with allowing a company to profit from the infrastructure they have built without being forced to allow other companies to profit from it!
They are profiting from it as they are charging the DSL users for the line. If anything, it should be *saving* the telcos money because they don't need to staff as many CSRs to give tech support.
"If only we were allowed to keep their lines all to ourselves," they say, "we would hurry to get fiber laid to every house in the land and offer faster and wider range of services."
It's not exactly as if DSL has been a "competitor" by any means in any area I have lived in. Its distance requirements, slow speeds, and typical poor telco customer service has always lagged behind services offered by Cable. This is speaking only from my limited experience with four different DSL providers and two cable providers so obviously YMMV.
When I first got DSL in the summer of 1998 from Epix/Commonwealth in PA it was 640/160 and remained that until 2003 (IIRC, I wasn't living at home anymore) at which time they bumped the service to 1.5/384 to "compete" with Adelphia cable. Five years stuck at half the speeds? Problem was that there was NO competition because Adelphia was only broadband downstream and analog upstream in many areas for quite some time.
Out at college we got DSL in the fall of 1999 when we moved into an apartment. Verizon offered the lines and we took up the local freenet ISP as they were cheap. They were offering 768/128 on overcooked DSLAM racks (two racks per T1 instead of one rack per T1 like it was supposed to be) and speeds were consistently in the 40kB/s range. No one would take blame and would always finger point at the other guy (it's the ISP's fault, no it's Verizon's fault!)
Roadrunner came to town in the fall of 2000 and we dropped DSL quickly. While our latency in online gaming went up so did our download speeds. At first it was a bit over 1.5mbs but quickly went up to 3mbs. There was no finger pointing as RR handled both the ISP and the line. Was it good? Certainly for me it was. Faster speeds, less downtime, and no finger pointing. Comcast was smooth in MN but working for them in OH I knew that there could be serious issues (depending on your location) with speeds, intermittent bloc-sync, etc. 1.5mbs and then 3.0mbs w/o any real problems. Problem here was DSL wasn't even available and if it was, it was only 640/128 for more money...
My idea of DSL being competitive changed only slightly when I moved in August of 2004 to a house that offered Charter (no servers w/blocked ports) and DSL (Frontier and ISP choice). I went with Frontier and Visi (local kick ass ISP that allows servers). For once in my DSL using life I am happy w/the speeds (currently 3712/448) and the service. Visi handles everything for me so I just contact one point. I would be *extremely* upset if I had to go back to Frontier as they don't allow online bill pay, aren't very nice on customer support, and are likely not as knowledgeable as Visi's guys. Charter, charging $39.99/mo for the Internet (I think it was only $11 for CATV making it a total of $52) was a ton less money than Visi/Frontier at over $60 (requiring me to have a voice line and the $25/mo ISP charge). For most the price alone is a no brainer. For me, because of the server issue, the couple extra bucks is worth it.
So in all those years Cable hasn't improved all that much and neither has regulated DSL. So where's the competition driving faster speeds? How will deregulating DSL do anything?
It's sometimes better for the customer to use the same line and ISP and it's sometimes better to use the ISP different from the line, but it's *always* better to give the customer a choice.
So, the FCC is going to "do us a favor" and push for businesses to continue to fuck their customers over? Freedom to choose is always a better option to than freedom for businesses to do what they want... They have proven time and time again that they don't have competition as they already charge astronomical rates for the lines. They probably can make more money by finger pointing and less staffed CSRs for their own ISP. What incentives do they have to move to high capacity lines if the only other option is Cable? None. Especially when it's in the best interests of the Cable company to keep their available down
As far as the first part of your argument related to holding religious beliefs above all else, any sincerely religious person will hold his/her religious believes above all else since that is what religion is. To christians as well as jews, "Love thy God" is the greatest commandment. I hold God above all else, and I believe in evolution second. To me evolution is merely a part of a greater intelligent design.
As the President of the United States where we claim to seperate Church and State that's not an option. Just because the religious conservatives have reared their heads under this President and seem to have a louder voice than anyone else doesn't mean that it is acceptable.
Religious beliefs should not be applied to the masses just because you are President.
I'm glad you're so righteously smug in your ethical beliefs regarding what can and can't be done with embryos, since that is almost certainly to what you're referring.
I'm glad you're always so righteously smug in your assumptions on what others are saying, but in this case you couldn't be more wrong.
