Additionally, taken from FCC.gov:
The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.
Democrats voted for the bill, but the bill and this ruling are two different things. The FCC Comissioners are Republicans, appointed by Dubya, and the Chairman's position is an obvious case of nepotism.
It's easy to say that, but the shame of it is it's flat out wrong. Michael Powell was appointed to the FCC in 1997 by President Bill Clinton. Bush made him the chairman, but Clinton put him there in the first place.
This does not lead to censorship. It merely states that we are protecting 5 year olds from profanity. I know, i know, the 'for the children argument', but in this case, it's being correctly applied.
Kids that age do not need to be asking their parents what words like that mean. They simply aren't mature enough. Little kids say things to get rises out of people...
The public owns the television airwaves, and their wishes are to be respected. This has been coming for a while, Janet Jackson or not.
No seriously, or rather, a town outside of a college town. I go to a medium sized student public university in western North Carolina in the mountains. Outside of the town, it's an hour+ drive to anything, but because of the colleg,e there are all sorts of technology related things.
Several Hi-speed ISP's
The local cable co
The (shudder) university it dept.
And other stuff
Now, you aren't going to find a software development firm, but theres plenty of other stuff.
If these machines are more difficult to operate and more expensive to maintain, and require the hiring of additional personnel to administer, why are they being used?
Paper ballots seem exponentially cheaper in all respects, and I haven't seen a piece of oaktag crash in many years.
Why not just block the few sucking in and sending out terabytes of information, rather than cut off everyone?
I know there are many programs out there with the explicit purpose of either throttling, or cutting off completely, ip addresses that suck up a given value of data in a given value of time.
Yes, that is true, but as the incumbent, and only available broadband provider, the university is obligated to provide reasonable broadband services to the students.
My university also owns several apartment complexes, where they control the internet as well... While I personally disagree with the idea of a tax exempt, state funded institution running a for profit enterprise (they funnel the profits to other things to make the books work), should the university be forced to provide true broadband to those students living off campus in university owned apartments?
Lots of games are already available for linux, especially considering its relatively small marketshare and memory optimization not intended for super hi-res 3d gaming.
I've got Quake 3, UT 2k4, and Americas Army all sitting on my computer right now.
Things are getting there, it just takes time.
I don't really understand what you're trying to say.
What I'm saying is, I know what I'm doing is legal. However, I also know that bad laws get passed all the times that illegalize things that are completely legitimate because of stupid broad defenitions in laws. IE, some of the super-DMCA's that essentially illegalize routers and nat boxes. Everyone says no one would ever be prosecuted, but I'd rather that the law get it right the first time than take the chance.
Spoofing email addresses can go either way as well, depending on the content and the recipients.
I spoof email addresses all the time... my own. I subscribe to several different email services, and use different ones depending on my mood. However, I only have access to one SMTP server, so a large quantity of my mail, in the broadest of definitions, is spoofed.
People don't understand computers. To many, either AOL works, or it doesn't. And, these people don't want to understand computers.
Just like all people are capable of changing their own oil (or in your case, a wheel stud), it doesn't mean it's something that they want to learn how to do.
However, just like with vehicles, there is always going to be price gougers (and those who do shoddy fixes to more extensive problems). In the realm of computers, with so few people understanding the depths of their operating systems, price gouging is even easier, as how man people really know what, "Kernel32.dll has performed an illegal operation (Insert long string of hex here)," means, or even how to find a solution.
With vehicles, at least most individuals have a basic understanding (IE, they know that when a mechanic tell them the timing belt needs to be replaced but he's pointing to the rear differential that something is up.)
Why is it that so many Unix/Linux programs (and everything else, for that matter) do not provide simple screenshots on their products websites?
If I'm going to download your program and install it (and in many cases, take time to compile it...) I want to know that it's going to look halfway decent when I'm done.
Why is this so hard for some programmers to understand?
This is absolute nonsense. It's the same as when the state raises cigarette taxes by 20 cents a pack and the price goes up a dollar. Sure, Viacom requires all their channels to be bundled, which is a bummer, but last I checked, DISH's cheapest package had 60 channels, and there weren't 60 channels in dispute here.
