Microsoft, Google, Apple...
Buying may be cheaper than building, but if push comes to shove they can outspend you for development by orders of magnitude. Just because you had the idea first doesn't mean you will be first to market. Take this into account when you consider selling.
Or maybe, after taking care of the supply side by invading Iraq, the US should start taking care of the demand side by invading India and regressing them to the stone age ?
Well we do have all these nukes just lying around taking up space and draining coffers with maintenance.
If we just had some place to dump (or drop) them our military could save billions of dollars every year. Add to that the millions of US jobs that have been shipped to India over the last 15 years would need to be replaced, we could fix our unemployment crisis and nip this depression right in the bud.
This actually brings up perhaps the biggest problem with the project.Where will they find a battery for the bios?
While some bios will boot (to default settings) without a bios battery installed most will simply fail post, hard.
Will a battery, even still in the original packaging, even hold a charge for 50 years? If you look back, battery technology has advanced quite a bit in the last 50 years and there is every indication that this will continue for the next 50 years so getting a hold of the exact battery (or even a similar one) that the bios needs may be impossible.
Warning: Using this product may turn you into a fat nerd. And not the good kind like Bill Gates, the kind that still lives in their parents basement at the age of 30.
Around here they charge a $15 non-cable fee ($60 vs $45) so I looked into getting "basic" (local broadcast/CSPAN/PubAcc) cable which is priced at $15/month.
After taxes and franchise fees, basic cable came to $22 a month so I live without.
basic cable may look cheaper but once you get the details it's usually comes out slightly more than the non-cable fee.
How exactly is forcing all candidates to follow the same laws disenfranchisement? Last time I checked, disenfranchisement involved preventing people from voting (usually based on some arbitrary criteria such as race or sex).
Just because the name you wanted to vote for is not on the ballot does not make you disenfranchised. Annoyed perhaps, but not disenfranchised.
The law is not the ISP. In fact, most ISP's will do whatever they can to stay out of a case like this, to a point. While you are correct that the "common carrier" status of ISP's is murky in the eyes of the law they do have pretty broad protections under the DMCA. The DMCA protections pretty much state that as long as you are just passing data, and are registered with the Copyright office, you are protected as long as you don't get involved. The definition of "involved" is up for some debate, but based on the conversations I've had with some law folks anything beyond acting as a router for traffic or applying blocking/firewalling at the edge could be seen by a judge as being involved. Most ISP's are lothe to break that barrier as it opens them up to lawsuits from both sides.
One thing you don't seem to grasp is the relationship between an ISP and a customer. This relationship is only loosely defined by law. While you can sue an ISP if they "sell" you DSL and then provide you with an analog connection or the ISP can sue you if you don't pay your bill these are fraud and contract law, not Internet specific. The actual documents governing your relationship with your ISP are generally the ToS and AUP which pretty much every ISP requires you to agree to in writing when you sign up for service. Most ToS/AUP specifically state that you can't provide an open access point for others to use after all doing so is taking away customers from the ISP.
<i>You, personally, contracted with a service provider to give you an account for transfer of your data for your purposes. It almost certainly says that you are responsible for all use of the account in the terms of service. Nobody has really tried to enforce this, but it would seem to be pretty obvious.</i>
Not true. While most ISPs state that the person in whose name the account is would be responsible for ensuring that the ToSAUP is adhered to, the consequences of non-compliance are usually very limited, in the case of court orders this statement goes out the window obviously. All that most ISP's can do is declare a customer in violation of the ToSAUP and terminate the contract, and thus the service. Doing anything more opens up questions of being "involved" that could cause issues for the ISP.
<i>An ISP that openly encouraged and tolerated illegal activity would get sued out of existance. Regardless of any DMCA safe harbor provisions - which is what ISPs fall back on. They do not and never did have common carrier status. Only wireline telephone companies have that.</i>
Not even close. ISPs are businesses. If ISPs had to monitor all traffic looking for illegal activity or ToSAUP violations they would be out of business. The whole reason the DMCA safe harbor exists is because the big boys like AOL didn't want to start monitoring their customers because they argued and rightly so it would cost them a fortune in resources/personnel just to do the tracking. I suspect that additionally ToSAUP concerns were involved. Most ISPs operate in a Sergant Schultz mode (<i>I see nothing!</i>) concerning network traffic. Once you start monitoring, after all, you start finding things you don't want to see. If ISPs actually "saw" ToSAUP violations they would have to act on them. If they had to act on them, they would lose customers and possibly future business due to bad word of mouth. The phrase "blissful ignorance" comes to mind, because unless your ISP sees you do something they can pretend you arn't and both they and you are happy. Now if you do something to make yourself seen like being the subject of a DMCA warrant, admitting to a ToSAUP violation in court, or passing so much traffic as to cause other customers to complain your ISP will have to act. In other words, if provoked they will cut you off otherwise they will purposefully look the other way for a lot of things.