What I was referring to was the fact that the President holds his religious beliefs above all else even when it might not be in the best interests of the country he presides over. The President of our country should not be preaching the "good word" to his people especially when he is happily using scientific advances to effectively "play god".
As for the rest of your off-topic comment, I don't care.
The submission is nothing but a troll...Everyone read this site knows it will amount to over 1,000 posters screaming at each other.
I have read some of the most interesting discussions on the topic in times past when this debate was brought up.
Individuals that have a deep background in technologies, science, as well as religion are the ones to talk to when the ID/Creationism vs. Evolution debate come up.
It is interesting to learn how people w/a Slashdotter background is able to successfully ignore their technology/science roots to accept their religious ones. I am able to understand and relate to intelligent comments from people that have a similar background to me than to listen to a conservative religious leader with vested interests in "spreading the good word."
Perhaps you shouldn't jump to such a ridiculous conclusion just because people are arguing.
It's unfortunate that rabid anti-science Creationists have bastardized this debate, so that we can't really have a frank discussion about the science and theory of evolution on a backdrop of philosophical questions about how and why we're here.
It's unfortunate that the President of a developed country who is in direct charge of some of the most powerful and awesome technologies created by scientists continues to push an agenda that is anti-science.
Let's keep the Government's representatives' religious beliefs and traditions out of our personal lives please.
Except with military recruiters. The Solomon Act requires institutions to turn over certain categories of such directory information to them.
"Since Solomon passed, we must release this eight or nine pieces of directory information. We could turn another organization down."
Those types of information are: name of student; student's address, local or permanent; student's phone number, local or permanent; age and/or date of birth; place of birth ("If we know it -- we are not required to get that information," said Baker); class level (freshman, sophomore, graduate etc.); academic major; degrees the student has received; student's most recent educational institutional enrollment before current institution.
The article does not state what is and is not "Directory Information". Sometimes this can include all of what the article mentioned (address, telephone, e-mail, GPA, major, etc) or it could simply be the student's name and major.
I wonder if a school limits their directory information to just that if the law still applies.
So the school sold all these addresses to a spammer, presumably for the purpose of having spam sent to them and then blocked all the messages?
The school sold all the addresses so that the students could be spammed. It is the school's job to protect their students from that e-mail spam.
It's not the school's right to stop mail from coming to the student's residences.
Most student address requests that I get in my office are for Army and Navy recruiting stations. They pay a $50 fee per list and receive a disk with the Access database of the names.
It's up to the students themselves to add a DNR (do not release) onto their records. It does make their lives a bit more difficult for their own record releases but at least they wouldn't be hounded by the companies that the school sold them off to.
I have a feeling that this particular University makes a lot more than $50 a list and that's why the spammers were pissed off.
A man who's work is both his vocation and his advocation is truly blessed.
To some, I suppose this is true. To me, it's not. Getting paid to do what I love to do makes it work and they didn't call work "work" and not "vacation" for a reason. YMMV.
Knowing these people from a social standpoint has helped us work together better.
People I work with gossip, a lot, and I want no part of my personal life being needless gossiped about around the office. The further I distance myself from loud mouthed co-workers the healthier my work and home lives are.
Want to talk to my boss then? According to my boss, since I'm a salaried employee, I shouldn't have the expectation that I work on a normal 40-hour workweek clock like a (said with a hint of disdain) "factory worker".
Why don't *you* talk to your boss then? It's not *my* responsibility to explain the way things ought to be to him.
People are so obsessed with the numbers that show on their paycheck that they forget that their work habbits are creeping into their personal lives and causing serious issues.
It's your choice to work for a company that mandates "included" overtime as a salaried employee and it's also your choice to remember that your mental, physical, and family health depend on your not overtaxing your life with work.
While I completely agree that this could be made out to imply that workers are not permitted to assemble outside of work hours to collectively unite against their employer, I'm far more disturbed by the quote at the end of the article that reads, "America's workers need more opportunities to come together to discuss vexing workplace issues, or just to make personal connections with those we spend most of our waking hours with."
What American workers need to do is not allow their personal lives to intermingle with their daily work grind. Yes, plenty of people are required to do that and some employees even thrive on it, yet it is negatively impacting our mental, physical, and family health. Why are we allowing our employers to control more and more of our lives by requiring more than 40 hours a week w/o proper compensation and *requiring* us not to have outside of work relationships with any co-workers? While *I* refuse to have any out of work relationships with any of my co-workers I don't believe that employers should have the right to mandate and legally enforce that behavior.
