I agree with parents point, but actually its not tax payer funded. The city is funding this through bonds which will be paid back by revenue from the internet business. See: http://www.monticellofiber.com/nextsteps.html
Consider this: What's point of a $150/mo 50/5 service if a 250gb bandwidth cap could conceivably be consumed in a little over 48 hours?
If ISPs are going to cap bandwidth consumption then ISPs should be regulated to review relevent bandwidth caps adjacent to speed considerations.
Not doing so is akin to selling awesome quality cell phone service without revealing the number of minutes in your monthly plan.
Ideally, ISPs would be mandated to communicate speed as a factor of bandwidth divided by cap. This would empower the consumer to more easily compare the total value of competing ISPs.
Spence
Oh sure, the market rebounded and some companies eventually regained their losses. Ultimately that $1.2t represents money that changes hands, and most of it in an unfavorable sense to the companies involved.
But thats not the point. The point is that a handful of men (less than 20) caused more than 15% decrease in the value of the market. Thats interesting because: Like it or not, the NYSE and other stock exchanges contain a significant portion of American and word wide wealth. The success or failure of these markets directly impacts, nay almost directs, the success or failure of the American and global economy.
But it is about the impact on the economy. Consider this: In the days following 9-11, the US stocks lost $1,200,000,000,000. Thats 1.2 trillion if digit grouping isn't your thing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#Economic_aftermath). Thats also just stocks, not counting what we've spent on wars, other anti-terrorist programs, and other junk that hasn't made the USA one ounce safer.
My opinion on the topic? The government should not regulate passengers on planes. Should the government regulate international travel to the US? Maybe. Depends on the program, who it filters, etc. I think it comes down to good intelligence on who the crazies are. So far the majority people people flying planes into buildings for the purposes of terrorism are Muslim Arab's. I think 99% of Muslims Arabs are great--its the 1% that are crazy suicidal maniacs we need to worry about. Lets start there. It would be great if our 'friends' in Saudi Arabia would help us out with this...but thats another issue. If other religious or ethic groups start doing similar shit then they should be filtered out.
Ultimately governments cannot stop determined individuals who are bent on terrorism. It comes down the world population, who out of a love of freedom and their fellow man and with complete disregard to their personal safety restrain and fight violently those who would cause terror.
I just bought a wii in August after playing Mario Party 8 at a friends house. So far I have the wii, MP8, some sports game pack and thats it. Honestly, there's nothing else I want to play on it. The only game I'm looking forward to is Super Smash Bro's.
Nintendo needs to work to get more games on this system. Otherwise my wii will continue to collect dust.
Hopefully the scanner he uses is of higher quality than the one he used to scan these photos [sainul.abideen.dr.ag] on his blog. (click on "photos" after the jump).
Has anyone seen the P2P community attempt to financially support this woman's legal defense?
Considering the impact her case has on P2P sharing en mass; I would think that many file sharing "consumers" would happily contribute to her cause. If file P2P consumers in America feel that what they are doing is legal, they should vote with their money.
I'd love to know that my contribution to this womans cause aided in to legal defense that (hopefully) lands a resounding defeat.
Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?
on
Microsoft Sues EU
·
· Score: 1
"It is only a matter of time, before Linux totally takes over the server market, making such legal battles a thing of the past...
Microsoft, stop being a big bully, and start sharing with the little guys..."
For some reason, I don't think you have Micrsoft's best interests at heart...:)
"Opening these protocols to FOSS projects is not likely to cause Microsoft irreparable harm. The only danger I could imagine is that opening them will expose a megaplex of holes in the protocols and we'll see a rush of exploits..."
I think a bigger issue lies around Microsoft being forced to "give away" technology (source code) that they've invested money to develop. Lets face it, the Microsoft developers who created the code didn't work pro-bona.
Microsoft has spent an untold number of dollars to develop, interate and develop again that technology. Requiring Microsoft to give away code seems to set a dangerious precedent in the commerical software world.
"One reason and one reason only. Most vendors do not ship Linux pre-installed on computers, and for those that do, Windows is the default."
Your statement would seem to indicate that the "vendors" mindlessly install Windows as default. This simply is not the case. Think about it for a minute: Why are all major computer vendors installing Windows as default? It is because their customers expect new computers to come with Windows! Customers have a lot of experience with windows. Older computers or experience in an educational or vocational environment, Windows is a product they are familar with.
None of these vendors care what ships with their computer. Their interested only in their customer, their stakeholders and profit. If linux was really the smart choice that would real in millions in profits they would switch to Linux instantly. The fact is, they will carry and promote the products that earn them the largest customer responce and resulting profits.
How long would it take before a charter was passed making it illegal to remove ones network from the "Internet whole" or to create a competing standard?
