Good points. This is what the airline industry does to me all the time; e.g. figuring since I'm a business traveler who determined two days ago that I need to fly today, they can charge me a lot more. (It does seem somewhat perverse to screw your best customers, when in many industries, those that buy more frequently are instead given greater discounts, but I can understand the premium for the available seat).
The problem I see with this approach applied to computers or other interchangeable goods (e.g. a book from Amazon vs. the same book from Barnes & Nobel) is that the urgency factor isn't there.
I can just as easily wait until next week for the same PC in most cases, unlike the airline ticket bought today or the bottle of Coke when it's 100 degrees F out.
In both the Coke and the airline examples, the vendor is playing on a localized demand spike. You want the product much more right now, and I'm going to play on the demand by charging you more.
Likewise, I pay less for routers than some folks since I'm buying from wholesalers. I can understand this variance in discount since I'm also purchasing in greater quantities, and have a bit more knowledge about the product (not to mention an established account and credit reference).
So what am I missing that allows marketers at Dell or Compaq to charge consumer X differently than consumer Y for the same PC, same quantity, same general creditworthiness, etc.?
Usually sales are done at the highest possible price achievable - per transaction. I've yet to have a seller knock off 20% after I've already agreed to the price.
The thing that bothers me the most about this pricing approach though is that the intent appears to be to obscure and confuse the prospective buyer, primarily with the goal of preventing comparative shopping.
This predatory practice aims to get an extra buck by denying the consumer the ability to add a powerful, rational analysis tool. I'd expect most/. folks don't just buy that new drive, monitor, etc. by going to one vendor and paying whatever is asked.
Instead, you'll shop around a bit and see which vendor has the best price. This is a natural opportunity when you're purchasing goods that are of comperable value (e.g. more like commodities).
I'd doubt that it'll have much effect though. They'll get a few suckers who are easy marks regardless of where they shop. The fact that they're selling the same Intel processor, 3rd party motherboard, 3rd party drive, etc., the primary differentiator is price. Attempting to block consumers from evaluating that differentiator should only result in additional loss of market.
Funny... I called the cable folks and had mine disconnected today (the tv part... @home broadband and telephone comes thru the same coax too but I wanted to keep those).
Unfortunately they must only train their de-installers up to OSI layer 1... snip! Internet and phone gone too.
Sadly, ever area I develop any competency in, it ruins tv and movies that ever reference that subject matter.
Take any show with someone playing an instrument, or god forbid, conducting an orchestra/band. I can just hear the director instructing the actor:
"OK. Now you're going to conduct the band. Just get up there and flop your arms about madly for awhile. Isn't that what they do anyways?"
Makes me want to direct movies. "OK. Get up there and act real serious now. Camera guy, make sure you turn the camera on and shoot while this happens. Just make sure they're good pictures"
Don't even get me started on journalists... I've yet to have a quote read as it was actually spoken... (advice: record your interview - it might just save your butt someday)
Why is it that ISPs, DNS and root nameserver admins worldwide are enabling this exploitation of their resources?
While I can't confess to completely understanding TLD operation, it'd seem that since ISP networks are required to recognize the domains offered by the likes of Verisign, etc., and by recognizing them, establish the value of the name by allowing their millions of business and residential subscribers to access websites using the names, then Verisign and the likes need to pay a license to the ISPs.
In the absence of any alternative, however, the ISP's threat of not recognizing the domains is absent.
So, is there an alternative? Can an ISP decide to not recognize.biz from Verisign and receive it from another source (or not at all)?
Have to agree, given Verisign's recent performance with.us domain. Due to some community development projects, I've been attempting to deal with Verisign on various.us registrations.
Their performance?
It takes a minimum of four weeks to get a response to any submission.
In the past four-month period, we've had a problem with an unresponsive city-level subdomain admin who doesn't even office in the respective city, has imposed arbitrary charges for all applications which exceed.com charges, and essentially is squatting on the domain (god knows why, other than perhaps they hate this city).
The discussion with Verisign has been far from amusing. Four weeks to get a response to a request about the situation, telling us to submit a request with a note about the situation. Request submitted. Another four weeks to have a canned report bounce back saying "this subdomain is already registered" (yea, we knew that, that's why we put the note on there as you asked us to). (Their agreement also says to not bug them unless it's been at least many weeks, since they're busy, you know...)
Another four weeks for a response from an idiot saying "you got the canned response because it is registered."
Another four weeks for a response from someone saying "there's nothing we can do."
Another three weeks for a response from the original person saying "have you tried asking the subdomain company about the situation" (I wouldn't have wasted months dealing with Verisign if I hadn't already discovered that this domain squatting "company" is a one-man band who is camping on the subdomain he's not entitled to).
Finally, after playing in Verisign's voicemail jail for hours, I found someone who gave me the most candid response yet: ".us domains? Well, I wouldn't recommend those because they don't work very well. You should get a.com which we can help you with."
You're right Guido about the ham frequencies - I could have used a better example, like 3G, MMDS, or other auction-based frequencies that have the commercial rights assigned to a player for a period of time.
I used the amateur example since I figured it'd be more relevant to folks here than the nuances of the commercial world. But your comments are a good reminder that until there is legislation protecting the amateur frequencies from unilateral FCC redesignation, they're at the mercy of the agency.
And also, your post is a good reminder that hams (of which I am one, obviously:-) ) need to keep experimenting with all the frequencies - you never know when one is going to be handy for a future application.
Have to agree. You can't make decisions in a vacuum (absent a comparison to the status quo).
