Their current stock price is justified by the acceleration in revenue growth. Once (if) it slows down to a linear rate, their valuation will come back down as well. The common wisdom is that whatever you pay for it now, the up-side exposure is worth the risk.
Then there's always the sentimental buyer. I bought 5 shares (@221, yeah!) because I've wanted a piece of them since I started using the page back in what? '97? '98?, and saw how relevant the results were; "I'm feeling lucky," ruled. My first thought was "holy shit, this is the way it is SUPPOSED to be," followed by, "these guys are going to change the world." And they did. And still are. I can only dream about working at a place as professionally and personally rewarding as Google. I'll settle for owning a little piece of the magic.
imagine some ordinary object in your life... that you buy and then later find out, there are restrictions on what you can do with it... set by the manufacturer... who sold you the product and then has the gall to tell you what you can do with what you own.
I don't have to imagine it. I bought a new CD at Best Buy from a girl I heard on NPR. This is the first time I'd heard music worth purchasing in 12-18 months and was actually excited to hear the rest of her material. And yet, I unwrap the CD , put it in the player as soon as I get in the car and guess what happens. Their DRM bullshit prevented a legitimate user from being able to enjoy their "CD" in a damned CD player. Since I couldn't be guaranteed that my players at the house would be able to read it or that my PC could so I could rip and re-burn it, I decided to take it back. Know what happened then? I was told that I wasn't allowed to return a product that didn't work. I wound up getting my money back, but the stupid bitch behind the counter acted like she was doing me a favor by taking it back when it wouldn't f'ing play.
So there is the perfect example of why DRM in any form is absofuckinglutely retarded. You don't stop the pirates. You alienate your legitimate consumers. And you quite possibly give the consumers reason for a class action law suit.
That's one of the big reasons I started using google. And that's one of the big reasons that I keep using them.
Google's clean UI is what got me there. I remember being utterly shocked at how clean it was. Google's results are what kept me coming back. The shock of their clean UI was nothing compared to the shock of actually relevant search results. And that damned "I'm feeling lucky" button was downright wicked. Any company with the balls to publicly say, "we're the best; if you click this you'll get exactly what you want," and has the ability to back it up deserves my business. Do you remember the beginning of google? Before it was a verb? I remember actually being giddy over being able to find whatever I was looking for on the web. It's still absolutely amazing, although taken for granted.
For your google search, use: movie: ZIPCode and it comes up with show times in your area. Pretty nifty and hella quicker than navigating through the garbage on yahoo's movie site.
I know there's a lot of google love here at/., but I think they deserve it. They either come up with something first or they come to the party late but do it better than anyone else.
... And through consistent education programs, they can continually remind users of the value of copyrighted works...
Is it just me, or is the death cry of a middleman always a "reminder" of how important they are to the process of uniting sellers (creators) and buyers (us)? It strikes me as interesting that one must be reminded of the value of something through "education programs," when, if those products had actual value, the buyer would know it inherently.
You know what pisses me off? That I *do* find value in music and enjoy it very much and yet I can't get a non-protected err, non-"enhanced", CD from a particular artist that will play in my damned car's CD player ('99 honda accord, stock system so it is definitely not unique). Here I am, willing to part with $15 for a physical disc with liner notes, cover art, lyrics, and some minor biographical info and I'm not able to find one that I can actually use in the one place I want to use it. I don't have anything against iTunes, but if I buy an album, I want the physical object for my library. It seems like the musicians' fans ARE the market and the RIAA has missed the boat by focusing on illegal activity instead of what the market actually is. Which goes to my point. What happens when an entire industry has lost sight of the market? They try to remind the public of their supposed value and then someone or something arises to serve the real needs of the new market to the detriment of the previous (most likely) monopoly.
If this man doesn't mess up his rise to fame, I see U.S. Atty General in his future. And quite possibly a run at the head job itself.
And even though I'm a card carrying libertarian, I would vote for that democrat any day of the week over anyone else. He has single handedly (well, his office really) done more for corporate governance and securities fraud than 50 state legislatures and the US Congress, while effectively telling anyone in his way to fuck off. Now the insurance industry (AIG) is in his warpath as well as predatory lenders. It's about damned time we see the power of the courts used by someone doing The Right Thing (tm).