You are correct, however, these deals, that Dish, and every other pay television provider have to broker, do not create tiny tiers for each content provider. Rather, the content providers insist that certain programming be in the 'basic' tier that all subscribers have access to. That is why there are 60 channels in the basic tier.
This is why you HAVE to get ESPN, because ESPN insists that it be on the lowest tier, else you not provide them at all.
Television deals are incredibly screwed up, and Echostar has fought in and out of court for years to provide ala carte, but are constantly shot down.
Viacom only loses the advertising that they can pipe to EchoStar customers, a pretty small portion of their total advertising.
Actually, Echostar/DishNetwork hold about 8-9% of 'cable' television subscribers in the US. 8% spread across 5 or 6 networks seems like an awful lot to lose compared to Dish losing a few customers who can't live without South Park reruns.
I think this whole issue needs to be put in perspective.
The lost networks are as follows:
BET
VH1
MTV
Comedy Central
Nickelodeon (et all.)
Now, VH1 and BET are not high rated networks in the least bit, and outside of the 18-24 demographic, who watches Comedy Central. What I'd really like to know is who, if anyone, watches MTV? Anyone?
Now, Nickelodeon does well, and their childrens programming losses are the major loss in this deal, but Dish has done themselves right by adding additional Disney networks to those in the lower of their 3 tiers to make up for the currently absent channels.
Now, the CBS networks are the huge loss... and personally, my understanding of must carry laws basically says that Viacom is about to find itself in a shitload of trouble for what it's doing.
Sorry but $1 a month is not exactly a fair trade off. DirecTV sounds like a great choice.
First of all, I'm majorly impressed that dish is not bowing to Viacom's demands, as most cable companies AND direct tv have always in the past. I also don't know how anyone could make a case on/. for switching to a satellite company that has blanket prosecuted people that buy smart card readers (Because everyone that buys one must be doing something illegal!)
Secondly, to everyone but the highest teer (who already recieve every channel), they've added multiple channels until this battle is over. The added networks include FUSE (formerly Much Music) and several additional Disney Networks (to replace Nick.)
I think Dish has handled this issue the best they could, and I think they're closing stock price (Up) reflects what people think of them vs Viacom (who incidentally closed down on the stocks.)
I question why it is you think its acceptable to pay what you do for a cd, but also acceptable to pay the same amount or marginally more for a film on DVD.
The movie comes loaded with extras (typically), and is also 2 hours long, compared to albums, which average 45-50 minutes long.
Also, whats the production cost on an average movie up to today? I read that Michael Jackson's last album was.... god... I think 7 mill. Most albums cost 10 times less than that to produce.
Yet Movies, which cost far more, side by side, with the benefits of a cd to a dvd weighed, DVD's are less expensive.
As an aside, music prices have been relatively flat over the past 40 years; in fact, they're going down. The average price of a new CD is down to $13.50 in the US. Back when I first started buying LPs in the early 1980's, a good price was $9.99. That'd be $18.00 in today's economy.
I don't know where you buy cd's, but the average, admitted, open, regular price of CD's in the United States is 17.99 - 18.99.
This number works out perfectly with your inflation curve.
Because a DIGITAL mpeg-2 stream from a satellite is better than a DIGITAL mpeg-2 stream from a cable?
Yes and no.
You are correct in saying that side by side, a digital cable channel will stack evenly against Dish or Direc. However, only Satellite Based systems offer 100% true digital content.
In my area (Central NC), Time Warner offers digital cable, but its only digital on certain channels, the rest are standard lousy cable quality. I have not seen nor have I heard of any cable providers offering complete digital cable.
So my satellite service continues to get more bang for the buck then a supposed 'digital' cable.
There's more than a few old people (and their children) alive in this country who remember the bank closures in the midst of the stock market crash. "FDIC" is less than a hundred years old.
Slashdot Mirror
Additionally, taken from FCC.gov: The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.
That pretty well sums it up.
Democrats voted for the bill, but the bill and this ruling are two different things. The FCC Comissioners are Republicans, appointed by Dubya, and the Chairman's position is an obvious case of nepotism.
It's easy to say that, but the shame of it is it's flat out wrong. Michael Powell was appointed to the FCC in 1997 by President Bill Clinton. Bush made him the chairman, but Clinton put him there in the first place.
