If it got as bad as I hypothesized, $200/month internet, I'd have to seriously consider switching back to dialup.
And in areas with true monopolies (in reality, I think the majority of the USA sees one single cable provider and several slow DSL providers) I think there would be enough people put off by that price that it would become economically feasible for a second or third competitor to enter the marketplace, or for those DSL providers to mature a bit and start offering cable-style speeds at more realistic prices.
In the end, I really think most cable companies will resist the temptation to charge per byte so that they can ensure they continue having a monopoly.
No, but your paying for it does. Unless you only use an ISP based in your state to access DNS servers in your state to access websites hosted in your state. And even then, it's not likely (my first jump via tracert goes to Illinois, and I live in Wisconsin).
The government's meddling in business is what has kept this from occurring ten years ago, champ. Note that this is the FCC considering a RULE CHANGE. If the FCC had never been around to create such a rule, we would have already seen this happen.
Having said that, I'm very, very, very cautiously optimistic that this will only have a short-term effect. Streaming HD (in my case, via Netflix) has gone from a "that would be cool" to something I do almost every day within three years, and despite my/. account, I'm not a bleeding edge type. The difference between "normal internet user" and "person who streams a shitload of video" is blurring and is probably going to disappear within the next 18 months. And people just aren't going to pay $200/month for internet unless there's a massive speed increase, and even then, probably not.
It kind of sounds like this judge is sick of seeing this plantiff in court and wants to do whatever he can to trip them up.
But unless there's some precedent out there that negates this, a lay reading of fair use makes it sound like this reprinting of the article is NOT fair use.
If this is true, then why did the judge agree that Righthaven even has standing in this case? What you're saying sounds accurate, but if it were the entire story, then there wouldn't be a lawsuit. There has to be more to it than this. The original article makes it sound like the Review-Journal is backing Righthaven up.
The whole arrangement here sounds...weird. But that's why we have a legal system, I guess.
The fact that it's an affirmative defense is what makes it so weird that the judge raised the issue. This would be like a judge yelling "ENTRAPMENT!!" during a trial.
In this case, it may not have been fair use, which is unfortunate because this Righthaven group sounds like a bunch of assholes. By posting the entire article, the Center for Intercultural Organizing may not have received any additional revenue, but they likely did deprive Righthaven of ad revenue, especially if CIO is ranked higher than Righthaven in search results. I'd try it myself but I can't find anywhere that actually mentions the name of the original article.
If this is running Honeycomb, the version of Android designed for tablets, then we should be okay.
Hey, look, TFS says it's running Honeycomb!
More seriously, I'd imagine the reason they're choosing Android is that more people in the US are familiar with that OS. I've never seen Maemo in my life except for online screenshots, and I've spent more than my share of time puttering around in cell phone stores (I'm from the US).
I know you got modded troll, but you were just trying to be the devil's advocate here. And, full disclosure, I agree that in terms of pure aesthetics, the Nazis knew what the hell they were doing. Seriously, pure black uniforms? Especially when advocating for a pure white culture? Way to throw us for a loop, dudes!
However, good design conjures emotions, memories, feelings, desires. This is why companies will spend years, and millions of dollars, redesigning their logos or Web sites.
Which emotions, memories, feelings, and desires does the Nazi swastika provoke? Anything good? Of course not. At least with Christianity you can point to the generally well-intentioned contemporary churches (no, not all of them..probably not even most).
Stark contrast, clean lines, easily remembered and reproduced - yes, the swastika has an appealing shape from a design perspective. But there was that whole Holocaust thing. So, yes, it's COMPLETELY fine to ban it on a private network.
Yep, and they're making the judgment here that they just don't WANT the people who think swastikas are cool. Good for them.
Yes, I know the basic swastika design has a history of hundreds (probably more than a thousand) of years before the Nazis used it. However, the prongs of the swastika are often pointed the other direction in those cases. Also, ya know what? If you're playing a military video game, it's pretty easy to tell which swastika you're trying to conjure. Especially if we're talking black lines, white circle, inside of a red square. If your avatar is the design of the Samarra bowl, and you have an actual reason for it besides being a contrarian jackass, then fine, make your case.
It kind of is. Can we stop putting things like this under "Your Rights Online"? The person was observed breaking the law in a restaurant, not online, and it sounds like subsequent searches were above the board and revealed some pretty egregious shit. He's also confessed to at least some of the charges.
Does Slashdot have a grouping named "People not yet convicted of breaking the law, but ehhhhhh, it really looks like they did"? Otherwise it looks like we're arguing that people should have a protection against being observed by the Secret Service when there's reasonable suspicion of illegality. This wasn't exactly warrantless wiretapping.
For the record, I also think concerns of radiation while flying are bullshit, too. They've done studies on flight attendants and pilots and while they did find an increase in cancer rates, it was negligible.
There are studies that show practically everything causes, and prevents, cancer, so I don't let anything more innocuous than removing the door on my microwave and attempting to develop a tan with the machine bother me.
It's definitely true that the ticket price alone doesn't tell the whole story. However, I don't think the extra fees work out to $42 a person. Most people don't check luggage when flying domestically, and many of those that do have elite status that let them check bags for free.