Software is the only designed/engineered product that doesn't have accompanying documentation such as a schematic, blueprints, etc.
Comments would be suruflous if there were a design document that accompanied the final product. By looking at the code one would be able to determine where they are, similar to standing in a house and knowing where in the blueprint you are based on your surroundings. Comments are not sufficient because they can't communicate the context of your position within the code; rather, you must read the comments to see what the code is doing, but you must examine the entire routine(s) to determine the methodology used to solve the particular problem(s). Until software has a blueprint-like document that goes with the code and the delivered binary/executable, comments will be necessary but woefully inadequate.
You draw the line between private and public communications infrastructure. If any service is marketed as a replacement to a traditional wireline service, and in fact connects to the traditional wireline (PSTN) network, then that service should be held to the same public safety regulations as the current infrastructure. None of the services you mention fall into that category.
I fully support evolutions in technology and communications protocols, but it would be a mistake to embrace change for change's sake and not place similar burdens on the next generation communications infrastructure in terms of public safety and reliability. We've got a very ancient, techologically speaking, public infrastructure. However, it has a very high degree of operability and reliability. It should only be replaced by something that meets or exceeds all of its capabilities, particularly capabilities involving public safety.
Just as sure as VoIP will replace the PSTN (and already has in long-haul transport), there are technical solutions available to provide consistent, reliable emergency services. It's just a bit behind due to lack of foresight on the FCC and Congress's parts. But it will happen.
I think we're looking at this from two different sides but basically in agreement. Neither I nor the government believe you HAVE to use 911. However, as a matter of public safety, the general public should have the service available when utilizing the public communications infrastructure. Your particular line has the capability because of the centralized nature of POTS provisioning. If one line has it, every line has it. Mandating the ability for all people to have it makes it necessary for any individual to have it. Although they are obviously not forced to use it, it must be an option according to the FCC.
My argument is that if it is deemed a public good by the powers that be, the FCC, US Congress, etc, then since a VoIP provider is providing a similar and substitute public communications service, they should further be required to provide the same emergency services access that the general public has come to expect as a part of their communications service whether they individually waive that need or not.
I find it surprising that you're paying a 911-fee. These are typically only levied by traditional carriers, not VoIP providers. In fact, it is one of the many fees/taxes that VoIP carriers can avoid, passing the savings on to the consumer. I would be interested if this is specific to Vonage or if other VoIP providers also charge it.
You may not personally need or want 911 service, but it is a universal service offered to all public telecommunications service customers. It is rather inherent to the PSTN, actually. If you don't want it, don't use it. But how can you suggest that the public (using Vonage) in general should not have it based on your personal usage preference when the FCC has mandated 911 access from every other public communications infrastructure?
Irregardless of these issues, shouldn't 911 emergency access be mandated in your case since you are actually paying the fee/tax for that purpose? If 911 is inaccessible for you, I would argue that you're being defrauded by being charged for it when it doesn't work.
Something you should also know is that the police and fire department phone numbers are not the same as 911. PSAPs are specifically set up to handle high volumes of calls in addition to dispatching emergency services to your location. To the best of my knowledge, most police/fire department publicly listed telephone numbers are not. If anything you should find the PSAP number for your county/local calling area and use that for emergencies in lieu of the regular (non-emergency) police/fire/ambulance numbers.
911 is not a cornerstone of civilization as you suggest. It is, however, a cornerstone of modern public safety. As are police, fire, ambulance, poison control, HazMat, publicly accessible hospitals, pharmaceuticals, the CDC, a rock-solid public communications infrastructure and a hundred other examples. Sure, none of these things existed a hundred years ago as they do today. But they are incredibly important in today's public safety policies.
Payphones are wireline phones and covered by similar regulation.
Where I've lived over the last 3 years (Tulsa, OK and KC, MO), wireless is marketed as a direct wireline replacement by at least two carriers. Industry statistics also indicate somewhere around 10% of wireless users have wireless as their only phone line. This would seem to point to the use of wireless as a direct replacement to wireline service.
Regardless, your reply just grants my argument more strength. Your reply indicates that even non-POTS wireline telecommunications services are required to offer emergency (911) service, in effect saying that 911 access is so important that it transcends the medium and must be accessible by any format. VoIP is just another format and will eventually be required to offer similar access. As it should have been to even begin offering service in the first place.
