Unfortately... those channels are actually keeping youy cable rates down.
The shopping channels are paying the cable companies to be there by giving them a cut of the sales in exchange for the cable space. The cable companies could use the help. (Before you think they're making out like bandits, where'd all Adelphia and AT&T Broadband's money go... yep, the content owners.)
Where this all colapses is where the shopping channels get their hands on a broadcast station. Then they cable company has to carry the "local broadcaster" for free, and gets no cut of the money. That's a loophole in the law that needs to be closed.
The problem is, there is a tendancy now to do exactly what we complain about Microsoft doing all the time, stuffing in stuff you don't really want in order to lock out other competitors.
The New York Yankees took their broadcast rights away from the MSG Network in order to put their live games on their own YES Network. YES demands about $1.75 per subscriber per month, and insists it gets placed on the Standard Analog tier. Not only did this result in a nearly-direct passing through of the cost to everybody (even Mets fans and those who don't watch Yankee games) in areas where the cable system added YES, but it also meant that TechTV, a network that lacks connections to the major media empires was selected for deletion on several systems.
The only system that refused to inflict that rate increase on its subscribers is Cablevision, who is now facing the PR headache of Yankee fans deprived of their baseball. Moral: It's easier to force-feed your customers what the content owners want, than to try to play hardball and risk losing the "valuable" content in order to keep out the overpriced content.
The reason why the price of cable TV is rising is because the cost of content is rising. The cable companies are not pocketing the increases (think about Aldelphia and AT&T Broadband's finanacial shape) while the cost of wholesale cable channels is going crazy.
There needs to be copyright reform. Right now, the content owners have too much of an advantage in when striking deals, so the cable companies are forced to pay higher prices and pass them on to the consumers.
The problem is not the distributors, but the content makers in the first place. In order to carry the popular broadcast stations and cable networks, you must bundle in that company's less popular cable networks, some of which are upstart no-names nobody would pay for if they didn't have to.
There has to be a law unbundling networks at the wholesale layer before content distributors can have packages that reflect what you want to get and nothing more and nothing less.
...and Babe Ruth failed to reach base in close to 2/3 of his official at-bats, while repeatedly leading the league in strikeouts. No way he should ever be considered for the Hall of Fame. (Sure... let's neglect all of his walks, and forget the fact that when he did hit, he hit more home runs than the average player did.)
Rarely in congress do they take recorded roll call votes on things that aren't going to pass. Futhermore, the party in control of Congress gets to control the agenda... one Republican committee head can roadblock a bill that all of the democrats plus McCain would have voted for, meaning a vote that would have shown McCain with the democrats doesn't happen, skewing your statistic.
Likewise, the President isn't stupid. He rarely directly asks Congress for something they're not willing to give him. Even if he does something that stupid, it's likely to die in committee, so again McCain doesn't get a chance to record a "nay" in a floor vote.
McCain is known for having the kind of influence that when he says "I'm not going to vote for that", other Republican senators who also disagree with the party see it as okay to break away from the party too. When the bill's sponsors see that their bill now doesn't have a majority behind it, they'll either withdraw the bill, or make the changes McCain and the other objectors are demanding. Neither of these actions show up on your public vote records, just like how drawing an intentional walk does something productive for the team, but does not get reflected in a batting average.
Get MS to license a cross-platform standard you created for that VM, then watch them break the cross-platform feature by releasing a moddifed VM that has Windows-only calls (breaking the concept of a VM) and releasing programming tools that claim to be for your standard, but really is their modification of your standard.
The part you're missing is that MSFT agreed to provide Java in Windows in a contract between it and Sun. They're in court now because Sun says that MSFT's Java VM did not properly follow the standard as the contract said they would, and therefore violated the contract.
What the court decided is that while they hold this trial, it's clear that if MSFT's Java is violating the deal, every day this would be allowed to continue would just make the situation worse. So, for the time being MSFT must distribute a Java VM that nobody disputes is true to the standard, Sun's own VM.
In the end, this could end up being the final solution... but it's not because the government is inflicting Java on MSFT. It's because MSFT agreed to put in a true version of Java and then tried to break the agreement, and the government is now trying to make MSFT take its medicine.
Yeah, that's basically what this is... it's an injunction. They'll hold a real trial to sort this out when they get a chance, but for the time being this will have to do.
Inktomi never marketed itself to consumers. They tried to be a B2B player, offering a search engine to those who couldn't build one while offering only a "Hi, we're Inktomi" site instead of an engine at Inktomi.com.
Therefore, nobody other than geeks are likely to have heard of them in the first place.
Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't Yahoo one of Akamai's biggest clients?
I think we've found a loser...
Re:This might not have the impact we think.
on
Yahoo Buying Inktomi
·
· Score: 2
Verity bought out the "enterprise search" technology... which has little to do with the Internet, it's just a piece of server software.
What's left for Yahoo! to get is Inktomi's Internet products, including the search engine itself, the brand image and domain name that comes with it, and the ad placement structure that Inktomi had arranged.
The search engine doesn't seem of particular value to Yahoo since they already have Google for that, but they do get Inktomi's already running pay-for-search-results program that they can use all of the the Yahoo universe now.
Actually, the new Hotbot doesn't blend Inktomi, Google and the others, it gives you a tab interface so you can quickly retry your search with other engines without having to retype it. Not as useful as what you're suggesting.
Google seems to be extending the "just the search results, ma'am" model futher than just news.
Froogle the first shopping engine I've seen in years that isn't trying to sell you anything. Sponors can pay for the right to show up as a side bar, but the first search result is going to be what Google found as the best match for your request.
Instead of creating communities of its own, Google bought out DejaNews's database and has provided a simple web interface for USENET's newsgroups.
They have a Yahoo like directory, but it's the Open Directory Project sorted by Google pageranks.
Google is slowly growing to be the size of Yahoo, but they're staying true to their orignal vision of simplicity and unintrusive ads, rather than feeling the pressures to do anything to keep the stock price up.
Yes, but you can't blackhole by user now, just full server. A present blackhole also cannot cancel spam that has already left that server.
Besides, what you give there is a list of domains. There is no requirement a spam originate from the domain it claims to be from, or that an SMTP server be associated with any domain at all.
The problem where science meets religion is that there is a tendancy for religion to want to ignore or discredit a valid scientific test when the result of that test is contrary to to what faith had them think prior to the test. For an example that's rather settled now, see what happened when people first started claiming the Earth was round rather than flat.
Yeah, there's a lot of junk science floating out there, and business interests who want to deploy new chemicals and medicines before they have been proven as safe for use with the human population. Those weren't failures of science, those were failures to use and listen to science properly.
Wow... there's a student who got an A+ in FUD 101.
Saying that a new protocol for e-mail is so flawed it'll be compromised by greed before such a protocol is even proposed by anybody.
Don't worry, nobody's gonna take SMTP away from you. It's just that once a new protocol is deployed, only spammers will be remaining on the old protocol. When the siganal to noise ratio gets too low for you, don't worry, we'll still let you change your mind and switch over.
First, "That's not a bug, it's a feature!" SMTP provides no solid confirmation that a delivery is successful, this method would provide a trustworthy (at least as trustworthy as the server) confirmation of delivery or non-delivery.
As for a spammer using the success as a greenlight to continue spamming the account, that'd be a double edge sword. The user could could decide to drop all tokens that point back to that sending account or server, which would give the appearance that the server or account no longer exists. Remember, the server that houses the "payload message" has to provide its true identity in order to work, so blocking a "from address" becomes more effective when server addresses cannot be spoofed. The server also has an incentive to provide a true username so it doesn't get a reputation of having all usernames in its domain being likely spammers.
Because this device emmits at the FCC max, something most APs do not. Yeah, this thing would rock inside a Pringles can, but it's likely even the worst designed can will put the setup over the limit.
The key change I would like to see is a model in which the SMTP server is replaced with one that must hold the "payload" content of the message, and instead send a token message that contains the IP address at which the full message resides, other header data, and a reduced hash of the message contents so that the message cannot be tampered with once its been "sent" without being rejected.
Once an server is identified as having sent spam, the owner of the server can nuke the payload message, therefore making the tokens a pointer to nowhere, so client software ignores the message. Or, if the server owner is not cooperative, a blackhole can be applied to the server, causing client software to discard tokens sent by this server (even for not-yet-read messages that were sent before the alert was issued) so that the message content is never delivered to the user.
Of course, the few users who actually want spam can continue to get it so long as the sender can find bandwidth willing to allow it, and the users decide to ignore any blacklisting. Nobody's first amendment rights are being denied, just every step in the process gets a chance to opt out.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortately... those channels are actually keeping youy cable rates down.
The shopping channels are paying the cable companies to be there by giving them a cut of the sales in exchange for the cable space. The cable companies could use the help. (Before you think they're making out like bandits, where'd all Adelphia and AT&T Broadband's money go... yep, the content owners.)