There are WAY more elite customers per plane than people realize; my gold status on Delta got me a first-class upgrade maybe 15-20% of the time, on shortish (fewer than three hours) flights that would have had few to no people actually paying for first-class tickets.
The GP says that ticket/fee prices are going up to offset fewer air travelers; while there was a drop in '09, that was more about the recession than anything else, and the number of tickets sold is back up in 2010. I can't find any older data, though I found an article describing 2007 as a "record year" for number of air travelers. It seems that if there was a drop between 2001 and 2007, there was also a recovery.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no apologist, and I think money is at the root of a lot of this (I mostly think that the Obama administration doesn't want to find out if it can afford a baseless "SOFT ON TERR-UH!" attack by implementing reasonable measures), but the money is coming from these security corporations more than anything else. Just look at these firms coming out of the woodwork offering to take over inspection from the TSA, and the new, allegedly "small-government" congressmen coming in to vouch for them.
My coworker left her ID at the hotel about a year ago and was treated with a 45-minute interview with a sheriff's deputy (but yes, they did let her through). Things may have changed between 2007 and 2009.
No, I can't. These scanners produce some pretty boring imagery, and the TSA person who has to watch hundreds of chubby financial consultants waddle through these per shift won't be able to muster up any lust for the one good-looking person who goes through (if they can actually determine that he/she is attractive).
Seriously, airports are not where you go to scope people out, and I say this as someone who spends way too much time in them.
I'm still against these scanners, but mostly because they're being implemented instead of easier and cheaper solutions.
Doesn't that also mean that any cancer that could form as a result are going to be skin cancers, which save for a couple forms are less serious than other tissue or organ cancers (that you could get by zapping x-rays through and through)?
You can find scientists that warn lots of stuff. There are many more scientists that are telling those first scientists to shut up.
Research is ongoing as to which group should actually shut up, of course, but most info points toward the backscatter being less of a risk than the radiation you get during the plane ride.
Slashdot Mirror
And by "a few", I mean "I'm pretty sure I was using a pirated copy of Windows 2000 on my blazing-fast PC".
I thought I had hot plugged in Windows too, but that would have been a few years ago, and I remember it only sometimes working. Does anyone else know?
If it got as bad as I hypothesized, $200/month internet, I'd have to seriously consider switching back to dialup.
And in areas with true monopolies (in reality, I think the majority of the USA sees one single cable provider and several slow DSL providers) I think there would be enough people put off by that price that it would become economically feasible for a second or third competitor to enter the marketplace, or for those DSL providers to mature a bit and start offering cable-style speeds at more realistic prices.
In the end, I really think most cable companies will resist the temptation to charge per byte so that they can ensure they continue having a monopoly.
And actually, even then I fell for a red herring. Your ISP must only provide access to servers based in your state. Goodbye, backbone.
No, but your paying for it does. Unless you only use an ISP based in your state to access DNS servers in your state to access websites hosted in your state. And even then, it's not likely (my first jump via tracert goes to Illinois, and I live in Wisconsin).
The government's meddling in business is what has kept this from occurring ten years ago, champ. Note that this is the FCC considering a RULE CHANGE. If the FCC had never been around to create such a rule, we would have already seen this happen.
Having said that, I'm very, very, very cautiously optimistic that this will only have a short-term effect. Streaming HD (in my case, via Netflix) has gone from a "that would be cool" to something I do almost every day within three years, and despite my /. account, I'm not a bleeding edge type. The difference between "normal internet user" and "person who streams a shitload of video" is blurring and is probably going to disappear within the next 18 months. And people just aren't going to pay $200/month for internet unless there's a massive speed increase, and even then, probably not.
It kind of sounds like this judge is sick of seeing this plantiff in court and wants to do whatever he can to trip them up.
But unless there's some precedent out there that negates this, a lay reading of fair use makes it sound like this reprinting of the article is NOT fair use.
I tried to slog through that. It certainly didn't convince me that I didn't need to seek out something else, so, fair use, I suppose. :)
If this is true, then why did the judge agree that Righthaven even has standing in this case? What you're saying sounds accurate, but if it were the entire story, then there wouldn't be a lawsuit. There has to be more to it than this. The original article makes it sound like the Review-Journal is backing Righthaven up.
The whole arrangement here sounds...weird. But that's why we have a legal system, I guess.
The fact that it's an affirmative defense is what makes it so weird that the judge raised the issue. This would be like a judge yelling "ENTRAPMENT!!" during a trial.
In this case, it may not have been fair use, which is unfortunate because this Righthaven group sounds like a bunch of assholes. By posting the entire article, the Center for Intercultural Organizing may not have received any additional revenue, but they likely did deprive Righthaven of ad revenue, especially if CIO is ranked higher than Righthaven in search results. I'd try it myself but I can't find anywhere that actually mentions the name of the original article.
If this is running Honeycomb, the version of Android designed for tablets, then we should be okay.
Hey, look, TFS says it's running Honeycomb!
More seriously, I'd imagine the reason they're choosing Android is that more people in the US are familiar with that OS. I've never seen Maemo in my life except for online screenshots, and I've spent more than my share of time puttering around in cell phone stores (I'm from the US).
