The interesting question is not who pays, but how can we all collectively pay less for better performance? The problem is that the billing model for the internet is broken. ISPs need to start billing for usage, that much is obvious.
I think it is much less obvious than you suggest. If the major cost of providing residential Internet service is the last mile, then the cost is not very closely related to actual bandwidth used. Perhaps they should differentiate the off-peak and peak-usage charges also?
Perhaps ISPs should charge using a base + usage model, but this may be sufficiently unpopular that an ISP that tried this would quickly go out of business.
Does that mean that I can use a UMA phone (eg. T-Mobile's Hotspot@Home service) or Skype while in flight?
The problem with the UMA service is that there is no way to do a web-based sighnup from the phone. I did once experiment with trying to change the AC address of my PC to match my phone's MAC address, then sign up, but I was not successful. On reflection, I should probably have turned off my phone while the PC had the same MAC address.
The BBC pays for upstream bandwidth. Consumers pay for downstream bandwidth.
I think you are missing that the iPlayer can work in a P2P mode, so the ISPs claim that the BBC does not pay its fair share (because it merely seeds the downloads). However, I would have thought that the iPlayer would be designed to attempt to download from near neighbors, which would cost each ISP much less.
Mr Lucas, who wrote the screenplay and directed the 1977 film, is understood to have hired Mr Ainsworth through intermediaries in 1976, but it is claimed no formal contract was put in place. The designer received just £30,000 for his work.
I wonder if the award in the US was a default judgment?
Does this guy know about the Internet, and the fact that there are millions of people using it, including people who do random things such as siging online petitions?
I don't care about his movies, but like many, it would be fun to see someone give up his job just because a million people clicked a button on a webpage somewhere..... such a feeling of power!
Isn't the whole point of a corporation to shield the controlling members from responsibility for the actions of the corporation?
No. I think that the real purpose is to shield the non-controlling shareholders. In this way, investments can safely be made in companies, since the risk is limited to the investment.
Before the invention of the limited liability company, if a company failed, owing money, the shareholders could be sued -- thus investors carried a much higher risk and investment was discouraged.
Furthermore, many indexes like the S&P500 have profitability requirements, so if a company is being consistently mismanaged it should fall off the index, and trigger a sell-off of any shares held by the index-tracking funds.
So what? The outrageous packages that some CEOs get these days are often unrelated to the performance of the share price, so the execs don't really care if their company drops out of the index. Worst case, they will get a nice golden handshake for having destroyed the value of the company.
These funds only attempt to match a particular index, so they have no reason to invest resources to to maximise the profits of companies that they own (or rather, to prevent abuses that reduce stockholder value). Resources to work with companies that they hold cost money and these funds try to match the indix as closely as possible with minimum overhead.
Hence, there are large stockholdings in the hands of entities that really don't care. That's part of the reason boards get away with compensation and benefit packages for execs that are abusive towards the shareholders.
I'll take the DNS-RBLs out of my email configuration when there is a realistic alternative. Clicking the "Conclusions" link on the referenced page, the author provides no solutions, other than throwing pies at Bill Gates. Not very credible.
Nearly all nokia phones can be flashed with the generic Nokia firmware which enables all the features.
I updated the phone's firmware using Nokia's updater software, but it retained all the branding and limitations. Is there some other way to update the firmware?
I got a new Nokia/T-Mobile phone recently. According to Nokia's documentation, the phone has an email client. I have been through the menus (including the ones in the manual that reference email) and there is no email client in the phone, so I assume that T-Mobile has disabled this feature.
Now, since there is no e-mail client, why would I want to have Internet access on the phone? I probably would have signed up for Internet access, but since T-Mobile doesn't want me to use email on the phone, I won't. Smart move there by T-Mobile.
Further compounding matters, the Franklin County Board of Elections had disabled virtually all logging on the machines to speed setup of the balot [SIC].
Unbelievable. It's like they're trying to make the machines as unreliable and untrustworthy as possible.
The reports don't make it clear if this was Board policy or if this was simply one rogue employee who turned off the audit logs.
I myself offer Bit Torrent downloads [geometricvisions.com] of my piano compositions.
And the RIAA would love to shut you down, since you represent competition to the RIAA member companies. Perhaps you even represent a trend that will destroy the RIAA and the RIAA is like a cornered wild animal -- at its most dangerous.
Should those same ISPs decide to mess with traffic (say filter or block VOIP and pushing their own services), let them, but strip them of all common carrier status and regulate them in such a way, let the lawsuits flow.
They cannot be stripped of what they do not have. ISPs are generally NOT common carriers today. I don't see any lawsuits yet.
Its normal for attorneys with limited technical knowledge to seek an clarification with the other party, in this case Dynadot, that what they are proposing is technically feasible.
It is normal for attorneys to ask those with technical knowledge to clarify what is possible and the implications of doing that. Dynadot could have attempted to educate the judge about what shutting down a domain name means, vs. taking down the infringing content and they obeyed whatever court order ensued. Attempting to educate the judge, followed by compliance with the subsequent order involves no risk against their business.