So in the parent's case. Claiming an open access point and open wireles
Of course you could turn this around if you prefer alternative browsers.
Build a site that works fine in Firefox/Opera/Safari/Etc. and breaks/crashes IE. All you would really need to do for this is design the site using CSS2.
Then when they come to complain hand them a supplemental contract to add IE support.
Might be a bit more work then what the parent proposed, but it's a lot more likely to work.
Just make sure the initial contract doesn't require IE support:)
I agree, this did smell funny. So I went out and did some research.
It seems that the "scientist" in this story, Tad Patzek (a geologist), has been working for the oil industry quite a bit over the lastfewyears. Odd that he should suddenly be switching his interest to agriculture and begin attacking Ethanol.
Or perhaps it all makes sense if you look at it from the correct prospective.
The problem with this story is that it is too fantastic. Even if it were true, the depth of the corruption is so widespread, among so many high-profile characters and big power families, that it requires a suspension of disbelief on the part of the reader. Security through incredulity, anyone?
No doubt.
After all this would be as impossible as say the Catholic church covering up widespread abuse of children by priests for 20+ years. If such a thing had occured someone, somewhere would have said something long before now. Right???
Microsoft is finally associated with something that DOESN'T crash!
Yet.
But then again they are still just in the early beta testing stage, wait till they add all the features (sound & video system, cup holders, etc.) Then we shall see what their MTBC is.
The biggest problem I forsee with this ballot under glass scheme (and it's ilk) is what do you do if the ballot is wrong?
Sure you can look at it and see that it says Nader instead of Kerry but unless the system includes some way to correct the mistake we havn't solved the problem.
That is why I'm in favor of separate vote/count machines. If the voter has to physically carry their ballot to a counting machine, they have a chance to verify what it says (and if necessary get it corrected) before the vote is counted.
Did anyone else notice that the newest article in those links was from 2001?
I noticed this too.
While I do agree that horror stories like these did happen when the procedure was relatively new, that does not mean these conditions still apply. Drudging this kind of old evidence up now is like trying to claim that IBM makes bad PC's because their PS/2's were not compatible with industry standards. It just doesn't show any evidence that the same problems are still happening anymore.
If you don't have a CLEC or ISP - then turn to DSS sat.
Actually you may not have to go that far. For redundancy around here we can go to the power company. Our local power company has a networking affiliate with their own completely separate network.
Good luck trying to get the local phone company to admit of such a situation exists in your area though.
I'm not saying that every service plan BB pushes is good. But there are times when their service plans do pay for themselves.
2 cases in point.
I purchased a laptop from BB back in 98. I bought the extended warranty out of concern for the LCD which I had had problems with on a previous laptop. 2 years 11 months 22 days later the hard drive died. I brought it in, they confirmed that it was still under warranty and 5 days later I had my laptop back with a new HD (and 3x more space than the original).
Shortly after that I purchased a pda, again I sprung for the extended warranty. A year later when the screen stopped working, I brought it in. They grabbed another off the shelf and replaced it on the spot.
All in all I would have to say that I have had a good experience with BB extended warranties.
If you just be careful with what you buy them for they can actually be quite useful.
I can see you have been told the politically correct answer to this situation: "Suck it up, do it for the common good."
But if you are a true American, one question has not yet been answered. What's in it for me? How can I get rich off of this? How do I make them pay?
The answer is simple. Sue Em!
Chances are if you are posting this, you reside within the United States. This makes things more difficult, but not impossible, we just have to be more clever. Our first direction we must look toward in this time of opportunity is toward The Courts. Unfortunately this course will not serve us well. Nothing MAPS does is inherently illegal. Even worse, they have developed a significant volume of caselog to show your average judge that they have a right to do what they do and you have no right to complain. So unless you happen to have a friendly state law or lawmaker in you back pocket (not likely for an indie band) the courts will not likely be of use to you.