Yeah. The American Civil War has no relevance anymore, either. Also, the French Revolution? Who can remember what the fuss was about?
I know you got modded troll, but you were just trying to be the devil's advocate here. And, full disclosure, I agree that in terms of pure aesthetics, the Nazis knew what the hell they were doing. Seriously, pure black uniforms? Especially when advocating for a pure white culture? Way to throw us for a loop, dudes!
However, good design conjures emotions, memories, feelings, desires. This is why companies will spend years, and millions of dollars, redesigning their logos or Web sites.
Which emotions, memories, feelings, and desires does the Nazi swastika provoke? Anything good? Of course not. At least with Christianity you can point to the generally well-intentioned contemporary churches (no, not all of them..probably not even most).
Stark contrast, clean lines, easily remembered and reproduced - yes, the swastika has an appealing shape from a design perspective. But there was that whole Holocaust thing. So, yes, it's COMPLETELY fine to ban it on a private network.
Yep, and they're making the judgment here that they just don't WANT the people who think swastikas are cool. Good for them.
Yes, I know the basic swastika design has a history of hundreds (probably more than a thousand) of years before the Nazis used it. However, the prongs of the swastika are often pointed the other direction in those cases. Also, ya know what? If you're playing a military video game, it's pretty easy to tell which swastika you're trying to conjure. Especially if we're talking black lines, white circle, inside of a red square. If your avatar is the design of the Samarra bowl, and you have an actual reason for it besides being a contrarian jackass, then fine, make your case.
How can it be redundant if it's a response to a comment to my own post?
It kind of is. Can we stop putting things like this under "Your Rights Online"? The person was observed breaking the law in a restaurant, not online, and it sounds like subsequent searches were above the board and revealed some pretty egregious shit. He's also confessed to at least some of the charges.
Does Slashdot have a grouping named "People not yet convicted of breaking the law, but ehhhhhh, it really looks like they did"? Otherwise it looks like we're arguing that people should have a protection against being observed by the Secret Service when there's reasonable suspicion of illegality. This wasn't exactly warrantless wiretapping.
I have a midterm at 5:40 this evening. Can I hit the stacks afterward, champ?
These machines, while developed by faceless, soulless corporations, were NOT dreamed up in someone's garage one lazy afternoon.
For the record, I also think concerns of radiation while flying are bullshit, too. They've done studies on flight attendants and pilots and while they did find an increase in cancer rates, it was negligible.
There are studies that show practically everything causes, and prevents, cancer, so I don't let anything more innocuous than removing the door on my microwave and attempting to develop a tan with the machine bother me.
Johns Hopkins. I hear they're pretty good.
It's definitely true that the ticket price alone doesn't tell the whole story. However, I don't think the extra fees work out to $42 a person. Most people don't check luggage when flying domestically, and many of those that do have elite status that let them check bags for free.
There are WAY more elite customers per plane than people realize; my gold status on Delta got me a first-class upgrade maybe 15-20% of the time, on shortish (fewer than three hours) flights that would have had few to no people actually paying for first-class tickets.
The GP says that ticket/fee prices are going up to offset fewer air travelers; while there was a drop in '09, that was more about the recession than anything else, and the number of tickets sold is back up in 2010. I can't find any older data, though I found an article describing 2007 as a "record year" for number of air travelers. It seems that if there was a drop between 2001 and 2007, there was also a recovery.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no apologist, and I think money is at the root of a lot of this (I mostly think that the Obama administration doesn't want to find out if it can afford a baseless "SOFT ON TERR-UH!" attack by implementing reasonable measures), but the money is coming from these security corporations more than anything else. Just look at these firms coming out of the woodwork offering to take over inspection from the TSA, and the new, allegedly "small-government" congressmen coming in to vouch for them.
My coworker left her ID at the hotel about a year ago and was treated with a 45-minute interview with a sheriff's deputy (but yes, they did let her through). Things may have changed between 2007 and 2009.
No, I can't. These scanners produce some pretty boring imagery, and the TSA person who has to watch hundreds of chubby financial consultants waddle through these per shift won't be able to muster up any lust for the one good-looking person who goes through (if they can actually determine that he/she is attractive).
Seriously, airports are not where you go to scope people out, and I say this as someone who spends way too much time in them.
I'm still against these scanners, but mostly because they're being implemented instead of easier and cheaper solutions.
Doesn't that also mean that any cancer that could form as a result are going to be skin cancers, which save for a couple forms are less serious than other tissue or organ cancers (that you could get by zapping x-rays through and through)?
This article is from 2007, but it points toward a price drop of around $42 after 9/11 domestically:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19982800/ns/travel-news
To fill in the gap from 2007 to 2010, look no farther than the front page of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics:
http://www.bts.gov/
Choose "Air Fares" under Year to Year Change, and you'll see that prices have been up and down, but about flat in general.
You can find scientists that warn lots of stuff. There are many more scientists that are telling those first scientists to shut up.
Research is ongoing as to which group should actually shut up, of course, but most info points toward the backscatter being less of a risk than the radiation you get during the plane ride.