Let's face it: the one thing that I expect of a domain registrar is to get my domain name into the appropriate nameservers and if it fails at this, then it is failing to provide any useful service. Hence a registrar should put up some kind of fight against this kind of attack against its core business.
Anyway, I still think an apology is deserved, since you accused me of posting BS, which as you can see, I did not. Whether or not Dynadot were smart or justified to take the action they did does not alter the fact that I was correct and not BS-ing. A quick use of google would have shown this. As I write, the article that I referenced is the 6th link provided by Google for "dynadot" [and how good is this for their business?]
The point is that the bank initiated the process, subsequently both the bank and Dynadot went to the court with an agreement to shut down wikileaks.org (if the court agreed). The court agreed and issued an order to do just that.
I wouldn't put Dynadot in the same boat - they did, after all, have a court order presented to them.
According to some reports, Dynadot agreed with the bank to shut down Wikileaks.org and the the court order was the result of that agreement, so, yes, Dynadot should be n the same category of registrars as eNom.
I don't understand why police interviews are not typically recorded. In the UK most interviews have been recorded for a long time -- probably 20 years.
After all..... if the police have nothing to hide, why should they object to interviews being recorded and the defendant getting a copy of the tape?
Why would Apple want to help Linux? Seriously.
Apple is all about a closed, proprietary, environment. They care about increasing Apple profits, not about decreasing Microsoft profits.
While Apple holds this view, they are condemned to exist as a niche product. Apple will only exist to serve as "proof" that MS does not hold a monopoly. Apple exists purely on sufferance from MS and will continue to do so until Apple can find a way to drastically rearrange the OS landscape. Perhaps Apple's management and shareholders are happy with this arrangement -- it is familiar and comfortable for them.
Microsoft just has to stop supporting Office on Apple and Apple is dead. Yes, Apple could probably sue, but, MS could keep such a lawsuit tied up in the courts for long enough that it did not matter and eventually after many years in the courts, MS could easily afford to pay any judgment.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps ISPs should charge using a base + usage model, but this may be sufficiently unpopular that an ISP that tried this would quickly go out of business.
Does that mean that I can use a UMA phone (eg. T-Mobile's Hotspot@Home service) or Skype while in flight?
The problem with the UMA service is that there is no way to do a web-based sighnup from the phone. I did once experiment with trying to change the AC address of my PC to match my phone's MAC address, then sign up, but I was not successful. On reflection, I should probably have turned off my phone while the PC had the same MAC address.
Does this guy know about the Internet, and the fact that there are millions of people using it, including people who do random things such as siging online petitions?
I don't care about his movies, but like many, it would be fun to see someone give up his job just because a million people clicked a button on a webpage somewhere..... such a feeling of power!
Finally, Yahoo reveals that the way to delete a Yahoo ID is to commit serial copyright violations!
Before the invention of the limited liability company, if a company failed, owing money, the shareholders could be sued -- thus investors carried a much higher risk and investment was discouraged.
movie at 11:00....
I am convinced that Index tracker funds are evil.
These funds only attempt to match a particular index, so they have no reason to invest resources to to maximise the profits of companies that they own (or rather, to prevent abuses that reduce stockholder value). Resources to work with companies that they hold cost money and these funds try to match the indix as closely as possible with minimum overhead.
Hence, there are large stockholdings in the hands of entities that really don't care. That's part of the reason boards get away with compensation and benefit packages for execs that are abusive towards the shareholders.
At the risk of being OT.....
I got a new Nokia/T-Mobile phone recently. According to Nokia's documentation, the phone has an email client. I have been through the menus (including the ones in the manual that reference email) and there is no email client in the phone, so I assume that T-Mobile has disabled this feature.
Now, since there is no e-mail client, why would I want to have Internet access on the phone? I probably would have signed up for Internet access, but since T-Mobile doesn't want me to use email on the phone, I won't. Smart move there by T-Mobile.
Let's face it: the one thing that I expect of a domain registrar is to get my domain name into the appropriate nameservers and if it fails at this, then it is failing to provide any useful service. Hence a registrar should put up some kind of fight against this kind of attack against its core business.
Anyway, I still think an apology is deserved, since you accused me of posting BS, which as you can see, I did not. Whether or not Dynadot were smart or justified to take the action they did does not alter the fact that I was correct and not BS-ing. A quick use of google would have shown this. As I write, the article that I referenced is the 6th link provided by Google for "dynadot" [and how good is this for their business?]
Your apology forthwith, please
The point is that the bank initiated the process, subsequently both the bank and Dynadot went to the court with an agreement to shut down wikileaks.org (if the court agreed). The court agreed and issued an order to do just that.
I don't understand why police interviews are not typically recorded. In the UK most interviews have been recorded for a long time -- probably 20 years.
After all..... if the police have nothing to hide, why should they object to interviews being recorded and the defendant getting a copy of the tape?
Microsoft just has to stop supporting Office on Apple and Apple is dead. Yes, Apple could probably sue, but, MS could keep such a lawsuit tied up in the courts for long enough that it did not matter and eventually after many years in the courts, MS could easily afford to pay any judgment.