Yes, I've always heard good things about Speakeasy (never lived in an area where I could get them, alas.) After the Best Buy takeover, I wonder if they're still true.
Still, Speakeasy expected to get paid for the services it was providing. The fact that they're reasonable about it just goes to show that it's possible to make a profit running a network and not be a dick in the process.
No, that's against every major ISP's terms-of-service that I've ever read. They don't want people acting as mini-ISPs. I mean, suppose you have a bunch of people in an apartment building who only want email and some Web browsing. A single 6 Mb/sec connection on a WAP could service all of them at considerable loss to the ISP. There are some people who do that: one of them buys access, shares it wirelessly with a couple of neighbors, and they split the bill.
Apparently it's written by a somebody who calls himself Google. So, yeah, it's written by Google. Maybe just not the Google we all think of when we hear that word.
Let's hear a promise by the presidential candidates that they will only appoint FCC commissioners who promise not to work for those they have regulated for at least 5 years after their term is over. That would be real change.
Promises mean nothing. That kind of behavior is probably already illegal (and if it isn't, it should be made so) with the Feds given to understand that prosecuting those who break those laws are a priority.
Penalties for misuse of aggregated personal information don't help the individuals who were violated. They're hosed whether the perpetrators are penalized or not. That's the problem, and personally I'm against data aggregation. The benefits to organizations (whether governmental or private-sector) of massive databases are obvious: they're less so when it comes to private citizens. They gain power and more of our money, and what to we get? Stalkers, identity thieves, targeted advertising, a host of things we would rather do without.
stripe or another along the lines of "well, that's one more reason for me not to visit the United States." Now that's fair enough, I suppose, given where the Bush Administration has taken us since 9/11.
But frankly, this is one more reason for me not to visit England. You'd think it wouldn't bother me, given what's happening in my country... but nobody's going to fingerprint me unless I've been arrested.
Whenever globespanning Empires crumble, the residue of their greatness is usually somewhat less than impressive. I must say I'm bitterly disappointed in the direction their government has taken, especially given their history... but no more so than I am in my own government, my own fellow citizens.
Berman should be forcibly removed from office for the things he's already done. They can take Howard Coble and Orrin Hatch along with him. We the People have no use for them.
Well, given the recent talk about making the trip a one-way proposition, I'd say that they would probably dispense with a lot of requirements. Why waste money on a highly-paid, highly-trained astronaut he's at best a disposable commodity? Just pick some joe like the GP who really wants to get into space and ship him out.
I mean, technically you don't have to tell him he's not coming back.
That's part of it. What's really been happening these past couple of decades is a multi-trillion-dollar transfer of commercial and military technology to China. That needs to stop (but it won't, China has us by the short-and-curly and besides, our government is too corrupt to realize that it's going to get us all killed) but it's already far too late. We've bootstrapped them into the 21st century: we should have held on to what we know and made them pay for it just as dearly as we did. Instead (for reasons I haven't yet figured out) we just gave everything to them.
The stuff's mostly made in China now, so the risk of theft is, well, very high. There's no effective way to penalize a criminal subcontractor (not that what they're doing is exactly criminal in China to begin with) so this is maybe a reasonable thing to do. Doesn't matter in the long run: they won't need us for much longer anyway.
C'mon - comparing flying a single person to Mars with no chance of coming back is like Lindburgh flying to Paris???
A better comparison would be flying a single person to Mars vs. Amelia Earhart flying to... well, wherever she ended up. She didn't came back from her last trip either.
Why doesn't the quality of their product get factored in as well?
I think, because they don't know how to make good products any longer. More correctly, I suppose, the people in charge have become so risk-averse that they don't dare take a chance on something that isn't sufficiently "mainstream". At least the junk they regularly churn out does, on average, turn a profit. Not as much as they would like, of course, and they want to eliminate copyright infringement to improve the bottom line without having to take chances on releasing anything better. Kind of like Microsoft and Product Activation/WGA: squeeze a few extra bucks out of those people that will pay if they have to, and don't have the technical skill to bypass your protection system.
Even if they achieve the Holy Grail of perfectly controlled content distribution (an unattainable goal in any event) I don't think it will have as much effect as they seem to think it will.
The only real way to "guarantee" this is by digital restrictions.
But the law never made, nor was it ever intended, to make such a guarantee. Nor does DRM guarantee it, and in any event they aren't entitled to it. They're only entitled to spend their own time and money defending their rights in court.
That's not enough for them, of course... now they want the Federal Government and every major ISP to handle that dirty task for them. That's just wrong on so many levels.
I did... they didn't seem to care. "Go ahead, make my day" was the attitude I got from SBC's people. The government does have QOS standards in place for the RBOCs, and they can get fined for failing to meet them. As I understand it, the Telcos find it cheaper to just pay the fines and continue to do business as usual.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I've always heard good things about Speakeasy (never lived in an area where I could get them, alas.) After the Best Buy takeover, I wonder if they're still true.
Still, Speakeasy expected to get paid for the services it was providing. The fact that they're reasonable about it just goes to show that it's possible to make a profit running a network and not be a dick in the process.
No, that's against every major ISP's terms-of-service that I've ever read. They don't want people acting as mini-ISPs. I mean, suppose you have a bunch of people in an apartment building who only want email and some Web browsing. A single 6 Mb/sec connection on a WAP could service all of them at considerable loss to the ISP. There are some people who do that: one of them buys access, shares it wirelessly with a couple of neighbors, and they split the bill.
