MAX out their Revenue (extras like a Cablebox and remote etc etc for every TV) the value proposition of Cable TV service falls...... With other services becoming available it's not a good time for Cable companies to try to MAX OUT their Revenue IMHO. Yup I am aware that some Cable companies already encrypt. That's one of the reasons whu I suggested users do their due diligence up front re type of signal etc.
Three letters QAM: I presently get my Cable TV without a Cablebox. It wasn't really an intentional decision on my part (I hate to admit this, so maybe I will delete that bit when I finish). I was rebuilding the familyroom and the new Samsung HL-R6168W was delivered too early:). I am paying my Cable company for "Basic" and "Family" and was able to receive them in Analog. So I had to test the new TV within 30 days (30 day return no questions) so I just plugged it into the Coaxial and set it to "find" all the channels. So so it did, for ALL my analog channels and then surprise it kept going and going... In all seriousness it found the "digital" (480P)equivalent of the Basic + Family set I am paying for, well at least when those channels have a digital signal. Then it found all the Broadcast channels in "HD"! Surprise!!!! I asked around a few questions of senior people on forums, from the Cable company I use (helpful and honest people) and they "admitted" that TVs with "QAM" tuners can decode all the digital and HD signals NOT encrypted. So that means that I still don't get HBO either analog, or HD, or ESPN HD, or SHowtime HD. NONE of the chanels I don't pay for can I receive. Fair enough isn't it? Please note if you have a QAM enabled tuner you MUST check that the Cable signal is compatible, mostly the answer is yes...but do check first. SO to summarize I get: o All the original channels I pay for: in analog o The equivalent: in digital 480P 0 The equivalent broadcast type channels: in HD 720P/1080i o I even pick up at least one PBS HD channel It all depends what you want. If you want a decent service thru HD w/o Premium channel content, you don't need a Cablebox of any kind. And a PC with a QAM based HD Tuner, like the Fusion, would also be able to record ALL the above and replay in the same quality received. If you want Premium Channels and especially if you want them in HD, then you have not only to pay for the extra service, but also the digital HD decoding Cablebox and remote.
Punctuation scores on only (2) out of my (3) parameters. It's "free" It's "useful" But it isn't "new". So I am afraid that it fails my test;)
If you put up satellites at a quicker rate then you have too much redunancy in the skies and too much junk in space. It's all a balance, as it should be. Another timely "This is why Europe should run everything" spin story. Be good if Europe invented something really new and useful, for American's to play with (for free)....
As users why should we trust giving moe "control" over the internet to a party claiming the internet could "fall apart" in a very short time frame, when this statement is palpably untrue and missleading? Or would their associates in Brazil, Saudi Arabia, China etc. hold them to a higher standard of truthfulness going forward? ICANN, in all it's years of "control" over the internet, has never made any such missleading or untruthful statements.
Then all the HD DVDs sold in China and ripped off from the Western Studios will not be able to be played outside of China.
...to create their won r3ecod labels and sign up artists away from the RIAA "Rico" merchants?