I do everything I can to not even mention work to friends and family. When I am outside the office walls my brain is on everything but. It's healthy to have time to yourself, your family, and your hobbies.
Please, if you believe that you can successfully collectively bargain against your employer, do so to the best of your ability, but remember that work is just something you should do for 40 hours a week - anything over that should be properly compensated and documented hourly. Try and separate your family/personal life from it as best you can. For most of you the results will be more rewarding than your paycheck.
Your mind and your personal life outside of work are your own. Don't let your paycheck fool you into thinking otherwise.
$60 games are going up though. Yeah, the graphics are getting better but is the gameplay really that radically different that we should have to shell out nearly twice as much as we used to pay?
I remember cringing at $39.99 games nevermind $49.99 games. Now they are going to *start* at $59.99? To me, that seems like they are going to end up being in the $99.99 range in no time.
Like the internet as a whole, BitTorrent is a network.
Traditional torrents, perhaps... The way torrents are starting to go, not so much.
Torrent trackers have the ability to track usage, logins, and IPs. People can be limited to joining the BitTorrent network by the tracker. So then it shifts the ownership of the BitTorrent network to THEM.
It's always going to be up to the members that will make up that BitTorrent network whether or not they are willing to play by the rules set down by the media conglomorates but that's not going to prevent them from dictating to us how the network will run.
Because not all people think that corporations are Evil. I would share my bandwith it it helps keeps costs down, and allows me to download the product I buy faster.
How much is your bandwith worth to you? Would they follow a model like empornium where I would have to keep my share up? What if I didn't want to give out *any* bandwith would I still get to download?
My DSL connection costs about $60/mo. I can go out and purchase a physical piece of media for about $20 when it's new. Is downloading something in a couple hours worth me having to pay money for the blank, waste my time burning it, and then waste my bandwith sharing it as well? Perhaps you will argue you can just store it on magnetic. What's that worth to you?
My real problem w/all of this is that the media conglomorates now get to ship this media for nearly no cost, don't have to burn as much media, and will likely charge nearly the same price (ala iTMS selling albums for ~2.00 less).
Let me be the first of several hundred others to say, "Thank you, koreth, for being so utterly lazy as to do a simple Google search for ZigBee before posting a response to Slashdot."
At least I didn't have to watch your post go straight to +5 for asking what it was and then watching the guy who only posts what he found on Wikipedia via Google because he wanted to karmawhore.
When did the "geeks" become so fucking lazy that they can't even use the technology they built to figure out something on their own?
Perhaps it's our area but I haven't seen much "freeloading" for WiFi. Within a mile of that Panera I can name 4 other places that offer free WiFi: Old Chicago, Buffalo Wild Wings, Starbucks, and Dunn Brothers Coffee. I also happen to know that within 2 miles you start hitting residential neighborhoods (including my own) which also offer plenty of free WiFi.
So perhaps, once the availability is there the "freeloaders" drop?
Hmm, I wish I got paid. Even if they gave me free coffee so I wouldn't have to pay every Sunday when we go there.
I'm not an employee, happy customer, or otherwise. I'm just pointing out that Panera offers free WiFi and happens to be one of the largest (if not the largest) free WiFi providers out there.
Why would I go there when there are numerous other coffee shops that require nothing of the sort?
Less than a mile from my home is a Dunn Brothers Coffee shop and another mile from that is a Panera. Neither require a purchase to use their network but it's fairly rare to see anyone not at least having a coffee while they're there.
Open it up for all those that enter or suffer the consequences of those that can and do offer it free.
With a uid so low, you should know better than that.
Umm, to be fair, those of us w/UIDs that are "low" could have been out of the loop during Groundhog Day. We might have been using the Flux Capacitor to skip over that minute to arrive exactly at this moment in time.
Jesus I'm not only a low UID Slashdot regular but I'm also a geek.:(
Slashdot Mirror
with allowing a company to profit from the infrastructure they have built without being forced to allow other companies to profit from it!
They are profiting from it as they are charging the DSL users for the line. If anything, it should be *saving* the telcos money because they don't need to staff as many CSRs to give tech support.
"If only we were allowed to keep their lines all to ourselves," they say, "we would hurry to get fiber laid to every house in the land and offer faster and wider range of services."