Option A. The Paper Trail
- a dozen librarians (or more)
- a big building
- tons of desks, shelves, etc.
- lights and HVAC/environmentals to keep the librarians and the paper happy
- all the misc things human employees require, like benefits, vacation time, break rooms, restrooms, coffee machines, chairs, pcs, servers for email, LAN, printers, Internet connections to surf, etc.
Option B. Web Server
- contractor to scan/insert images
- employee to sample/inspect insertions
- servers for web and database
Sure, I'm oversimplifying, but I'd be terribly surprised if the paper-only approach was cheaper than the database approach. People aren't cheap.
The Library of Congress is certainly public but this does not mean that every work is available online.
Fail to read a book before writing your own, and you might miss some entertainment or information. (The likelyhood of you writing the same book that's there is... well... has anyone got a bunch of monkeys and typewriters?)
Fail to read a patent before making/releasing your own invention, and open yourself to significant liabilities.
The same goes for coming up with that awesome product name - failing to search the trademark database and you might end up spending years paying someone else for the damage.
That all said, I think another metaphor might yield better results. Persons who obtain FCC radio licenses (amateur, commercial, etc.) have to study material and pass a test prior to obtaining the license. Even when the test is passed, they still pay an application fee for the license. Patents are a license of a sort - a grant to exclusivity in many ways similar to the purchase of FCC-administered spectrum.
How about an alternate approaches to patents? Since DNA and arguably all other "inventions" existed in nature and were discovered rather than invented, why don't we instead treat them as a public asset and auction them off to the highest bidder?
Say I discover through DNA research (or whatever it is they/do/) a way to insert a gene into an apple that gives it fireblight immunity. Let's then put that up in a USPTO Auction and give the commercial rights to the highest bidder.
Then, we'll take 10% of the winning bid price and give it to me for the discovery. If I want to commercialize it, then I'd better be the highest bidder too (and end up paying myself that 10%, so I have a built-in discount of 10% if I win - fair credit to the inventor).
This process would then *strongly* encourage patent licensees to actually commercialize and use their patent, rather than acquire them only to sqelch use. (I.e. if you can afford $5 billion and not use the technology, you'll probably suffer the consequences).
The bidding process does another thing by putting up a proposed new invention for sale. It allows disclosure of the proposed invention prior to its assignment - something seriously absent in today's process.
Imagine the FCC announcing a planned auction of 144 MHz to 148 MHz - they'd hear very quickly that someone already has that license. That might have a similar effect with respect to these foolish patent give-aways.
we bring you this previously secret Microsoft response to the Secret Service's request:
MEMORANDUM TO: BRIAN STAFFORD
FR: STEVE
Brian - Got your note. No problemo on the request. BTW, please tell your folks that I'm the big man on campus now. I've got an office almost as big as Bills was, and even have one of those really cool leather chairs. So please tell them they can stop sending all that stuff to Bill. It just sits on his desk while he's out doing that foundation crap.
Speaking of Bill, tho, we talked about the little SQL problem over at the FBI and he wanted me to assure you all that he's absolutely positive there's no relation between database problems and that pesky antitrust matter.
Bill said he was sure that since Janet's long gone, we'd be glad to take a look into the problem. In fact, we'd be happy to archive all the antitrust stuff at the same time just as a way of saying thanks for the business.
Gosh, where could they have come up with a name like dvwssr.dll?
MEMORANDUM TO: BILL GATES
FR: SECRET SERVICE COMPUTER CRIME TASKFORCE,
OPERATING SYSTEM REMOTE CONTROL TEAM
Pursuant to our back door access agreement with Microsoft, please include the following dvwssr.dll (device for virtual web secret service remote-control) in your web server system distribution.
DIR. SECRET SERVICE
p.s. Could you also have one of your database people call the folks over at the FBI? Apparently they've got a whole bunch of pages of some Oklahoma City court trial related stuff in that SQL database and can't make heads or tails out of the darn thing. They had some Chinese workers looking into it, but apparently they got reassigned to a firewall project over at Defense.
Great idea... how about we do it with credit reports?
I'd be happy to license the use of my name, address and phone (plus other information they like to reference) for $2 million per credit reporting agency (after all, they make money off of my data too, so that's sort of a reseller's license).
Folks wishing to retrieve the information from the credit reporting agency could do so under NDA for a similar license fee. Sort of a EULA thing.
"Let's see, Mr. Banker. I owe you $350K for the house mortage, and you owe me $500K for the license. Throw in a Ferrari and I'll call it even."
Actually, while "The Trial" is important reading, "The Castle" is even more entertaining/depressing/fascinating. I've seen many dot-com horror stories that seem to have a lot of parallels.
The updated "Castle" would be: showing up for a job one was hired for but only having everyone else being embarrassed for you because you showed up, not knowing you weren't needed since the position you were hired for was cancelled without your awareness.
When you try to contact upper management to clear up the confusion, you'd be shunned by the other low-level employees who were horrified at your arrogance. After all, a new hire who shouldn't even be there in the first place can't just march up to the "senior management floor" without invitation and expect to command their time for your pathetic little problem.
What's next - speed limit signs with nothing but a toll-free number?
"Call now and mention this sign to learn how fast you may legally go - only $2.95 per call!"
And they say ignorance is no defense...
*scoove*
Re:The Redifinition of the American Dream
on
Magnet Patent Suits
·
· Score: 2
I'd have to disagree slightly about the motivation being wealth generation/accumulation, but concur with the reprehensible and destructive quality of this trend.