You should, and do, have the ability to choose VoIP instead of traditional wireline service.
However, you shouldn't be able to opt-out of 911 service or fees for the very reason this law suit was brought. Similar to a tax, a 911 levy is leveraged across the population for the benefit of a few, in this case for people in need of emergency assistance. Though there are people such as yourself that would just as soon make a go of it on their own, it has been deemed a public good to have emergency access via a common number (911) with location and call return information available based on originating number (enhanced 911).
I respectfully submit to you that if you were having a heart attack, your life indeed would depend on your ability to pick up a phone and reach emergency medical help. In these cases, reaching the correct personnel is a matter of life or death, which is why any telecommunications provider offering a wireline replacement should be required to establish and demonstrate 911 interoperability similar to any other telecom provider such as a CLEC, ILEC, RBOC, or wireless company. This 911 functionality should NOT be waved for any telecom provider so long as it is still deemed a public good, unless you allow these other carriers to also establish a non-911 class of service so they can compete with at least a similar cost structure.
If Vonage is seeking to market their service as a wireline replacement, which they are doing with their current marketing, then they absolutely must be held to the same standard as an ILEC, CLEC, RBOC, or wireless company.
You don't have a choice about paying for 911 on your landline or wireless because it is a public safety issue mandated by the FCC and, by extension, the US Congress. If Vonage wants to get into the market providing telecommunications services, then emergency service is part of that. The FCC is in the midst of making these rules for VoIP providers right now.
"To the best of their ability," is not sufficient when providing a public telecommunications service meant to replace a wireline equivalent. Many regulated RBOCs have been successfully sued for providing 911 services to the best of their ability when that wasn't good enough and people died. Vonage will be successfully sued as well. It's how telecom works.
matth stated:
VoIP is *not* a wireline replacement.
You saying such does not make it so. The service is clearly being marketed as a wireline replacement. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have to address 911 dialing at all, they would just tell their customers to use their current land line for 911 emergencies.
Vonage, welcome to the big kids' play ground. Providing a telecommunications service is a serious business. We take our service seriously and providing anything less than continuous dialtone and emergency access service is subpar.
Everyone likes to rail against the local phone companies, but there are a few things they do quite well. The first is continuity of service, i.e. the vaunted 99.999% uptime figure. The second is emergency services. Through 100 years of history they've learned through experience, regulation, and law suits what works best to meet the needs of the public.
CLECs like to complain about the hoops they have to jump through, particularly for 911, in order to meet the local utility board's requirements for becoming a competing telecom carrier. Well now people know why. Providing a reliable public service is difficult and expensive.
If Vonage wants to provide public service and offer a substitute to a typical wireline service, they need to be held accountable and made to go through all the same rigor that a CLEC does in order to connect to the PSTN (public switched telephone network). Methods exist in every part of the country to allow for CLECs to come in and offer service. These methods include 911 interoperability. Vonage hasn't done so because it isn't required of them yet, it costs money, it takes time, and it has to be done in every local calling area in which they want to offer service. This would require them to think like a phone company and only offer service in areas where the number of clients meets the break-even point for the cost of implementing the service in that area. And that alone would blow the "internet phone company" business model.
Personally, I'm glad that people are waking up to the realization that there is no valid wireline replacement (in terms of VoIP, not wireless) and that there are certain fixed costs and processes that have to be met in order to provide a public telecom service.
Bell companies connect emergency calls to the 911 PSAPs (public service answering points). CLECs do. ILECs do. Wireless companies do. VoIP providers should be required to do so too if they are going to offer a public telecom service as a wireline replacement.
Sounds like Kazaa's lawyers might be telling them to prepare for the worst...
Isn't that what we hire lawyers for? To help protect us? That's like getting mad at tax accountants for finding a way to save someone some bucks come tax season. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.
This has got to be a hoax, and a bad one at that. From their first press release:
Pat-rights guaranteed their investors the ROI will be at least 100% in 2 years, and it is expected the actual ROI may exceed 300%. "We want to invest more", said , one of the angels. "" .
I'd like to see a guarantee of any investment ROI. There is no such thing.
Since when did ?? become a valid source?