Luckily here in the grand old USA, the Courts aren't the only places to extract money from people you don't like. Are you or any of the band members from Canada or Mexico? Can your latino drummer fake a mexican accent? If so then you can demand compensation under Section 7 of the NAFTA Treaty, the expatriation clause. While normally this clause only applies to government regulation, there have been complaints brought forth against psudo-governmental entities (such as industry trade groups and sanctioning bodies) which you could argue the MAPS organization is one of. From there, it's up to them to prove the rules don't apply to them or else you get money. Nothing could be simpler.
There you have it, a simple solution to your problem both short term and long term. Assuming that MAPS survives their major outflow of cash, you will now be able to afford professional internet connectivity free from MAPS blocking. If they don't survive, hey your free to send emails anyway and you get a tidy bundle of cash (a double victory).
irrespectfully submitted, with tounge firmly in cheek
Ok fine, so he got charged 800k, but how much did it really cost him?
The whole purpose for these filings is to keep investors informed so that those who control the company can't cash out and leave the average investor holding the bag.
Given that, the real question is: if Billy Boy had filed as required, how much more would it have cost him to buy the same number of shares. If that value is more than $800k, he made money on the deal. If not, the fine was justified.
I never understood why the military sets height/weight limits and requires 6 weeks of physical training (at basic) in order to wire up a network/program a database.
Is completing 20 pushups in 5 minutes really going to help me troubleshoot a network? Will completing the obsticle course in the given time improve my C++ skills? I don't think so.
If the military were to get off this kick and open up their recruiting requirements for high tech fields, I'd enlist tomorrow.
Remember, in 1991, Iraq had one of the largest and most battle-experienced armies in the middle East. Yet they got spanked by a much smaller force of tecnologically superior Americans.
While it was true that Iraq had arguably the best army in the Middle East at the time they were no match for the forces arrayed against them. The Iraq army with its 100k men was formittable, but, compared to the over 500k man force fielded by the coalition they didn't stand a chance. While technology may have played a part in our victory, overwhelming numbers had a much bigger role.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, Google, Apple... Buying may be cheaper than building, but if push comes to shove they can outspend you for development by orders of magnitude. Just because you had the idea first doesn't mean you will be first to market. Take this into account when you consider selling.
If it is a factual occurrence you are perfectly within your rights to tell us about it, and we would all be better informed by doing so.
And therein lies the big if. Of course it may be completely truthful, but if that were the case why not state all the facts.
The "I got it first ! now you DIE" argument.
Or maybe, after taking care of the supply side by invading Iraq, the US should start taking care of the demand side by invading India and regressing them to the stone age ?
Well we do have all these nukes just lying around taking up space and draining coffers with maintenance.
If we just had some place to dump (or drop) them our military could save billions of dollars every year. Add to that the millions of US jobs that have been shipped to India over the last 15 years would need to be replaced, we could fix our unemployment crisis and nip this depression right in the bud.
Definitely a win-win situation.
This actually brings up perhaps the biggest problem with the project.Where will they find a battery for the bios?
While some bios will boot (to default settings) without a bios battery installed most will simply fail post, hard.
Will a battery, even still in the original packaging, even hold a charge for 50 years? If you look back, battery technology has advanced quite a bit in the last 50 years and there is every indication that this will continue for the next 50 years so getting a hold of the exact battery (or even a similar one) that the bios needs may be impossible.
Or even simpler...
Warning: Using this product may turn you into a fat nerd. And not the good kind like Bill Gates, the kind that still lives in their parents basement at the age of 30.
Around here they charge a $15 non-cable fee ($60 vs $45) so I looked into getting "basic" (local broadcast/CSPAN/PubAcc) cable which is priced at $15/month.
After taxes and franchise fees, basic cable came to $22 a month so I live without.
basic cable may look cheaper but once you get the details it's usually comes out slightly more than the non-cable fee.
Depends on how you see it.
Right now the problem is that way too many of the peons are trying to actually communicate with their Congressional overlords.
A few weeks of getting these messages and they will go away and shut up like they're supposed to.
you get em bob, disenfranchise Texas
How exactly is forcing all candidates to follow the same laws disenfranchisement? Last time I checked, disenfranchisement involved preventing people from voting (usually based on some arbitrary criteria such as race or sex).
Just because the name you wanted to vote for is not on the ballot does not make you disenfranchised. Annoyed perhaps, but not disenfranchised.
Why choose a name like that?