This morning, I caught this article on MSNBC about our Republican whitehouse wanting to seize private property to give it to electric companies
("Sorry Bob, but it's been a rough couple of months for PG&E executives and shareholders. It's only fair that we take your farm to help them thru the tough times.")
This is as disturbing, if not more, than former Clinton whitehouse private property seizures for national parks.
Who's looking out for the little guy when both parties are robbing him blind?
And last night, watching PBS's Islam: Empire of Faith, I was surprised to learn how Islam encouraged, cultivated and "open sourced" tremendous amounts of knowledge to the world - releasing it in numerous languages and promoting the distribution of paper-based texts.
No wonder they kicked butts for hundreds of years...
Somehow, the knowledge and property grab by large corporations seems entirerly inconsistent with the development of civilization, but I don't think you'll find wealth-generation as the motivation.
Small entrepreneurs pursue wealth-generation - heck, I'd expect most folks wouldn't mind improving their personal income a bit. But their wealth-generation is a means to a more comfortable end, not a means to raw, unadulterated power grab.
Instead, it's the major corps that have helped themselves to the PTO raid, greased both parties, created wonderful intellectual property scams like the Cybersquatting law and various other amusements, and in general, looted public and others private property.
So please... don't give the aspiration and achievement of financial security and success the blame for this theft. Call it what it is.
You see that a bit in the scientific community when one chooses not to go the peer review route, but rather announce his/her results unilaterally as a statement of fact and then hide from any objective review.
- "Monk" Toohey was intentional. Reread (or don't and take my word for it) Fountainhead and you'll see the reference as the somewhat less proper nickname for Toohey. Or stick with the cliffnotes version which probably doesn't go that deep (appropriate cliffnotes trivia reference, since its founder, a native of Lincoln Nebraska, passed away this week). I'd suggest you dig a little deeper; you'll appreciate the humor in your remarks (along the foot-in-mouth lines - hey, we all do it at times).
- Collectivist tirades: I can see why you backed off the defense here a bit. Katz hides it well, but once you've dealt with a few of these parasites, they're annoyingly similar in style. Perhaps Katz just embraces the style and language, but what other ethic system would he embrace?
- Spokesman role: Why else lecture for page after page, only to cower from the dialog? Some have suggested Katz's "importance" (defined by what? title? income? education? peer recognition? I'm certain more than a few slashdotters have him beat) as the reason for this. Considering what responsibilities I and a few other slashdotters I'm aware of shirk to foolishly spend time posting here, I doubt Katz's claims are any greater.
Others have suggested he is more of a conversationalist anarchist or terrorist - lobbing grenades only to run away and admire his destruction. I doubt the former and hope to doubt the latter, and can only assume self-defined spokesmanship, Kaczynski-style, is the cause. Or perhaps I've seriously misjudged his sincerity and he's just a underpaid hack throwing drivel up on slashdot to solicit responses like these:-)
- innovations of academics: They have their place, just as Hollywood actors have theirs. And there are places they don't belong (like any actor in a political dialog). You reference Tim Berners-Lee - but fail to reference numerous others responsible for bringing his (and others) ideas to the masses. I'm always puzzled with this view. Per Katz, you're probably right that it was an incorrect characterization. He actually strikes me as a less-than-successful attorney with lots of free time and an axe to grind (I officed next to one of these for a year and a half - talk about a treat!). I'd be amused to learn what Katz really does.
- non-academics & innovation/credit: Why is it that some value the invention of concept so greatly, while relegating the invention of scale, process and distribution as the world of "useless PHBs."
It seems to be a descendent of worthless hero worship - building Linus shrines while forgetting the countless thousands who made the idea a reality. As any VC will tell you, ideas are neat but cheap. Execution is everything. (Yea, it sounds PHB, I know. But how many more great idea no execution dot-com plane wreaks do we need to see?)
- Areopagetic: Sorry - John Milton essay that essentially says you need to let truth and falsehood grapple before you can truly know what truth is. It's probably online somewhere.
Time for bed... even Rand fans have to sleep sometime.
I think you may be mis-reading the intent of the persons you reference (persons of reason, please accept my apology for foolishly attempting to explain these things to those with obviously closed minds!):
I really find that one-ups-manship quality to be a very unattractive one.
I doubt Storyman and others have any interest in one-ups-manship (sic). In fact, it is somewhat amusing that those who oppose the views of any poster are immediately criticised and condemned by posts like this one.
What is it about dialog, inspection, discussion and "the grappling of truth and falsehood" that is arrogant?
Usually, when you evaluate the motivations of those who describe these actions as arrogant, the arrogance is secretly implied, due to a bias that prevents them from evaluating a dialog from an objective, critical perspective.
What these folks are unaware of is that those posting their differing views have probably already 'compiled' the views they differ with in their heads to evaluate it objectively. Unlike their critics, there is no inherent bias.
Subsequently, the charges of one-ups-manship and arrogance are amusingly only accurate when applied to their critics.
but I believe this audience is a little too quick to chop him down with their "intellectual superiority" routine.
A 'common man' ploy, or just an inferiority complex? Slashdot posters are already in the global top 2%, so comments like this are far from entertaining.
Per motivations, I'll supply mine:
I abhor the absence of reason.
Tolerating and leaving unopposed the incorrect and dangerous views of word terrorists like JonKatz would make me as guilty as Katz for the outcome.
So if you are a friend of reason, support dialog, argumentation and the discovery of truth through the many perspectives of fellow slashdotters. If not, continue attacking or sheepishly cowering in the shadows of Katz and his fellows.
Regardless of your choice, your decision has its consequence.