This does not lead to censorship. It merely states that we are protecting 5 year olds from profanity. I know, i know, the 'for the children argument', but in this case, it's being correctly applied.
Kids that age do not need to be asking their parents what words like that mean. They simply aren't mature enough. Little kids say things to get rises out of people...
The public owns the television airwaves, and their wishes are to be respected. This has been coming for a while, Janet Jackson or not.
No seriously, or rather, a town outside of a college town. I go to a medium sized student public university in western North Carolina in the mountains. Outside of the town, it's an hour+ drive to anything, but because of the colleg,e there are all sorts of technology related things.
Several Hi-speed ISP's
The local cable co
The (shudder) university it dept.
And other stuff
Now, you aren't going to find a software development firm, but theres plenty of other stuff.
Now we can finally learn what Simon And Garfunkel's sounds of silence really were.
This never seems to be addressed, but cost.
If these machines are more difficult to operate and more expensive to maintain, and require the hiring of additional personnel to administer, why are they being used?
Paper ballots seem exponentially cheaper in all respects, and I haven't seen a piece of oaktag crash in many years.
Why not just block the few sucking in and sending out terabytes of information, rather than cut off everyone?
I know there are many programs out there with the explicit purpose of either throttling, or cutting off completely, ip addresses that suck up a given value of data in a given value of time.
Yes, that is true, but as the incumbent, and only available broadband provider, the university is obligated to provide reasonable broadband services to the students. My university also owns several apartment complexes, where they control the internet as well... While I personally disagree with the idea of a tax exempt, state funded institution running a for profit enterprise (they funnel the profits to other things to make the books work), should the university be forced to provide true broadband to those students living off campus in university owned apartments?
I imagine the people saying that your toilet seat is cleaner than your desk are also the same people saying that dogs mouths are cleaner than humans.
I'll believe both when my dog stops licking his own butt.
Lots of games are already available for linux, especially considering its relatively small marketshare and memory optimization not intended for super hi-res 3d gaming.
I've got Quake 3, UT 2k4, and Americas Army all sitting on my computer right now. Things are getting there, it just takes time.
I don't really understand what you're trying to say.
What I'm saying is, I know what I'm doing is legal. However, I also know that bad laws get passed all the times that illegalize things that are completely legitimate because of stupid broad defenitions in laws. IE, some of the super-DMCA's that essentially illegalize routers and nat boxes. Everyone says no one would ever be prosecuted, but I'd rather that the law get it right the first time than take the chance.
Spoofing email addresses can go either way as well, depending on the content and the recipients.
I spoof email addresses all the time... my own. I subscribe to several different email services, and use different ones depending on my mood. However, I only have access to one SMTP server, so a large quantity of my mail, in the broadest of definitions, is spoofed.
I wouldn't say that it's ridiculous.
People don't understand computers. To many, either AOL works, or it doesn't. And, these people don't want to understand computers.
Just like all people are capable of changing their own oil (or in your case, a wheel stud), it doesn't mean it's something that they want to learn how to do.
However, just like with vehicles, there is always going to be price gougers (and those who do shoddy fixes to more extensive problems). In the realm of computers, with so few people understanding the depths of their operating systems, price gouging is even easier, as how man people really know what, "Kernel32.dll has performed an illegal operation (Insert long string of hex here)," means, or even how to find a solution.
With vehicles, at least most individuals have a basic understanding (IE, they know that when a mechanic tell them the timing belt needs to be replaced but he's pointing to the rear differential that something is up.)
Why is it that so many Unix/Linux programs (and everything else, for that matter) do not provide simple screenshots on their products websites?
If I'm going to download your program and install it (and in many cases, take time to compile it...) I want to know that it's going to look halfway decent when I'm done.
Why is this so hard for some programmers to understand?
This assumes that Nintendo cartridges are even encrypted...
I don't think they even had the space to do stuff like that back in 1980. Not on a consumer console.
If 4 digit dates were a problem, I can't even imagine encryption.
This is absolute nonsense. It's the same as when the state raises cigarette taxes by 20 cents a pack and the price goes up a dollar. Sure, Viacom requires all their channels to be bundled, which is a bummer, but last I checked, DISH's cheapest package had 60 channels, and there weren't 60 channels in dispute here.