I guess Whistler was taken.
Not true.
I take it you've never played Champions?
25d6 per attack for my brick.
Actually in most situations that is not the case.
The law is not the ISP. In fact, most ISP's will do whatever they can to stay out of a case like this, to a point. While you are correct that the "common carrier" status of ISP's is murky in the eyes of the law they do have pretty broad protections under the DMCA. The DMCA protections pretty much state that as long as you are just passing data, and are registered with the Copyright office, you are protected as long as you don't get involved. The definition of "involved" is up for some debate, but based on the conversations I've had with some law folks anything beyond acting as a router for traffic or applying blocking/firewalling at the edge could be seen by a judge as being involved. Most ISP's are lothe to break that barrier as it opens them up to lawsuits from both sides.
One thing you don't seem to grasp is the relationship between an ISP and a customer. This relationship is only loosely defined by law. While you can sue an ISP if they "sell" you DSL and then provide you with an analog connection or the ISP can sue you if you don't pay your bill these are fraud and contract law, not Internet specific. The actual documents governing your relationship with your ISP are generally the ToS and AUP which pretty much every ISP requires you to agree to in writing when you sign up for service. Most ToS/AUP specifically state that you can't provide an open access point for others to use after all doing so is taking away customers from the ISP.
<i>You, personally, contracted with a service provider to give you an account for transfer of your data for your purposes. It almost certainly says that you are responsible for all use of the account in the terms of service. Nobody has really tried to enforce this, but it would seem to be pretty obvious.</i>
Not true. While most ISPs state that the person in whose name the account is would be responsible for ensuring that the ToSAUP is adhered to, the consequences of non-compliance are usually very limited, in the case of court orders this statement goes out the window obviously. All that most ISP's can do is declare a customer in violation of the ToSAUP and terminate the contract, and thus the service. Doing anything more opens up questions of being "involved" that could cause issues for the ISP.
<i>An ISP that openly encouraged and tolerated illegal activity would get sued out of existance. Regardless of any DMCA safe harbor provisions - which is what ISPs fall back on. They do not and never did have common carrier status. Only wireline telephone companies have that.</i>
Not even close. ISPs are businesses. If ISPs had to monitor all traffic looking for illegal activity or ToSAUP violations they would be out of business. The whole reason the DMCA safe harbor exists is because the big boys like AOL didn't want to start monitoring their customers because they argued and rightly so it would cost them a fortune in resources/personnel just to do the tracking. I suspect that additionally ToSAUP concerns were involved. Most ISPs operate in a Sergant Schultz mode (<i>I see nothing!</i>) concerning network traffic. Once you start monitoring, after all, you start finding things you don't want to see. If ISPs actually "saw" ToSAUP violations they would have to act on them. If they had to act on them, they would lose customers and possibly future business due to bad word of mouth. The phrase "blissful ignorance" comes to mind, because unless your ISP sees you do something they can pretend you arn't and both they and you are happy. Now if you do something to make yourself seen like being the subject of a DMCA warrant, admitting to a ToSAUP violation in court, or passing so much traffic as to cause other customers to complain your ISP will have to act. In other words, if provoked they will cut you off otherwise they will purposefully look the other way for a lot of things.
So in the parent's case. Claiming an open access point and open wireles
Of course you could turn this around if you prefer alternative browsers.
:)
Build a site that works fine in Firefox/Opera/Safari/Etc. and breaks/crashes IE. All you would really need to do for this is design the site using CSS2.
Then when they come to complain hand them a supplemental contract to add IE support.
Might be a bit more work then what the parent proposed, but it's a lot more likely to work.
Just make sure the initial contract doesn't require IE support
I agree, this did smell funny. So I went out and did some research.
It seems that the "scientist" in this story, Tad Patzek (a geologist), has been working for the oil industry quite a bit over the last few years. Odd that he should suddenly be switching his interest to agriculture and begin attacking Ethanol.
Or perhaps it all makes sense if you look at it from the correct prospective.
Neither is Utah. They are Mormon.
Mormonism has about as much in common with christianity as Islam does, or the Branch Davidians for that matter.
No doubt.
After all this would be as impossible as say the Catholic church covering up widespread abuse of children by priests for 20+ years. If such a thing had occured someone, somewhere would have said something long before now. Right???
So tell me,
What color is the sky on your planet?
Yet.