Where this all colapses is where the shopping channels get their hands on a broadcast station. Then they cable company has to carry the "local broadcaster" for free, and gets no cut of the money. That's a loophole in the law that needs to be closed.
The problem is, there is a tendancy now to do exactly what we complain about Microsoft doing all the time, stuffing in stuff you don't really want in order to lock out other competitors. The New York Yankees took their broadcast rights away from the MSG Network in order to put their live games on their own YES Network. YES demands about $1.75 per subscriber per month, and insists it gets placed on the Standard Analog tier. Not only did this result in a nearly-direct passing through of the cost to everybody (even Mets fans and those who don't watch Yankee games) in areas where the cable system added YES, but it also meant that TechTV, a network that lacks connections to the major media empires was selected for deletion on several systems. The only system that refused to inflict that rate increase on its subscribers is Cablevision, who is now facing the PR headache of Yankee fans deprived of their baseball. Moral: It's easier to force-feed your customers what the content owners want, than to try to play hardball and risk losing the "valuable" content in order to keep out the overpriced content. The reason why the price of cable TV is rising is because the cost of content is rising. The cable companies are not pocketing the increases (think about Aldelphia and AT&T Broadband's finanacial shape) while the cost of wholesale cable channels is going crazy. There needs to be copyright reform. Right now, the content owners have too much of an advantage in when striking deals, so the cable companies are forced to pay higher prices and pass them on to the consumers.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
The problem is not the distributors, but the content makers in the first place. In order to carry the popular broadcast stations and cable networks, you must bundle in that company's less popular cable networks, some of which are upstart no-names nobody would pay for if they didn't have to.
There has to be a law unbundling networks at the wholesale layer before content distributors can have packages that reflect what you want to get and nothing more and nothing less.
Maybe that's why they put this one back in the queue for 5:59pm ET.
Apparently posting on /. isn't on anybody's list of activities... this post seems to be falling on deaf ears.
Besides, who on the east coast can go anywhere with all of this snow?
...and Babe Ruth failed to reach base in close to 2/3 of his official at-bats, while repeatedly leading the league in strikeouts. No way he should ever be considered for the Hall of Fame.
(Sure... let's neglect all of his walks, and forget the fact that when he did hit, he hit more home runs than the average player did.)
Rarely in congress do they take recorded roll call votes on things that aren't going to pass. Futhermore, the party in control of Congress gets to control the agenda... one Republican committee head can roadblock a bill that all of the democrats plus McCain would have voted for, meaning a vote that would have shown McCain with the democrats doesn't happen, skewing your statistic.
Likewise, the President isn't stupid. He rarely directly asks Congress for something they're not willing to give him. Even if he does something that stupid, it's likely to die in committee, so again McCain doesn't get a chance to record a "nay" in a floor vote.
McCain is known for having the kind of influence that when he says "I'm not going to vote for that", other Republican senators who also disagree with the party see it as okay to break away from the party too. When the bill's sponsors see that their bill now doesn't have a majority behind it, they'll either withdraw the bill, or make the changes McCain and the other objectors are demanding. Neither of these actions show up on your public vote records, just like how drawing an intentional walk does something productive for the team, but does not get reflected in a batting average.
Funny, I thought he, like all senators, are filled with hot air instead?
Get MS to license a cross-platform standard you created for that VM, then watch them break the cross-platform feature by releasing a moddifed VM that has Windows-only calls (breaking the concept of a VM) and releasing programming tools that claim to be for your standard, but really is their modification of your standard.
At that point, you can force MS to carry your VM.
The part you're missing is that MSFT agreed to provide Java in Windows in a contract between it and Sun. They're in court now because Sun says that MSFT's Java VM did not properly follow the standard as the contract said they would, and therefore violated the contract.
What the court decided is that while they hold this trial, it's clear that if MSFT's Java is violating the deal, every day this would be allowed to continue would just make the situation worse. So, for the time being MSFT must distribute a Java VM that nobody disputes is true to the standard, Sun's own VM.
In the end, this could end up being the final solution... but it's not because the government is inflicting Java on MSFT. It's because MSFT agreed to put in a true version of Java and then tried to break the agreement, and the government is now trying to make MSFT take its medicine.
Arbitrary conclusions fueled by non-facts
Yeah, that's basically what this is... it's an injunction. They'll hold a real trial to sort this out when they get a chance, but for the time being this will have to do.
Verity got the enterprise product, the web-wide products still remain and that's what Yahoo bought.
Inktomi never marketed itself to consumers. They tried to be a B2B player, offering a search engine to those who couldn't build one while offering only a "Hi, we're Inktomi" site instead of an engine at Inktomi.com.