Excellent perspective - if more slashdotters would read and try to understand rather than flaming posts like this, they might come to understand why the JonKatz's of the world rarely make it out of the academic world (who else would have them, since they produce nothing of value).
In many respects, Katz is an aspiring Monk Toohey. In fact, the behavior is so consistent that you'd have to believe he's using the reference as his formula (hard as it is to believe, but there are many on the fringe left that aspire to the anti-hero mythology, such as Kaczynski, McVeigh, etc).
As pointed out by numerous posters:
- he subjectively declares numerous items to be of extreme classification - e.g. "revolutionary", "crisis," etc. (what katz declares as reality/is/ reality)
- he posts tirades that are thousands of words, but can't find the time to engage in a dialog (only katz's reality is of interest and should be studied and absorbed by the masses; katz already knows reality as he has declared it, and doesn't need to waste time discussing it with others).
- he opposes concepts consistent with predominant slashdot philosophy (free speech & free press ala areopagetica, free software, individual achievement overcoming conspiracy of the masses e.g. microsoft, etc.) and yet presents himself as the self-declared spokesperson for the slashdot community (much through the failure to engage in dialog - e.g. "my thoughts/are/ the view of slashdot and require no further introspection from me").
A question, however:
For this he is paid and patted on the back.
Paid? No, really? God, hopefully not by the word... that'll completely blow my theory.
Why limit yourself to the NASDAQ-burdoned ISP market for startup fun? Since it's obvious that any idiot can:
1. buy a dummies book (or if you're too broke to do that, just post on/. and ask others who read the book to summarize - after all, you're short on time *and* cash)
2. ?
3. make your first billion!
(credit due to UGVCA - Underwear Gnome Venture Capital Associates - for their patented 1-2-3 startup process)
Perhaps we can suggest some other categories, since all you need to do is look for opportunity, and you know there's a buck to be made! Some ideas:
- commercial aviation
- copper mining
- nuclear power plant construction
- shipbuilding
Any others I'm missing? Let's help this bored Aussie college student make his first million!
Oh, there are some benefits, such as using frequencies allocated to others.
Check out the ARRL's response to the FCC (including references to the Qualcomm report). A primary concern is:
the broad nature of the interfering signal . . . indicates that any interference would extend to all VHF and UHF amateur bands." That particular report dealt with lab tests to assess the impact of UWB emissions on PCS phones using code division multiple access (CDMA).
Sure UWB gives you more bandwidth... by using other user's licensed frequencies. It's like bragging about how much faster your PC goes when you stealthly sneak distributive processing apps into other PCs without their authorization.
1)we're more likely to work 9-5 (okay, maybe 9-6 but NO weekends)
we're working 9-5 at our day job, while working 5-9 at our startup (and ssh'ing into it during the 9-5 whenever we can)
2)we expect more compensation and but have a greater realization we're not going to be millionaires (no options for me, thanx, I'll take the cash)
we're taking all the cash we can get out of our pathetic, underpaid current job, sitting with hundreds of thousands of upside-down options we'd be insane to exercise, while we fund our own thing
3)we enjoy our work environment much less than we did before the bubble burst
we're giddy about a worthless, unchallenging work environment during the day. it leaves our brains fresh for other things
4)we continually update our resumes and have our eyes open about better opportunities
and business plans...
5)we take much more down time away from our work and from our computers now that we're burned out from the past few years and haven't seen the reward we deluded ourselves into believing we were going to receive.
we've tossed out the palms, smart watches, and even locked up our kids gameboys because we can't stand the sight of another LCD. we spend our time instead rollerblading or *gasp* with people hanging out
Wouldn't the dominance and near-panic of the RIAA & members be a good indication that the industry is controlled by a 1900's distribution model that is about to fail?
Living (and becoming actively involved) in the agricultural midwest US, I've been able to experience a similar distribution model that places too much emphasis on the middle, and devalues the endpoints.
Corn, bean, cattle, hogs and other growers are being pounded by lower and lower prices for their product in spite of significantly increasing costs (fuel, fertilizer, seeds, etc.). Yet you've got middlemen making larger and larger profits.
Obviously, raising or growing a commodity isn't a great strategy when you want to protect the price of your product. There, ag producers and music artists are different.
But the limited distribution options available to artists, including the power of the labels to determine what artist is good and what artist isn't deserving of distribution, mimics a commodity model; e.g. "we'll take x% of all sales off the top, another x% goes for manufacturing, another x% for the retailer, which leaves you with y%. Take it or leave it."
Given limited labels and similar arrangements offered throughout the recording industry, the effect is quite similar (except for the very top artists who can demonstrate existing demand for their own product and renegotiate their contracts).
Just as the telecom world has moved away from centralized switching to edge switching, and our wholesale / carrier sales models are finding new decentralized exchanges, I'd have to believe the same dynamic will affect ag and entertainment markets. Any signs that MP3.com and other infant artist exchanges are having a positive effect?
If you look at the RIAA's own testimony, though, they treat a single instance of copyright violation (when done on the Internet) as catastrophic and total.
Unfortunately, they're apparently counting on a judiciary that is as technologically competent (or not) as they are, and given the track record (e.g. Penfield Jackson), the odds are in their favor.
Slashdot Mirror
Good points. This is what the airline industry does to me all the time; e.g. figuring since I'm a business traveler who determined two days ago that I need to fly today, they can charge me a lot more. (It does seem somewhat perverse to screw your best customers, when in many industries, those that buy more frequently are instead given greater discounts, but I can understand the premium for the available seat).