But then again they are still just in the early beta testing stage, wait till they add all the features (sound & video system, cup holders, etc.) Then we shall see what their MTBC is.
The biggest problem I forsee with this ballot under glass scheme (and it's ilk) is what do you do if the ballot is wrong?
Sure you can look at it and see that it says Nader instead of Kerry but unless the system includes some way to correct the mistake we havn't solved the problem.
That is why I'm in favor of separate vote/count machines. If the voter has to physically carry their ballot to a counting machine, they have a chance to verify what it says (and if necessary get it corrected) before the vote is counted.
Did anyone else notice that the newest article in those links was from 2001?
I noticed this too.
While I do agree that horror stories like these did happen when the procedure was relatively new, that does not mean these conditions still apply. Drudging this kind of old evidence up now is like trying to claim that IBM makes bad PC's because their PS/2's were not compatible with industry standards. It just doesn't show any evidence that the same problems are still happening anymore.
If you don't have a CLEC or ISP - then turn to DSS sat.
Actually you may not have to go that far. For redundancy around here we can go to the power company. Our local power company has a networking affiliate with their own completely separate network.
Good luck trying to get the local phone company to admit of such a situation exists in your area though.
I'm not saying that every service plan BB pushes is good. But there are times when their service plans do pay for themselves.
2 cases in point.
I purchased a laptop from BB back in 98. I bought the extended warranty out of concern for the LCD which I had had problems with on a previous laptop. 2 years 11 months 22 days later the hard drive died. I brought it in, they confirmed that it was still under warranty and 5 days later I had my laptop back with a new HD (and 3x more space than the original).
Shortly after that I purchased a pda, again I sprung for the extended warranty. A year later when the screen stopped working, I brought it in. They grabbed another off the shelf and replaced it on the spot.
All in all I would have to say that I have had a good experience with BB extended warranties.
If you just be careful with what you buy them for they can actually be quite useful.
I can see you have been told the politically correct answer to this situation: "Suck it up, do it for the common good."
But if you are a true American, one question has not yet been answered. What's in it for me? How can I get rich off of this? How do I make them pay?
The answer is simple. Sue Em!
Chances are if you are posting this, you reside within the United States. This makes things more difficult, but not impossible, we just have to be more clever. Our first direction we must look toward in this time of opportunity is toward The Courts. Unfortunately this course will not serve us well. Nothing MAPS does is inherently illegal. Even worse, they have developed a significant volume of caselog to show your average judge that they have a right to do what they do and you have no right to complain. So unless you happen to have a friendly state law or lawmaker in you back pocket (not likely for an indie band) the courts will not likely be of use to you.
Luckily here in the grand old USA, the Courts aren't the only places to extract money from people you don't like. Are you or any of the band members from Canada or Mexico? Can your latino drummer fake a mexican accent? If so then you can demand compensation under Section 7 of the NAFTA Treaty, the expatriation clause. While normally this clause only applies to government regulation, there have been complaints brought forth against psudo-governmental entities (such as industry trade groups and sanctioning bodies) which you could argue the MAPS organization is one of. From there, it's up to them to prove the rules don't apply to them or else you get money. Nothing could be simpler.
There you have it, a simple solution to your problem both short term and long term. Assuming that MAPS survives their major outflow of cash, you will now be able to afford professional internet connectivity free from MAPS blocking. If they don't survive, hey your free to send emails anyway and you get a tidy bundle of cash (a double victory).
irrespectfully submitted, with tounge firmly in cheekThe whole purpose for these filings is to keep investors informed so that those who control the company can't cash out and leave the average investor holding the bag.
Given that, the real question is: if Billy Boy had filed as required, how much more would it have cost him to buy the same number of shares. If that value is more than $800k, he made money on the deal. If not, the fine was justified.
Actually you make a good point.
I never understood why the military sets height/weight limits and requires 6 weeks of physical training (at basic) in order to wire up a network/program a database.
Is completing 20 pushups in 5 minutes really going to help me troubleshoot a network? Will completing the obsticle course in the given time improve my C++ skills? I don't think so.
If the military were to get off this kick and open up their recruiting requirements for high tech fields, I'd enlist tomorrow.
While it was true that Iraq had arguably the best army in the Middle East at the time they were no match for the forces arrayed against them. The Iraq army with its 100k men was formittable, but, compared to the over 500k man force fielded by the coalition they didn't stand a chance. While technology may have played a part in our victory, overwhelming numbers had a much bigger role.