Let's have a little fun. Right now if AT&T decides that they no longer want their lines and data networks to function in conjunction with the Internet, they can "pull the plug". (lets pretend for a moment that they aren't bound by various contracts to other businesses).
The key being, they are TOTALY FREE to do whatever they want with the data that flows on their networks. Why would AT&T ever want to pull their networks off the internet? Well, right now they wouldn't want to. I mean, why would they? AT&T makes a lot of money from selling access to their network infrastructure. It can be safely stated that AT&T (at least their investors) are motivated by two things: One- Money. Two- The continued ability to make money!
Giving the UN "control" of the Internet means that suddenly an entity, who operates outside of this country, and does not conform to the laws, rights and standards set forth by this country, has sovereign control over what corporations do within their property within our borders! What part of this sounds like a good idea?! What happens if a new UN version of "Free Speech" doesn't jive with our tried and true American right? Oh well, too bad, censor your networks or else?! Better luck next time?
I for one do not believe that this is good for the future of a "free" Internet or AT&T's investor's. =)
While I hope that I _do_ classify as an ISP, (read: I want to sue folks who spam my mail server.) I find it sad that we vote officials into office that legislate this "crap" as "law".
Moreover it's sad that (assuming this becomes law) it will cost someone untold millions in lawyers fee's to make this law even someone worth more than the paper it's printed on.
Trash in, Trash out.
I think I have a good way to overcome this blatant abuse of "labeling" method.
Lets instead call "Master" "Fuck" and "Slave" "Fucked". This will allow us to use smaller, less offensive words AND save precious storage capacity!
Hopefully this doesn't have any negative impact for the end users. It's always sad when the generic end user gets screwed because someone decided to hack/crack a product to give them additional functionality.
The only problem I see with this is that most spam is not designed to be replied via email. In most situations, spammers rely on people going to a website that they have setup.
that as soon as commercial music isn't involved, P2P suddenly becomes a viable platform for sharing content. The sad part is that we all know that the big hitters out there will not embrace this technology until there are thousands of Berklee's using the platform successfully and profitability.
My company recently aquired one of these units, http://noritsu.com/ Pro units, Model 3011. Very high quality prints. Then again, the price tag may be a bit high for the general consumer...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with parents point, but actually its not tax payer funded. The city is funding this through bonds which will be paid back by revenue from the internet business. See: http://www.monticellofiber.com/nextsteps.html
Consider this: What's point of a $150/mo 50/5 service if a 250gb bandwidth cap could conceivably be consumed in a little over 48 hours?
If ISPs are going to cap bandwidth consumption then ISPs should be regulated to review relevent bandwidth caps adjacent to speed considerations.
Not doing so is akin to selling awesome quality cell phone service without revealing the number of minutes in your monthly plan.
Ideally, ISPs would be mandated to communicate speed as a factor of bandwidth divided by cap. This would empower the consumer to more easily compare the total value of competing ISPs. Spence
Oh sure, the market rebounded and some companies eventually regained their losses. Ultimately that $1.2t represents money that changes hands, and most of it in an unfavorable sense to the companies involved.
But thats not the point. The point is that a handful of men (less than 20) caused more than 15% decrease in the value of the market. Thats interesting because: Like it or not, the NYSE and other stock exchanges contain a significant portion of American and word wide wealth. The success or failure of these markets directly impacts, nay almost directs, the success or failure of the American and global economy.
But it is about the impact on the economy. Consider this: In the days following 9-11, the US stocks lost $1,200,000,000,000. Thats 1.2 trillion if digit grouping isn't your thing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#Economic_aftermath). Thats also just stocks, not counting what we've spent on wars, other anti-terrorist programs, and other junk that hasn't made the USA one ounce safer.
My opinion on the topic? The government should not regulate passengers on planes. Should the government regulate international travel to the US? Maybe. Depends on the program, who it filters, etc. I think it comes down to good intelligence on who the crazies are. So far the majority people people flying planes into buildings for the purposes of terrorism are Muslim Arab's. I think 99% of Muslims Arabs are great--its the 1% that are crazy suicidal maniacs we need to worry about. Lets start there. It would be great if our 'friends' in Saudi Arabia would help us out with this...but thats another issue. If other religious or ethic groups start doing similar shit then they should be filtered out.
Ultimately governments cannot stop determined individuals who are bent on terrorism. It comes down the world population, who out of a love of freedom and their fellow man and with complete disregard to their personal safety restrain and fight violently those who would cause terror.
I just bought a wii in August after playing Mario Party 8 at a friends house. So far I have the wii, MP8, some sports game pack and thats it. Honestly, there's nothing else I want to play on it. The only game I'm looking forward to is Super Smash Bro's. Nintendo needs to work to get more games on this system. Otherwise my wii will continue to collect dust.