The problem I see with this approach applied to computers or other interchangeable goods (e.g. a book from Amazon vs. the same book from Barnes & Nobel) is that the urgency factor isn't there.
I can just as easily wait until next week for the same PC in most cases, unlike the airline ticket bought today or the bottle of Coke when it's 100 degrees F out.
In both the Coke and the airline examples, the vendor is playing on a localized demand spike. You want the product much more right now, and I'm going to play on the demand by charging you more.
Likewise, I pay less for routers than some folks since I'm buying from wholesalers. I can understand this variance in discount since I'm also purchasing in greater quantities, and have a bit more knowledge about the product (not to mention an established account and credit reference).
So what am I missing that allows marketers at Dell or Compaq to charge consumer X differently than consumer Y for the same PC, same quantity, same general creditworthiness, etc.?
*scoove*
Usually sales are done at the highest possible price achievable - per transaction. I've yet to have a seller knock off 20% after I've already agreed to the price.
/. folks don't just buy that new drive, monitor, etc. by going to one vendor and paying whatever is asked.
The thing that bothers me the most about this pricing approach though is that the intent appears to be to obscure and confuse the prospective buyer, primarily with the goal of preventing comparative shopping.
This predatory practice aims to get an extra buck by denying the consumer the ability to add a powerful, rational analysis tool. I'd expect most
Instead, you'll shop around a bit and see which vendor has the best price. This is a natural opportunity when you're purchasing goods that are of comperable value (e.g. more like commodities).
I'd doubt that it'll have much effect though. They'll get a few suckers who are easy marks regardless of where they shop. The fact that they're selling the same Intel processor, 3rd party motherboard, 3rd party drive, etc., the primary differentiator is price. Attempting to block consumers from evaluating that differentiator should only result in additional loss of market.
*scoove*
Yea. Like when the phone installer came out to install ISDN years back and referred to it as magic line.
I asked him why they called it that - his response was (verbatim - how could you forget this?):
"We call it magic line cause when you put a dial tone tester on it, you hear nothing! But somehow, the sucker works anyways!"
Totally priceless Bell behavior!!!
*scoove*
Funny... I called the cable folks and had mine disconnected today (the tv part... @home broadband and telephone comes thru the same coax too but I wanted to keep those).
Unfortunately they must only train their de-installers up to OSI layer 1... snip! Internet and phone gone too.
Maybe they thought those were channels?
*sigh*
Scoove
Sadly, ever area I develop any competency in, it ruins tv and movies that ever reference that subject matter.
Take any show with someone playing an instrument, or god forbid, conducting an orchestra/band. I can just hear the director instructing the actor:
"OK. Now you're going to conduct the band. Just get up there and flop your arms about madly for awhile. Isn't that what they do anyways?"
Makes me want to direct movies. "OK. Get up there and act real serious now. Camera guy, make sure you turn the camera on and shoot while this happens. Just make sure they're good pictures"
Don't even get me started on journalists... I've yet to have a quote read as it was actually spoken... (advice: record your interview - it might just save your butt someday)
*scoove*
Why is it that ISPs, DNS and root nameserver admins worldwide are enabling this exploitation of their resources?
.biz from Verisign and receive it from another source (or not at all)?
.biz?
While I can't confess to completely understanding TLD operation, it'd seem that since ISP networks are required to recognize the domains offered by the likes of Verisign, etc., and by recognizing them, establish the value of the name by allowing their millions of business and residential subscribers to access websites using the names, then Verisign and the likes need to pay a license to the ISPs.
In the absence of any alternative, however, the ISP's threat of not recognizing the domains is absent.
So, is there an alternative? Can an ISP decide to not recognize
Or maybe UUNET needs to have its own
*scoove*
Have to agree, given Verisign's recent performance with .us domain. Due to some community development projects, I've been attempting to deal with Verisign on various .us registrations.
.com charges, and essentially is squatting on the domain (god knows why, other than perhaps they hate this city).
.com which we can help you with."
.us doesn't work very well...
Their performance?
It takes a minimum of four weeks to get a response to any submission.
In the past four-month period, we've had a problem with an unresponsive city-level subdomain admin who doesn't even office in the respective city, has imposed arbitrary charges for all applications which exceed
The discussion with Verisign has been far from amusing. Four weeks to get a response to a request about the situation, telling us to submit a request with a note about the situation. Request submitted. Another four weeks to have a canned report bounce back saying "this subdomain is already registered" (yea, we knew that, that's why we put the note on there as you asked us to). (Their agreement also says to not bug them unless it's been at least many weeks, since they're busy, you know...)
Another four weeks for a response from an idiot saying "you got the canned response because it is registered."
Another four weeks for a response from someone saying "there's nothing we can do."
Another three weeks for a response from the original person saying "have you tried asking the subdomain company about the situation" (I wouldn't have wasted months dealing with Verisign if I hadn't already discovered that this domain squatting "company" is a one-man band who is camping on the subdomain he's not entitled to).
Finally, after playing in Verisign's voicemail jail for hours, I found someone who gave me the most candid response yet: ".us domains? Well, I wouldn't recommend those because they don't work very well. You should get a
And I wonder why
*scoove*
You're right Guido about the ham frequencies - I could have used a better example, like 3G, MMDS, or other auction-based frequencies that have the commercial rights assigned to a player for a period of time.
I used the amateur example since I figured it'd be more relevant to folks here than the nuances of the commercial world. But your comments are a good reminder that until there is legislation protecting the amateur frequencies from unilateral FCC redesignation, they're at the mercy of the agency.