Since when did "one of the angels" become aceptable when talking about venture capitalists? One of the things those VCs love is seeing their names in lights. Or press releases.
Really? They had ??????,??????? to say? That is SOOO informational.
Should my bank analyse every transaction made on my account...
...Credit card companies do all the time....
Credit card companies do this, because they're on the hook for any fraud over 50 bucks. Banks don't, because they're not and its cheaper for them to not take any responsibility.
It's not like this would even be all that expensive for them -- it's all automated, and the software that credit card companies are already using could be easily repurposed for bank accounts.
Please reduce the parent post's rank. The author is an idiot.
Credit card companies are NOT on the hook for fraud. They use charge backs and the MERCHANT is the one on the hook for any fraud.
Banks ARE on the hook for any fraud over $50. This is because they don't have the same types of charge reversal capabilities that credit card companies do since they don't require merchant accounts before transactions take place.
It obviously WOULD be incredibly expensive for banks to get into the fraud prevention business. Do you have any idea of the work/money required for enterprise software development? If it wasn't "all that expensive" it would be in place already.
Does patent law require defense of IP?
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A spokesperson for one company whose CEO met with Ballmer says the implication of their conversation was that Microsoft is considering suing outfits that use the software and claiming that it infringes Microsoft patents.
Microsoft acknowledges discussing legal risks with customers but denies trying to intimidate them. It won't say whether it believes Linux infringes on its patents.
IINAL!
I can't remember if this is from patent, copyright or trademark law, but isn't there a legal requirement somewhere to defend your IP as soon as you know of an infringing case? And if it can be demonstrated that you knew about it and chose to not defend your IP against infringement then you lose the right to sue in the future based on that same IP?
Slashdot Mirror
Their current stock price is justified by the acceleration in revenue growth. Once (if) it slows down to a linear rate, their valuation will come back down as well. The common wisdom is that whatever you pay for it now, the up-side exposure is worth the risk.
Then there's always the sentimental buyer. I bought 5 shares (@221, yeah!) because I've wanted a piece of them since I started using the page back in what? '97? '98?, and saw how relevant the results were; "I'm feeling lucky," ruled. My first thought was "holy shit, this is the way it is SUPPOSED to be," followed by, "these guys are going to change the world." And they did. And still are. I can only dream about working at a place as professionally and personally rewarding as Google. I'll settle for owning a little piece of the magic.
So there is the perfect example of why DRM in any form is absofuckinglutely retarded. You don't stop the pirates. You alienate your legitimate consumers. And you quite possibly give the consumers reason for a class action law suit.
For your google search, use: movie: ZIPCode and it comes up with show times in your area. Pretty nifty and hella quicker than navigating through the garbage on yahoo's movie site.
/., but I think they deserve it. They either come up with something first or they come to the party late but do it better than anyone else.
I know there's a lot of google love here at
You know what pisses me off? That I *do* find value in music and enjoy it very much and yet I can't get a non-protected err, non-"enhanced", CD from a particular artist that will play in my damned car's CD player ('99 honda accord, stock system so it is definitely not unique). Here I am, willing to part with $15 for a physical disc with liner notes, cover art, lyrics, and some minor biographical info and I'm not able to find one that I can actually use in the one place I want to use it. I don't have anything against iTunes, but if I buy an album, I want the physical object for my library. It seems like the musicians' fans ARE the market and the RIAA has missed the boat by focusing on illegal activity instead of what the market actually is. Which goes to my point. What happens when an entire industry has lost sight of the market? They try to remind the public of their supposed value and then someone or something arises to serve the real needs of the new market to the detriment of the previous (most likely) monopoly.
R.I.P. Recording Industry Ass. of America
If this man doesn't mess up his rise to fame, I see U.S. Atty General in his future. And quite possibly a run at the head job itself.
And even though I'm a card carrying libertarian, I would vote for that democrat any day of the week over anyone else. He has single handedly (well, his office really) done more for corporate governance and securities fraud than 50 state legislatures and the US Congress, while effectively telling anyone in his way to fuck off. Now the insurance industry (AIG) is in his warpath as well as predatory lenders. It's about damned time we see the power of the courts used by someone doing The Right Thing (tm).