You are correct, however, these deals, that Dish, and every other pay television provider have to broker, do not create tiny tiers for each content provider. Rather, the content providers insist that certain programming be in the 'basic' tier that all subscribers have access to. That is why there are 60 channels in the basic tier.
This is why you HAVE to get ESPN, because ESPN insists that it be on the lowest tier, else you not provide them at all.
Television deals are incredibly screwed up, and Echostar has fought in and out of court for years to provide ala carte, but are constantly shot down.
Viacom only loses the advertising that they can pipe to EchoStar customers, a pretty small portion of their total advertising.
Actually, Echostar/DishNetwork hold about 8-9% of 'cable' television subscribers in the US. 8% spread across 5 or 6 networks seems like an awful lot to lose compared to Dish losing a few customers who can't live without South Park reruns.
I think this whole issue needs to be put in perspective. The lost networks are as follows: BET VH1 MTV Comedy Central Nickelodeon (et all.)
Now, VH1 and BET are not high rated networks in the least bit, and outside of the 18-24 demographic, who watches Comedy Central. What I'd really like to know is who, if anyone, watches MTV? Anyone?
Now, Nickelodeon does well, and their childrens programming losses are the major loss in this deal, but Dish has done themselves right by adding additional Disney networks to those in the lower of their 3 tiers to make up for the currently absent channels.
Now, the CBS networks are the huge loss... and personally, my understanding of must carry laws basically says that Viacom is about to find itself in a shitload of trouble for what it's doing.
Sorry but $1 a month is not exactly a fair trade off. DirecTV sounds like a great choice.
/. for switching to a satellite company that has blanket prosecuted people that buy smart card readers (Because everyone that buys one must be doing something illegal!)
First of all, I'm majorly impressed that dish is not bowing to Viacom's demands, as most cable companies AND direct tv have always in the past. I also don't know how anyone could make a case on
Secondly, to everyone but the highest teer (who already recieve every channel), they've added multiple channels until this battle is over. The added networks include FUSE (formerly Much Music) and several additional Disney Networks (to replace Nick.)
I think Dish has handled this issue the best they could, and I think they're closing stock price (Up) reflects what people think of them vs Viacom (who incidentally closed down on the stocks.)
I question why it is you think its acceptable to pay what you do for a cd, but also acceptable to pay the same amount or marginally more for a film on DVD.
The movie comes loaded with extras (typically), and is also 2 hours long, compared to albums, which average 45-50 minutes long.
Also, whats the production cost on an average movie up to today? I read that Michael Jackson's last album was.... god... I think 7 mill. Most albums cost 10 times less than that to produce.
Yet Movies, which cost far more, side by side, with the benefits of a cd to a dvd weighed, DVD's are less expensive.
I just don't get it.
As an aside, music prices have been relatively flat over the past 40 years; in fact, they're going down. The average price of a new CD is down to $13.50 in the US. Back when I first started buying LPs in the early 1980's, a good price was $9.99. That'd be $18.00 in today's economy.
I don't know where you buy cd's, but the average, admitted, open, regular price of CD's in the United States is 17.99 - 18.99.
This number works out perfectly with your inflation curve.
Well, what Viacom was doing could easily be contstrued as libel. So, I'll see your amount and raise you a SCO license.
Because a DIGITAL mpeg-2 stream from a satellite is better than a DIGITAL mpeg-2 stream from a cable?
Yes and no.
You are correct in saying that side by side, a digital cable channel will stack evenly against Dish or Direc. However, only Satellite Based systems offer 100% true digital content.
In my area (Central NC), Time Warner offers digital cable, but its only digital on certain channels, the rest are standard lousy cable quality. I have not seen nor have I heard of any cable providers offering complete digital cable.
So my satellite service continues to get more bang for the buck then a supposed 'digital' cable.
Paranoia?
There's more than a few old people (and their children) alive in this country who remember the bank closures in the midst of the stock market crash. "FDIC" is less than a hundred years old.
They have already been slashdotted once before (August 2, 2002)...
So what your saying is they haven't learned and are still using that 266 with 64 megs of RAM connected to a DSL line.