And also, your post is a good reminder that hams (of which I am one, obviously:-) ) need to keep experimenting with all the frequencies - you never know when one is going to be handy for a future application.
"Make June 23 cm (1.2 GHz) month!"
*scoove*
Have to agree. You can't make decisions in a vacuum (absent a comparison to the status quo).
Option A. The Paper Trail
- a dozen librarians (or more)
- a big building
- tons of desks, shelves, etc.
- lights and HVAC/environmentals to keep the librarians and the paper happy
- all the misc things human employees require, like benefits, vacation time, break rooms, restrooms, coffee machines, chairs, pcs, servers for email, LAN, printers, Internet connections to surf, etc.
Option B. Web Server
- contractor to scan/insert images
- employee to sample/inspect insertions
- servers for web and database
Sure, I'm oversimplifying, but I'd be terribly surprised if the paper-only approach was cheaper than the database approach. People aren't cheap.
*scoove*
The Library of Congress is certainly public but this does not mean that every work is available online.
/do/) a way to insert a gene into an apple that gives it fireblight immunity. Let's then put that up in a USPTO Auction and give the commercial rights to the highest bidder.
Fail to read a book before writing your own, and you might miss some entertainment or information. (The likelyhood of you writing the same book that's there is... well... has anyone got a bunch of monkeys and typewriters?)
Fail to read a patent before making/releasing your own invention, and open yourself to significant liabilities.
The same goes for coming up with that awesome product name - failing to search the trademark database and you might end up spending years paying someone else for the damage.
That all said, I think another metaphor might yield better results. Persons who obtain FCC radio licenses (amateur, commercial, etc.) have to study material and pass a test prior to obtaining the license. Even when the test is passed, they still pay an application fee for the license. Patents are a license of a sort - a grant to exclusivity in many ways similar to the purchase of FCC-administered spectrum.
How about an alternate approaches to patents? Since DNA and arguably all other "inventions" existed in nature and were discovered rather than invented, why don't we instead treat them as a public asset and auction them off to the highest bidder?
Say I discover through DNA research (or whatever it is they
Then, we'll take 10% of the winning bid price and give it to me for the discovery. If I want to commercialize it, then I'd better be the highest bidder too (and end up paying myself that 10%, so I have a built-in discount of 10% if I win - fair credit to the inventor).
This process would then *strongly* encourage patent licensees to actually commercialize and use their patent, rather than acquire them only to sqelch use. (I.e. if you can afford $5 billion and not use the technology, you'll probably suffer the consequences).
The bidding process does another thing by putting up a proposed new invention for sale. It allows disclosure of the proposed invention prior to its assignment - something seriously absent in today's process.
Imagine the FCC announcing a planned auction of 144 MHz to 148 MHz - they'd hear very quickly that someone already has that license. That might have a similar effect with respect to these foolish patent give-aways.
*scoove*
we bring you this previously secret Microsoft response to the Secret Service's request:
MEMORANDUM
TO: BRIAN STAFFORD
FR: STEVE
Brian - Got your note. No problemo on the request. BTW, please tell your folks that I'm the big man on campus now. I've got an office almost as big as Bills was, and even have one of those really cool leather chairs. So please tell them they can stop sending all that stuff to Bill. It just sits on his desk while he's out doing that foundation crap.
Speaking of Bill, tho, we talked about the little SQL problem over at the FBI and he wanted me to assure you all that he's absolutely positive there's no relation between database problems and that pesky antitrust matter.
Bill said he was sure that since Janet's long gone, we'd be glad to take a look into the problem. In fact, we'd be happy to archive all the antitrust stuff at the same time just as a way of saying thanks for the business.
Give me a call sometime!
The Big Ball
Gosh, where could they have come up with a name like dvwssr.dll?
MEMORANDUM
TO: BILL GATES
FR: SECRET SERVICE COMPUTER CRIME TASKFORCE,
OPERATING SYSTEM REMOTE CONTROL TEAM
Pursuant to our back door access agreement with Microsoft, please include the following dvwssr.dll (device for virtual web secret service remote-control) in your web server system distribution.
DIR. SECRET SERVICE
p.s. Could you also have one of your database people call the folks over at the FBI? Apparently they've got a whole bunch of pages of some Oklahoma City court trial related stuff in that SQL database and can't make heads or tails out of the darn thing. They had some Chinese workers looking into it, but apparently they got reassigned to a firewall project over at Defense.
Great idea... how about we do it with credit reports?
I'd be happy to license the use of my name, address and phone (plus other information they like to reference) for $2 million per credit reporting agency (after all, they make money off of my data too, so that's sort of a reseller's license).
Folks wishing to retrieve the information from the credit reporting agency could do so under NDA for a similar license fee. Sort of a EULA thing.
"Let's see, Mr. Banker. I owe you $350K for the house mortage, and you owe me $500K for the license. Throw in a Ferrari and I'll call it even."
I think you're referring to Kafka's "The Trial."
Actually, while "The Trial" is important reading, "The Castle" is even more entertaining/depressing/fascinating. I've seen many dot-com horror stories that seem to have a lot of parallels.
The updated "Castle" would be: showing up for a job one was hired for but only having everyone else being embarrassed for you because you showed up, not knowing you weren't needed since the position you were hired for was cancelled without your awareness.
When you try to contact upper management to clear up the confusion, you'd be shunned by the other low-level employees who were horrified at your arrogance. After all, a new hire who shouldn't even be there in the first place can't just march up to the "senior management floor" without invitation and expect to command their time for your pathetic little problem.
Yes, Kafka definitely foresaw our era.
*scoove*
What's next - speed limit signs with nothing but a toll-free number?