Therefore, nobody other than geeks are likely to have heard of them in the first place.
Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't Yahoo one of Akamai's biggest clients?
I think we've found a loser...
Verity bought out the "enterprise search" technology... which has little to do with the Internet, it's just a piece of server software.
What's left for Yahoo! to get is Inktomi's Internet products, including the search engine itself, the brand image and domain name that comes with it, and the ad placement structure that Inktomi had arranged.
The search engine doesn't seem of particular value to Yahoo since they already have Google for that, but they do get Inktomi's already running pay-for-search-results program that they can use all of the the Yahoo universe now.
Actually, the new Hotbot doesn't blend Inktomi, Google and the others, it gives you a tab interface so you can quickly retry your search with other engines without having to retype it. Not as useful as what you're suggesting.
Parent note is disinformative.
What was sold was the enterprise search software tool, not the general search engine database.
That is basically to say Yahoo isn't buying Inktomi for it's service, but for the technologies behind it.
It may be possible Yahoo may just shut down the Inktomi Search Engine in a few years as contracts run out...
Google seems to be extending the "just the search results, ma'am" model futher than just news.
Froogle the first shopping engine I've seen in years that isn't trying to sell you anything. Sponors can pay for the right to show up as a side bar, but the first search result is going to be what Google found as the best match for your request.
Instead of creating communities of its own, Google bought out DejaNews's database and has provided a simple web interface for USENET's newsgroups.
They have a Yahoo like directory, but it's the Open Directory Project sorted by Google pageranks.
Google is slowly growing to be the size of Yahoo, but they're staying true to their orignal vision of simplicity and unintrusive ads, rather than feeling the pressures to do anything to keep the stock price up.
Yes, but you can't blackhole by user now, just full server. A present blackhole also cannot cancel spam that has already left that server.
Besides, what you give there is a list of domains. There is no requirement a spam originate from the domain it claims to be from, or that an SMTP server be associated with any domain at all.
The problem where science meets religion is that there is a tendancy for religion to want to ignore or discredit a valid scientific test when the result of that test is contrary to to what faith had them think prior to the test. For an example that's rather settled now, see what happened when people first started claiming the Earth was round rather than flat.
Yeah, there's a lot of junk science floating out there, and business interests who want to deploy new chemicals and medicines before they have been proven as safe for use with the human population. Those weren't failures of science, those were failures to use and listen to science properly.
If a product is selling, that means you'll see it on e-mail more than a couple of times.
Hey, wait a second... that version makes sense, could it be the original that is the one that is backwards?
Wow... there's a student who got an A+ in FUD 101.
Saying that a new protocol for e-mail is so flawed it'll be compromised by greed before such a protocol is even proposed by anybody.
Don't worry, nobody's gonna take SMTP away from you. It's just that once a new protocol is deployed, only spammers will be remaining on the old protocol. When the siganal to noise ratio gets too low for you, don't worry, we'll still let you change your mind and switch over.
First, "That's not a bug, it's a feature!" SMTP provides no solid confirmation that a delivery is successful, this method would provide a trustworthy (at least as trustworthy as the server) confirmation of delivery or non-delivery.
As for a spammer using the success as a greenlight to continue spamming the account, that'd be a double edge sword. The user could could decide to drop all tokens that point back to that sending account or server, which would give the appearance that the server or account no longer exists. Remember, the server that houses the "payload message" has to provide its true identity in order to work, so blocking a "from address" becomes more effective when server addresses cannot be spoofed. The server also has an incentive to provide a true username so it doesn't get a reputation of having all usernames in its domain being likely spammers.
Because this device emmits at the FCC max, something most APs do not. Yeah, this thing would rock inside a Pringles can, but it's likely even the worst designed can will put the setup over the limit.
The key change I would like to see is a model in which the SMTP server is replaced with one that must hold the "payload" content of the message, and instead send a token message that contains the IP address at which the full message resides, other header data, and a reduced hash of the message contents so that the message cannot be tampered with once its been "sent" without being rejected.
Once an server is identified as having sent spam, the owner of the server can nuke the payload message, therefore making the tokens a pointer to nowhere, so client software ignores the message. Or, if the server owner is not cooperative, a blackhole can be applied to the server, causing client software to discard tokens sent by this server (even for not-yet-read messages that were sent before the alert was issued) so that the message content is never delivered to the user.
Of course, the few users who actually want spam can continue to get it so long as the sender can find bandwidth willing to allow it, and the users decide to ignore any blacklisting. Nobody's first amendment rights are being denied, just every step in the process gets a chance to opt out.