It's not exactly as if DSL has been a "competitor" by any means in any area I have lived in. Its distance requirements, slow speeds, and typical poor telco customer service has always lagged behind services offered by Cable. This is speaking only from my limited experience with four different DSL providers and two cable providers so obviously YMMV.
When I first got DSL in the summer of 1998 from Epix/Commonwealth in PA it was 640/160 and remained that until 2003 (IIRC, I wasn't living at home anymore) at which time they bumped the service to 1.5/384 to "compete" with Adelphia cable. Five years stuck at half the speeds? Problem was that there was NO competition because Adelphia was only broadband downstream and analog upstream in many areas for quite some time.
Out at college we got DSL in the fall of 1999 when we moved into an apartment. Verizon offered the lines and we took up the local freenet ISP as they were cheap. They were offering 768/128 on overcooked DSLAM racks (two racks per T1 instead of one rack per T1 like it was supposed to be) and speeds were consistently in the 40kB/s range. No one would take blame and would always finger point at the other guy (it's the ISP's fault, no it's Verizon's fault!)
Roadrunner came to town in the fall of 2000 and we dropped DSL quickly. While our latency in online gaming went up so did our download speeds. At first it was a bit over 1.5mbs but quickly went up to 3mbs. There was no finger pointing as RR handled both the ISP and the line. Was it good? Certainly for me it was. Faster speeds, less downtime, and no finger pointing. Comcast was smooth in MN but working for them in OH I knew that there could be serious issues (depending on your location) with speeds, intermittent bloc-sync, etc. 1.5mbs and then 3.0mbs w/o any real problems. Problem here was DSL wasn't even available and if it was, it was only 640/128 for more money...
My idea of DSL being competitive changed only slightly when I moved in August of 2004 to a house that offered Charter (no servers w/blocked ports) and DSL (Frontier and ISP choice). I went with Frontier and Visi (local kick ass ISP that allows servers). For once in my DSL using life I am happy w/the speeds (currently 3712/448) and the service. Visi handles everything for me so I just contact one point. I would be *extremely* upset if I had to go back to Frontier as they don't allow online bill pay, aren't very nice on customer support, and are likely not as knowledgeable as Visi's guys. Charter, charging $39.99/mo for the Internet (I think it was only $11 for CATV making it a total of $52) was a ton less money than Visi/Frontier at over $60 (requiring me to have a voice line and the $25/mo ISP charge). For most the price alone is a no brainer. For me, because of the server issue, the couple extra bucks is worth it.
So in all those years Cable hasn't improved all that much and neither has regulated DSL. So where's the competition driving faster speeds? How will deregulating DSL do anything?
It's sometimes better for the customer to use the same line and ISP and it's sometimes better to use the ISP different from the line, but it's *always* better to give the customer a choice.
So, the FCC is going to "do us a favor" and push for businesses to continue to fuck their customers over? Freedom to choose is always a better option to than freedom for businesses to do what they want... They have proven time and time again that they don't have competition as they already charge astronomical rates for the lines. They probably can make more money by finger pointing and less staffed CSRs for their own ISP. What incentives do they have to move to high capacity lines if the only other option is Cable? None. Especially when it's in the best interests of the Cable company to keep their available down
Why do I feel so damn inadequate reading this article?
;-)
Because when you read "honey pot" you immediately thought of catching hackers instead of what you should have thought of.
Sad isn't it?
As far as the first part of your argument related to holding religious beliefs above all else, any sincerely religious person will hold his/her religious believes above all else since that is what religion is. To christians as well as jews, "Love thy God" is the greatest commandment. I hold God above all else, and I believe in evolution second. To me evolution is merely a part of a greater intelligent design.
As the President of the United States where we claim to seperate Church and State that's not an option. Just because the religious conservatives have reared their heads under this President and seem to have a louder voice than anyone else doesn't mean that it is acceptable.
Religious beliefs should not be applied to the masses just because you are President.
I'm glad you're so righteously smug in your ethical beliefs regarding what can and can't be done with embryos, since that is almost certainly to what you're referring.
I'm glad you're always so righteously smug in your assumptions on what others are saying, but in this case you couldn't be more wrong.
What I was referring to was the fact that the President holds his religious beliefs above all else even when it might not be in the best interests of the country he presides over. The President of our country should not be preaching the "good word" to his people especially when he is happily using scientific advances to effectively "play god".
As for the rest of your off-topic comment, I don't care.
The submission is nothing but a troll...Everyone read this site knows it will amount to over 1,000 posters screaming at each other.