Damn typos.
suruflous==superfluous
Software is the only designed/engineered product that doesn't have accompanying documentation such as a schematic, blueprints, etc.
Comments would be suruflous if there were a design document that accompanied the final product. By looking at the code one would be able to determine where they are, similar to standing in a house and knowing where in the blueprint you are based on your surroundings. Comments are not sufficient because they can't communicate the context of your position within the code; rather, you must read the comments to see what the code is doing, but you must examine the entire routine(s) to determine the methodology used to solve the particular problem(s). Until software has a blueprint-like document that goes with the code and the delivered binary/executable, comments will be necessary but woefully inadequate.
I wouldn't excatly call it love.
Hello, kettle. This is pot. You're black.
I fully support evolutions in technology and communications protocols, but it would be a mistake to embrace change for change's sake and not place similar burdens on the next generation communications infrastructure in terms of public safety and reliability. We've got a very ancient, techologically speaking, public infrastructure. However, it has a very high degree of operability and reliability. It should only be replaced by something that meets or exceeds all of its capabilities, particularly capabilities involving public safety.
Just as sure as VoIP will replace the PSTN (and already has in long-haul transport), there are technical solutions available to provide consistent, reliable emergency services. It's just a bit behind due to lack of foresight on the FCC and Congress's parts. But it will happen.
I think we're looking at this from two different sides but basically in agreement. Neither I nor the government believe you HAVE to use 911. However, as a matter of public safety, the general public should have the service available when utilizing the public communications infrastructure. Your particular line has the capability because of the centralized nature of POTS provisioning. If one line has it, every line has it. Mandating the ability for all people to have it makes it necessary for any individual to have it. Although they are obviously not forced to use it, it must be an option according to the FCC.
My argument is that if it is deemed a public good by the powers that be, the FCC, US Congress, etc, then since a VoIP provider is providing a similar and substitute public communications service, they should further be required to provide the same emergency services access that the general public has come to expect as a part of their communications service whether they individually waive that need or not.
I find it surprising that you're paying a 911-fee. These are typically only levied by traditional carriers, not VoIP providers. In fact, it is one of the many fees/taxes that VoIP carriers can avoid, passing the savings on to the consumer. I would be interested if this is specific to Vonage or if other VoIP providers also charge it.
You may not personally need or want 911 service, but it is a universal service offered to all public telecommunications service customers. It is rather inherent to the PSTN, actually. If you don't want it, don't use it. But how can you suggest that the public (using Vonage) in general should not have it based on your personal usage preference when the FCC has mandated 911 access from every other public communications infrastructure?
Irregardless of these issues, shouldn't 911 emergency access be mandated in your case since you are actually paying the fee/tax for that purpose? If 911 is inaccessible for you, I would argue that you're being defrauded by being charged for it when it doesn't work.
Something you should also know is that the police and fire department phone numbers are not the same as 911. PSAPs are specifically set up to handle high volumes of calls in addition to dispatching emergency services to your location. To the best of my knowledge, most police/fire department publicly listed telephone numbers are not. If anything you should find the PSAP number for your county/local calling area and use that for emergencies in lieu of the regular (non-emergency) police/fire/ambulance numbers.
911 is not a cornerstone of civilization as you suggest. It is, however, a cornerstone of modern public safety. As are police, fire, ambulance, poison control, HazMat, publicly accessible hospitals, pharmaceuticals, the CDC, a rock-solid public communications infrastructure and a hundred other examples. Sure, none of these things existed a hundred years ago as they do today. But they are incredibly important in today's public safety policies.
Payphones are wireline phones and covered by similar regulation.
Where I've lived over the last 3 years (Tulsa, OK and KC, MO), wireless is marketed as a direct wireline replacement by at least two carriers. Industry statistics also indicate somewhere around 10% of wireless users have wireless as their only phone line. This would seem to point to the use of wireless as a direct replacement to wireline service.
Regardless, your reply just grants my argument more strength. Your reply indicates that even non-POTS wireline telecommunications services are required to offer emergency (911) service, in effect saying that 911 access is so important that it transcends the medium and must be accessible by any format. VoIP is just another format and will eventually be required to offer similar access. As it should have been to even begin offering service in the first place.
You should, and do, have the ability to choose VoIP instead of traditional wireline service.