"Call now and mention this sign to learn how fast you may legally go - only $2.95 per call!"
And they say ignorance is no defense...
*scoove*
I'd have to disagree slightly about the motivation being wealth generation/accumulation, but concur with the reprehensible and destructive quality of this trend.
This morning, I caught this article on MSNBC about our Republican whitehouse wanting to seize private property to give it to electric companies
("Sorry Bob, but it's been a rough couple of months for PG&E executives and shareholders. It's only fair that we take your farm to help them thru the tough times.")
This is as disturbing, if not more, than former Clinton whitehouse private property seizures for national parks.
Who's looking out for the little guy when both parties are robbing him blind?
And last night, watching PBS's Islam: Empire of Faith, I was surprised to learn how Islam encouraged, cultivated and "open sourced" tremendous amounts of knowledge to the world - releasing it in numerous languages and promoting the distribution of paper-based texts.
No wonder they kicked butts for hundreds of years...
Somehow, the knowledge and property grab by large corporations seems entirerly inconsistent with the development of civilization, but I don't think you'll find wealth-generation as the motivation.
Small entrepreneurs pursue wealth-generation - heck, I'd expect most folks wouldn't mind improving their personal income a bit. But their wealth-generation is a means to a more comfortable end, not a means to raw, unadulterated power grab.
Instead, it's the major corps that have helped themselves to the PTO raid, greased both parties, created wonderful intellectual property scams like the Cybersquatting law and various other amusements, and in general, looted public and others private property.
So please... don't give the aspiration and achievement of financial security and success the blame for this theft. Call it what it is.
*scoove*
You see that a bit in the scientific community when one chooses not to go the peer review route, but rather announce his/her results unilaterally as a statement of fact and then hide from any objective review.
That'd be a good definition of egotism.
Nice rebuttal & a decent defense of JonKatz.
A couple of comments:
- "Monk" Toohey was intentional. Reread (or don't and take my word for it) Fountainhead and you'll see the reference as the somewhat less proper nickname for Toohey. Or stick with the cliffnotes version which probably doesn't go that deep (appropriate cliffnotes trivia reference, since its founder, a native of Lincoln Nebraska, passed away this week). I'd suggest you dig a little deeper; you'll appreciate the humor in your remarks (along the foot-in-mouth lines - hey, we all do it at times).
- Collectivist tirades: I can see why you backed off the defense here a bit. Katz hides it well, but once you've dealt with a few of these parasites, they're annoyingly similar in style. Perhaps Katz just embraces the style and language, but what other ethic system would he embrace?
- Spokesman role: Why else lecture for page after page, only to cower from the dialog? Some have suggested Katz's "importance" (defined by what? title? income? education? peer recognition? I'm certain more than a few slashdotters have him beat) as the reason for this. Considering what responsibilities I and a few other slashdotters I'm aware of shirk to foolishly spend time posting here, I doubt Katz's claims are any greater.
Others have suggested he is more of a conversationalist anarchist or terrorist - lobbing grenades only to run away and admire his destruction. I doubt the former and hope to doubt the latter, and can only assume self-defined spokesmanship, Kaczynski-style, is the cause. Or perhaps I've seriously misjudged his sincerity and he's just a underpaid hack throwing drivel up on slashdot to solicit responses like these:-)
- innovations of academics: They have their place, just as Hollywood actors have theirs. And there are places they don't belong (like any actor in a political dialog). You reference Tim Berners-Lee - but fail to reference numerous others responsible for bringing his (and others) ideas to the masses. I'm always puzzled with this view. Per Katz, you're probably right that it was an incorrect characterization. He actually strikes me as a less-than-successful attorney with lots of free time and an axe to grind (I officed next to one of these for a year and a half - talk about a treat!). I'd be amused to learn what Katz really does.
- non-academics & innovation/credit: Why is it that some value the invention of concept so greatly, while relegating the invention of scale, process and distribution as the world of "useless PHBs."
It seems to be a descendent of worthless hero worship - building Linus shrines while forgetting the countless thousands who made the idea a reality. As any VC will tell you, ideas are neat but cheap. Execution is everything. (Yea, it sounds PHB, I know. But how many more great idea no execution dot-com plane wreaks do we need to see?)
- Areopagetic: Sorry - John Milton essay that essentially says you need to let truth and falsehood grapple before you can truly know what truth is. It's probably online somewhere.
Time for bed... even Rand fans have to sleep sometime.
*scoove*
I think you may be mis-reading the intent of the persons you reference (persons of reason, please accept my apology for foolishly attempting to explain these things to those with obviously closed minds!):
I really find that one-ups-manship quality to be a very unattractive one.
I doubt Storyman and others have any interest in one-ups-manship (sic). In fact, it is somewhat amusing that those who oppose the views of any poster are immediately criticised and condemned by posts like this one.
What is it about dialog, inspection, discussion and "the grappling of truth and falsehood" that is arrogant?
Usually, when you evaluate the motivations of those who describe these actions as arrogant, the arrogance is secretly implied, due to a bias that prevents them from evaluating a dialog from an objective, critical perspective.
What these folks are unaware of is that those posting their differing views have probably already 'compiled' the views they differ with in their heads to evaluate it objectively. Unlike their critics, there is no inherent bias.
Subsequently, the charges of one-ups-manship and arrogance are amusingly only accurate when applied to their critics.
but I believe this audience is a little too quick to chop him down with their "intellectual superiority" routine.
A 'common man' ploy, or just an inferiority complex? Slashdot posters are already in the global top 2%, so comments like this are far from entertaining.