And owes the RIAA $222,000. About $9000 a song. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/10/04/downloadingday3/
Hopefully the scanner he uses is of higher quality than the one he used to scan these photos [sainul.abideen.dr.ag] on his blog. (click on "photos" after the jump).
Has anyone seen the P2P community attempt to financially support this woman's legal defense?
Considering the impact her case has on P2P sharing en mass; I would think that many file sharing "consumers" would happily contribute to her cause. If file P2P consumers in America feel that what they are doing is legal, they should vote with their money.
I'd love to know that my contribution to this womans cause aided in to legal defense that (hopefully) lands a resounding defeat.
"It is only a matter of time, before Linux totally takes over the server market, making such legal battles a thing of the past... Microsoft, stop being a big bully, and start sharing with the little guys..."
:)
For some reason, I don't think you have Micrsoft's best interests at heart...
"Opening these protocols to FOSS projects is not likely to cause Microsoft irreparable harm. The only danger I could imagine is that opening them will expose a megaplex of holes in the protocols and we'll see a rush of exploits..."
I think a bigger issue lies around Microsoft being forced to "give away" technology (source code) that they've invested money to develop. Lets face it, the Microsoft developers who created the code didn't work pro-bona.
Microsoft has spent an untold number of dollars to develop, interate and develop again that technology. Requiring Microsoft to give away code seems to set a dangerious precedent in the commerical software world.
"One reason and one reason only. Most vendors do not ship Linux pre-installed on computers, and for those that do, Windows is the default."
Your statement would seem to indicate that the "vendors" mindlessly install Windows as default. This simply is not the case. Think about it for a minute: Why are all major computer vendors installing Windows as default? It is because their customers expect new computers to come with Windows! Customers have a lot of experience with windows. Older computers or experience in an educational or vocational environment, Windows is a product they are familar with.
None of these vendors care what ships with their computer. Their interested only in their customer, their stakeholders and profit. If linux was really the smart choice that would real in millions in profits they would switch to Linux instantly. The fact is, they will carry and promote the products that earn them the largest customer responce and resulting profits.
Dance better than I do! Crap!! I'll be extra impressed when the robots can do DDR. http://www.ddrfreak.com/
I fail to see how setting up fake relays will really cause any prolonged resolution to the "problem".
This is analogous to saying, "Because of all the drunk drivers, let's build more roads!"
How long would it take before a charter was passed making it illegal to remove ones network from the "Internet whole" or to create a competing standard?
Let's have a little fun. Right now if AT&T decides that they no longer want their lines and data networks to function in conjunction with the Internet, they can "pull the plug". (lets pretend for a moment that they aren't bound by various contracts to other businesses).
The key being, they are TOTALY FREE to do whatever they want with the data that flows on their networks. Why would AT&T ever want to pull their networks off the internet? Well, right now they wouldn't want to. I mean, why would they? AT&T makes a lot of money from selling access to their network infrastructure. It can be safely stated that AT&T (at least their investors) are motivated by two things: One- Money. Two- The continued ability to make money!
Giving the UN "control" of the Internet means that suddenly an entity, who operates outside of this country, and does not conform to the laws, rights and standards set forth by this country, has sovereign control over what corporations do within their property within our borders! What part of this sounds like a good idea?! What happens if a new UN version of "Free Speech" doesn't jive with our tried and true American right? Oh well, too bad, censor your networks or else?! Better luck next time?
I for one do not believe that this is good for the future of a "free" Internet or AT&T's investor's. =)
While I hope that I _do_ classify as an ISP, (read: I want to sue folks who spam my mail server.) I find it sad that we vote officials into office that legislate this "crap" as "law". Moreover it's sad that (assuming this becomes law) it will cost someone untold millions in lawyers fee's to make this law even someone worth more than the paper it's printed on. Trash in, Trash out.
I think I have a good way to overcome this blatant abuse of "labeling" method. Lets instead call "Master" "Fuck" and "Slave" "Fucked". This will allow us to use smaller, less offensive words AND save precious storage capacity!
Hopefully this doesn't have any negative impact for the end users. It's always sad when the generic end user gets screwed because someone decided to hack/crack a product to give them additional functionality.
The only problem I see with this is that most spam is not designed to be replied via email. In most situations, spammers rely on people going to a website that they have setup.
that as soon as commercial music isn't involved, P2P suddenly becomes a viable platform for sharing content. The sad part is that we all know that the big hitters out there will not embrace this technology until there are thousands of Berklee's using the platform successfully and profitability.
Sounds very similar to the RIAA's current business plan...
If the RIAA would just sue more people, more consistantly, this would be a great way to screw over evil people in ones dorm!
Now _THAT_ is funny. Yet, isn't it sad that it is (in most places) true?
My company recently aquired one of these units, http://noritsu.com/ Pro units, Model 3011. Very high quality prints. Then again, the price tag may be a bit high for the general consumer...
42.