Apparently it's written by a somebody who calls himself Google. So, yeah, it's written by Google. Maybe just not the Google we all think of when we hear that word.
Now I know something about them ...
I'd say you know all that you need to know about them. Isn't that, after all, what Wikileaks is all about?
Let's hear a promise by the presidential candidates that they will only appoint FCC commissioners who promise not to work for those they have regulated for at least 5 years after their term is over. That would be real change.
Promises mean nothing. That kind of behavior is probably already illegal (and if it isn't, it should be made so) with the Feds given to understand that prosecuting those who break those laws are a priority.
Penalties for misuse of aggregated personal information don't help the individuals who were violated. They're hosed whether the perpetrators are penalized or not. That's the problem, and personally I'm against data aggregation. The benefits to organizations (whether governmental or private-sector) of massive databases are obvious: they're less so when it comes to private citizens. They gain power and more of our money, and what to we get? Stalkers, identity thieves, targeted advertising, a host of things we would rather do without.
stripe or another along the lines of "well, that's one more reason for me not to visit the United States." Now that's fair enough, I suppose, given where the Bush Administration has taken us since 9/11.
... but nobody's going to fingerprint me unless I've been arrested.
But frankly, this is one more reason for me not to visit England. You'd think it wouldn't bother me, given what's happening in my country
I bet if you go over to the IRS, those guys have a rock-solid backup going back many years.....
Well, I wouldn't look to the IRS as a paragon of information technology deployment either. They have their problems.
Think they ship that stuff DHL?
No. FedExplosive International.
I, for one, hope that at least some parts of your prophecy come true.
I, also, welcome our mobile class-loading Java-based Overlords.
Gagh. Did I actually say that?
You know people that are addicted to female heroes?
... I can't get enough of Wonder Woman reruns myself.
Yeah, man
Whenever globespanning Empires crumble, the residue of their greatness is usually somewhat less than impressive. I must say I'm bitterly disappointed in the direction their government has taken, especially given their history ... but no more so than I am in my own government, my own fellow citizens.
Berman should be forcibly removed from office for the things he's already done. They can take Howard Coble and Orrin Hatch along with him. We the People have no use for them.
"Why, yes ... I am glad to see you."
Well, given the recent talk about making the trip a one-way proposition, I'd say that they would probably dispense with a lot of requirements. Why waste money on a highly-paid, highly-trained astronaut he's at best a disposable commodity? Just pick some joe like the GP who really wants to get into space and ship him out.
I mean, technically you don't have to tell him he's not coming back.
That's part of it. What's really been happening these past couple of decades is a multi-trillion-dollar transfer of commercial and military technology to China. That needs to stop (but it won't, China has us by the short-and-curly and besides, our government is too corrupt to realize that it's going to get us all killed) but it's already far too late. We've bootstrapped them into the 21st century: we should have held on to what we know and made them pay for it just as dearly as we did. Instead (for reasons I haven't yet figured out) we just gave everything to them.
Before today you would have thought "Government Seeks Warrant to Search the Internet" was a headline from The Onion.
Really, someone should tell these people about Google.
I don't think you can blame the "legal system" here, so much as you can blame ignorant bank management and uninformed attorneys.
The stuff's mostly made in China now, so the risk of theft is, well, very high. There's no effective way to penalize a criminal subcontractor (not that what they're doing is exactly criminal in China to begin with) so this is maybe a reasonable thing to do. Doesn't matter in the long run: they won't need us for much longer anyway.
C'mon - comparing flying a single person to Mars with no chance of coming back is like Lindburgh flying to Paris???
... well, wherever she ended up. She didn't came back from her last trip either.
A better comparison would be flying a single person to Mars vs. Amelia Earhart flying to
Dang, I need to start reading Groklaw again.
No kidding. And here we all thought PJ was going to have to start looking for a new job soon.
Why doesn't the quality of their product get factored in as well?
I think, because they don't know how to make good products any longer. More correctly, I suppose, the people in charge have become so risk-averse that they don't dare take a chance on something that isn't sufficiently "mainstream". At least the junk they regularly churn out does, on average, turn a profit. Not as much as they would like, of course, and they want to eliminate copyright infringement to improve the bottom line without having to take chances on releasing anything better. Kind of like Microsoft and Product Activation/WGA: squeeze a few extra bucks out of those people that will pay if they have to, and don't have the technical skill to bypass your protection system.
Even if they achieve the Holy Grail of perfectly controlled content distribution (an unattainable goal in any event) I don't think it will have as much effect as they seem to think it will.
The only real way to "guarantee" this is by digital restrictions.
... now they want the Federal Government and every major ISP to handle that dirty task for them. That's just wrong on so many levels.
But the law never made, nor was it ever intended, to make such a guarantee. Nor does DRM guarantee it, and in any event they aren't entitled to it. They're only entitled to spend their own time and money defending their rights in court.
That's not enough for them, of course
I did ... they didn't seem to care. "Go ahead, make my day" was the attitude I got from SBC's people. The government does have QOS standards in place for the RBOCs, and they can get fined for failing to meet them. As I understand it, the Telcos find it cheaper to just pay the fines and continue to do business as usual.
Good job. If they weren't doing that before they will be now.