I have read some of the most interesting discussions on the topic in times past when this debate was brought up.
Individuals that have a deep background in technologies, science, as well as religion are the ones to talk to when the ID/Creationism vs. Evolution debate come up.
It is interesting to learn how people w/a Slashdotter background is able to successfully ignore their technology/science roots to accept their religious ones. I am able to understand and relate to intelligent comments from people that have a similar background to me than to listen to a conservative religious leader with vested interests in "spreading the good word."
Perhaps you shouldn't jump to such a ridiculous conclusion just because people are arguing.
It's unfortunate that rabid anti-science Creationists have bastardized this debate, so that we can't really have a frank discussion about the science and theory of evolution on a backdrop of philosophical questions about how and why we're here.
It's unfortunate that the President of a developed country who is in direct charge of some of the most powerful and awesome technologies created by scientists continues to push an agenda that is anti-science.
Let's keep the Government's representatives' religious beliefs and traditions out of our personal lives please.
I was talking about their physical address, not their e-mail. Give me some credit, thanks.
Except with military recruiters. The Solomon Act requires institutions to turn over certain categories of such directory information to them.
"Since Solomon passed, we must release this eight or nine pieces of directory information. We could turn another organization down."
Those types of information are: name of student; student's address, local or permanent; student's phone number, local or permanent; age and/or date of birth; place of birth ("If we know it -- we are not required to get that information," said Baker); class level (freshman, sophomore, graduate etc.); academic major; degrees the student has received; student's most recent educational institutional enrollment before current institution.
The article does not state what is and is not "Directory Information". Sometimes this can include all of what the article mentioned (address, telephone, e-mail, GPA, major, etc) or it could simply be the student's name and major.
I wonder if a school limits their directory information to just that if the law still applies.
So the school sold all these addresses to a spammer, presumably for the purpose of having spam sent to them and then blocked all the messages?
The school sold all the addresses so that the students could be spammed. It is the school's job to protect their students from that e-mail spam.
It's not the school's right to stop mail from coming to the student's residences.
Most student address requests that I get in my office are for Army and Navy recruiting stations. They pay a $50 fee per list and receive a disk with the Access database of the names.
It's up to the students themselves to add a DNR (do not release) onto their records. It does make their lives a bit more difficult for their own record releases but at least they wouldn't be hounded by the companies that the school sold them off to.
I have a feeling that this particular University makes a lot more than $50 a list and that's why the spammers were pissed off.
I don't see what that has to do w/my comment at all. You can love your job but you should always love yourself, your health, and your family more.
Job is not #1 no matter how many numbers come after that $.
A man who's work is both his vocation and his advocation is truly blessed.
To some, I suppose this is true. To me, it's not. Getting paid to do what I love to do makes it work and they didn't call work "work" and not "vacation" for a reason. YMMV.
Knowing these people from a social standpoint has helped us work together better.
People I work with gossip, a lot, and I want no part of my personal life being needless gossiped about around the office. The further I distance myself from loud mouthed co-workers the healthier my work and home lives are.
Want to talk to my boss then? According to my boss, since I'm a salaried employee, I shouldn't have the expectation that I work on a normal 40-hour workweek clock like a (said with a hint of disdain) "factory worker".
Why don't *you* talk to your boss then? It's not *my* responsibility to explain the way things ought to be to him.
People are so obsessed with the numbers that show on their paycheck that they forget that their work habbits are creeping into their personal lives and causing serious issues.
It's your choice to work for a company that mandates "included" overtime as a salaried employee and it's also your choice to remember that your mental, physical, and family health depend on your not overtaxing your life with work.
While I completely agree that this could be made out to imply that workers are not permitted to assemble outside of work hours to collectively unite against their employer, I'm far more disturbed by the quote at the end of the article that reads, "America's workers need more opportunities to come together to discuss vexing workplace issues, or just to make personal connections with those we spend most of our waking hours with."
What American workers need to do is not allow their personal lives to intermingle with their daily work grind. Yes, plenty of people are required to do that and some employees even thrive on it, yet it is negatively impacting our mental, physical, and family health. Why are we allowing our employers to control more and more of our lives by requiring more than 40 hours a week w/o proper compensation and *requiring* us not to have outside of work relationships with any co-workers? While *I* refuse to have any out of work relationships with any of my co-workers I don't believe that employers should have the right to mandate and legally enforce that behavior.