Per motivations, I'll supply mine:
I abhor the absence of reason.
Tolerating and leaving unopposed the incorrect and dangerous views of word terrorists like JonKatz would make me as guilty as Katz for the outcome.
So if you are a friend of reason, support dialog, argumentation and the discovery of truth through the many perspectives of fellow slashdotters. If not, continue attacking or sheepishly cowering in the shadows of Katz and his fellows.
Regardless of your choice, your decision has its consequence.
*scoove*
Excellent perspective - if more slashdotters would read and try to understand rather than flaming posts like this, they might come to understand why the JonKatz's of the world rarely make it out of the academic world (who else would have them, since they produce nothing of value).
/is/ reality)
/are/ the view of slashdot and require no further introspection from me").
In many respects, Katz is an aspiring Monk Toohey. In fact, the behavior is so consistent that you'd have to believe he's using the reference as his formula (hard as it is to believe, but there are many on the fringe left that aspire to the anti-hero mythology, such as Kaczynski, McVeigh, etc).
As pointed out by numerous posters:
- he subjectively declares numerous items to be of extreme classification - e.g. "revolutionary", "crisis," etc. (what katz declares as reality
- he posts tirades that are thousands of words, but can't find the time to engage in a dialog (only katz's reality is of interest and should be studied and absorbed by the masses; katz already knows reality as he has declared it, and doesn't need to waste time discussing it with others).
- he opposes concepts consistent with predominant slashdot philosophy (free speech & free press ala areopagetica, free software, individual achievement overcoming conspiracy of the masses e.g. microsoft, etc.) and yet presents himself as the self-declared spokesperson for the slashdot community (much through the failure to engage in dialog - e.g. "my thoughts
A question, however:
For this he is paid and patted on the back.
Paid? No, really? God, hopefully not by the word... that'll completely blow my theory.
*scoove*
1. buy a dummies book (or if you're too broke to do that, just post on
2. ?
3. make your first billion!
(credit due to UGVCA - Underwear Gnome Venture Capital Associates - for their patented 1-2-3 startup process)
Perhaps we can suggest some other categories, since all you need to do is look for opportunity, and you know there's a buck to be made! Some ideas:
- commercial aviation
- copper mining
- nuclear power plant construction
- shipbuilding
Any others I'm missing? Let's help this bored Aussie college student make his first million!
*scoove*
Check out the ARRL's response to the FCC (including references to the Qualcomm report). A primary concern is:
the broad nature of the interfering signal . . . indicates that any interference would extend to all VHF and UHF amateur bands." That particular report dealt with lab tests to assess the impact of UWB emissions on PCS phones using code division multiple access (CDMA).
Sure UWB gives you more bandwidth... by using other user's licensed frequencies. It's like bragging about how much faster your PC goes when you stealthly sneak distributive processing apps into other PCs without their authorization.
*scoove*
1)we're more likely to work 9-5 (okay, maybe 9-6 but NO weekends)
we're working 9-5 at our day job, while working 5-9 at our startup (and ssh'ing into it during the 9-5 whenever we can)
2)we expect more compensation and but have a greater realization we're not going to be millionaires (no options for me, thanx, I'll take the cash)
we're taking all the cash we can get out of our pathetic, underpaid current job, sitting with hundreds of thousands of upside-down options we'd be insane to exercise, while we fund our own thing
3)we enjoy our work environment much less than we did before the bubble burst
we're giddy about a worthless, unchallenging work environment during the day. it leaves our brains fresh for other things
4)we continually update our resumes and have our eyes open about better opportunities
and business plans...
5)we take much more down time away from our work and from our computers now that we're burned out from the past few years and haven't seen the reward we deluded ourselves into believing we were going to receive.
we've tossed out the palms, smart watches, and even locked up our kids gameboys because we can't stand the sight of another LCD. we spend our time instead rollerblading or *gasp* with people hanging out
And who says geeks can't be social?
Wouldn't the dominance and near-panic of the RIAA & members be a good indication that the industry is controlled by a 1900's distribution model that is about to fail?
Living (and becoming actively involved) in the agricultural midwest US, I've been able to experience a similar distribution model that places too much emphasis on the middle, and devalues the endpoints.
Corn, bean, cattle, hogs and other growers are being pounded by lower and lower prices for their product in spite of significantly increasing costs (fuel, fertilizer, seeds, etc.). Yet you've got middlemen making larger and larger profits.
Obviously, raising or growing a commodity isn't a great strategy when you want to protect the price of your product. There, ag producers and music artists are different.
But the limited distribution options available to artists, including the power of the labels to determine what artist is good and what artist isn't deserving of distribution, mimics a commodity model; e.g. "we'll take x% of all sales off the top, another x% goes for manufacturing, another x% for the retailer, which leaves you with y%. Take it or leave it."
Given limited labels and similar arrangements offered throughout the recording industry, the effect is quite similar (except for the very top artists who can demonstrate existing demand for their own product and renegotiate their contracts).
Just as the telecom world has moved away from centralized switching to edge switching, and our wholesale / carrier sales models are finding new decentralized exchanges, I'd have to believe the same dynamic will affect ag and entertainment markets. Any signs that MP3.com and other infant artist exchanges are having a positive effect?
*scoove*
If you look at the RIAA's own testimony, though, they treat a single instance of copyright violation (when done on the Internet) as catastrophic and total.
Unfortunately, they're apparently counting on a judiciary that is as technologically competent (or not) as they are, and given the track record (e.g. Penfield Jackson), the odds are in their favor.
*scoove*