However, you shouldn't be able to opt-out of 911 service or fees for the very reason this law suit was brought. Similar to a tax, a 911 levy is leveraged across the population for the benefit of a few, in this case for people in need of emergency assistance. Though there are people such as yourself that would just as soon make a go of it on their own, it has been deemed a public good to have emergency access via a common number (911) with location and call return information available based on originating number (enhanced 911).
I respectfully submit to you that if you were having a heart attack, your life indeed would depend on your ability to pick up a phone and reach emergency medical help. In these cases, reaching the correct personnel is a matter of life or death, which is why any telecommunications provider offering a wireline replacement should be required to establish and demonstrate 911 interoperability similar to any other telecom provider such as a CLEC, ILEC, RBOC, or wireless company. This 911 functionality should NOT be waved for any telecom provider so long as it is still deemed a public good, unless you allow these other carriers to also establish a non-911 class of service so they can compete with at least a similar cost structure.
A PSAP is a public safety (not service) answering point. Sorry for the mistake.
If Vonage is seeking to market their service as a wireline replacement, which they are doing with their current marketing, then they absolutely must be held to the same standard as an ILEC, CLEC, RBOC, or wireless company.
You don't have a choice about paying for 911 on your landline or wireless because it is a public safety issue mandated by the FCC and, by extension, the US Congress. If Vonage wants to get into the market providing telecommunications services, then emergency service is part of that. The FCC is in the midst of making these rules for VoIP providers right now.
"To the best of their ability," is not sufficient when providing a public telecommunications service meant to replace a wireline equivalent. Many regulated RBOCs have been successfully sued for providing 911 services to the best of their ability when that wasn't good enough and people died. Vonage will be successfully sued as well. It's how telecom works.
You saying such does not make it so. The service is clearly being marketed as a wireline replacement. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have to address 911 dialing at all, they would just tell their customers to use their current land line for 911 emergencies.
...is because people's lives depend on it.
Vonage, welcome to the big kids' play ground. Providing a telecommunications service is a serious business. We take our service seriously and providing anything less than continuous dialtone and emergency access service is subpar.
Everyone likes to rail against the local phone companies, but there are a few things they do quite well. The first is continuity of service, i.e. the vaunted 99.999% uptime figure. The second is emergency services. Through 100 years of history they've learned through experience, regulation, and law suits what works best to meet the needs of the public.
CLECs like to complain about the hoops they have to jump through, particularly for 911, in order to meet the local utility board's requirements for becoming a competing telecom carrier. Well now people know why. Providing a reliable public service is difficult and expensive.
If Vonage wants to provide public service and offer a substitute to a typical wireline service, they need to be held accountable and made to go through all the same rigor that a CLEC does in order to connect to the PSTN (public switched telephone network). Methods exist in every part of the country to allow for CLECs to come in and offer service. These methods include 911 interoperability. Vonage hasn't done so because it isn't required of them yet, it costs money, it takes time, and it has to be done in every local calling area in which they want to offer service. This would require them to think like a phone company and only offer service in areas where the number of clients meets the break-even point for the cost of implementing the service in that area. And that alone would blow the "internet phone company" business model.
Personally, I'm glad that people are waking up to the realization that there is no valid wireline replacement (in terms of VoIP, not wireless) and that there are certain fixed costs and processes that have to be met in order to provide a public telecom service.
Bell companies connect emergency calls to the 911 PSAPs (public service answering points). CLECs do. ILECs do. Wireless companies do. VoIP providers should be required to do so too if they are going to offer a public telecom service as a wireline replacement.
Credit card companies are NOT on the hook for fraud. They use charge backs and the MERCHANT is the one on the hook for any fraud.
Banks ARE on the hook for any fraud over $50. This is because they don't have the same types of charge reversal capabilities that credit card companies do since they don't require merchant accounts before transactions take place.
It obviously WOULD be incredibly expensive for banks to get into the fraud prevention business. Do you have any idea of the work/money required for enterprise software development? If it wasn't "all that expensive" it would be in place already.
I can't remember if this is from patent, copyright or trademark law, but isn't there a legal requirement somewhere to defend your IP as soon as you know of an infringing case? And if it can be demonstrated that you knew about it and chose to not defend your IP against infringement then you lose the right to sue in the future based on that same IP?