I do everything I can to not even mention work to friends and family. When I am outside the office walls my brain is on everything but. It's healthy to have time to yourself, your family, and your hobbies.
Please, if you believe that you can successfully collectively bargain against your employer, do so to the best of your ability, but remember that work is just something you should do for 40 hours a week - anything over that should be properly compensated and documented hourly. Try and separate your family/personal life from it as best you can. For most of you the results will be more rewarding than your paycheck.
Your mind and your personal life outside of work are your own. Don't let your paycheck fool you into thinking otherwise.
$60 games are going up though. Yeah, the graphics are getting better but is the gameplay really that radically different that we should have to shell out nearly twice as much as we used to pay?
I remember cringing at $39.99 games nevermind $49.99 games. Now they are going to *start* at $59.99? To me, that seems like they are going to end up being in the $99.99 range in no time.
Like the internet as a whole, BitTorrent is a network.
Traditional torrents, perhaps... The way torrents are starting to go, not so much.
Torrent trackers have the ability to track usage, logins, and IPs. People can be limited to joining the BitTorrent network by the tracker. So then it shifts the ownership of the BitTorrent network to THEM.
It's always going to be up to the members that will make up that BitTorrent network whether or not they are willing to play by the rules set down by the media conglomorates but that's not going to prevent them from dictating to us how the network will run.
Thanks for trying though.
Because not all people think that corporations are Evil. I would share my bandwith it it helps keeps costs down, and allows me to download the product I buy faster.
How much is your bandwith worth to you? Would they follow a model like empornium where I would have to keep my share up? What if I didn't want to give out *any* bandwith would I still get to download?
My DSL connection costs about $60/mo. I can go out and purchase a physical piece of media for about $20 when it's new. Is downloading something in a couple hours worth me having to pay money for the blank, waste my time burning it, and then waste my bandwith sharing it as well? Perhaps you will argue you can just store it on magnetic. What's that worth to you?
My real problem w/all of this is that the media conglomorates now get to ship this media for nearly no cost, don't have to burn as much media, and will likely charge nearly the same price (ala iTMS selling albums for ~2.00 less).
Sorry, but I'll wait for DVD.
Let me be the first of several hundred others to say, "Thank you, koreth, for being so utterly lazy as to do a simple Google search for ZigBee before posting a response to Slashdot."
At least I didn't have to watch your post go straight to +5 for asking what it was and then watching the guy who only posts what he found on Wikipedia via Google because he wanted to karmawhore.
When did the "geeks" become so fucking lazy that they can't even use the technology they built to figure out something on their own?
What exactly is the "consequence" which would have to be suffered through? The absence of people who aren't going to spend any money anyway?
Yup, the possibility of lost revenue due to people taking their bodies elsewhere.
You are all assuming entirely too much if you believe that everyone using WiFi is freeloading.
Perhaps it's our area but I haven't seen much "freeloading" for WiFi. Within a mile of that Panera I can name 4 other places that offer free WiFi: Old Chicago, Buffalo Wild Wings, Starbucks, and Dunn Brothers Coffee. I also happen to know that within 2 miles you start hitting residential neighborhoods (including my own) which also offer plenty of free WiFi.
So perhaps, once the availability is there the "freeloaders" drop?
Hmm, I wish I got paid. Even if they gave me free coffee so I wouldn't have to pay every Sunday when we go there.
I'm not an employee, happy customer, or otherwise. I'm just pointing out that Panera offers free WiFi and happens to be one of the largest (if not the largest) free WiFi providers out there.
Why would I go there when there are numerous other coffee shops that require nothing of the sort?
Less than a mile from my home is a Dunn Brothers Coffee shop and another mile from that is a Panera. Neither require a purchase to use their network but it's fairly rare to see anyone not at least having a coffee while they're there.
Open it up for all those that enter or suffer the consequences of those that can and do offer it free.
I was interested in hearing what do you think about the issue and if there are solid examples of successful businesses that offered free WiFi.
Panera has the largest (or one of) free wifi network out there.
you have to learn to think like a lawyer, which is like learning to type with your nose.
Well, unless the keyboard is new the keys are dirty you know...
With a uid so low, you should know better than that.
:(
Umm, to be fair, those of us w/UIDs that are "low" could have been out of the loop during Groundhog Day. We might have been using the Flux Capacitor to skip over that minute to arrive exactly at this moment in time.
Jesus I'm not only a low UID Slashdot regular but I'm also a geek.