I'm surprised at all the naysaying and skepticism about increasing broadband availability. Even the title is misleading - 'Broadband adoption'. It creates a mindset that if people only demanded broadband and adopted it... The issue is availability and the lack of it, especially in markets that cost the telcos more dollars per customer to wire/reach.
It seems obvious to me that if you some rural location with a low cost of living was wired it could allow those areas to be more competitive with outsourcing overseas or south of the border. And then there are the entrepreneurs that we dont know about...All the untapped talent. The undiscovered little Einstein working on this fathers family farm unable to communicate/learn. There is distance learning which would help educate those in more rural areas who cannot reach a community college. There are so many possibilities / applications of the technology which can truly create jobs, save costs, reduce environmental pollution from driving/fuel, and educate our population. Yet we don't have the infrastructure to do it. And based on a a lot of the comments here on Slashdot there is not the appreciation or the willpower to do it. Probably because most of you posting already have your fast connection. If just those digital 'have nots' would pull themselves up by their tin can straps...
Well here is the relevant mandate. Is your experience different? It reads to me as meaning more than just a capability.
June 30, 2008
All agency infrastructures (network backbones) must be using IPv62 and agency networks must interface with this infrastructure. Agencies will include progress reports on meeting this target date as part of their EA transition strategy.
Yeah, we always fall back on the government to help us out when us nerds aren't satisfied with how capitalism is driving the technological trends that need to happen. They did this in Nov 2005 requiring compliance in 2008. Here is a link to the whitehouse OMB memo:
"...Even with the increased risk, however, you're still about three times more likely to die in a car crash in a given year."
Look at the odds of being killed by a terrorist...Yet how much are we spending, how many rights are being trampled, and what other things are being ignored to address that 'serious concern'.
Markey will be going to work as a Telecom industry lobbyist to gut Net Neutrality. This bill is a total utter bullshit sellout to his future employers.
The point is who knows what Google (or other web storage) providers are doing with our email? In google's case they have an unlimited (as in forever) data retention policy. 15 years from now they might turn over your emails to who knows who for what purpose.
You are making my point exactly. Part of the courts rulings on the Fourth Amendment has to do with whether someone has a 'reasonable expectation' of privacy. Attitudes like yours and others, that everything unless encrypted is public, is eroding that protection.
One poster (Doe 6) describing Krinsky when he said "I will reciprocate felatoin [sic] with Lisa even though she has fat thighs, a fake medical degree, 'queefs' and has poor feminine hygiene."
All you Gmail touters... To date I have not signed up for a google account due to privacy concerns. I'm just surprised at how many people think storing their info on Gmail is a good idea and have no concerns about it.
I guess that is why I dont get the concept and concerned that the current facebook/myspace generation and their ignorance/lack of caring about privacy will enable further erosion from the government without resistance.
This is probably some lame marketing hype that implies that since they use a 30 bit number they have a billion id's. Probably 1,073,741,824 to be exact.
Ive heard of but never seen openid used on any sites I have visited.
But you've got admit, it's pretty cool how they address you by name throughout this carefully composed, personal email response made Just For You. Except his name is Steve.
I would not think so. I think you collect taxes based on where the product is delivered. If its delivered out of state, the sales tax laws of the destination state apply.
But there's two different shareholders perspectives. The long-term & the short-term. IMO, the long-term vision shareholders are a minority in this country so the short-term thinking ones are the ones calling the shots, driving many of the analysts, and overall destroying our capitalist system.
I don't really see why you are so concerned. If a major bank fails, FDIC liabilities would almost surely be under 300 billion. And we finance 300 billion in bonds every year anyway, without much effect on inflation. Your right, the FDIC will be able handle a single major bank failure. Multiple bank failures and it wont be able to.
Well we need a new constitution then.... It was not designed to stand up to the current Corporatocracy that has evolved here in the United Status. The framers could never have envisioned corporations with power/finances rivaling and/or exceeding the government.
They're not liable for what goes through their network because they are a common carrier. However, common carriers by definition do not monitor their network or censor for any reason... once you start down that slippery slope there's no going back. I believe you are making a common mistake. When the FCC allowed Net Neutrality to expire, so did common carrier. Its pretty much a collusion of forces who are unsure how to proceed coupled with massive consumer backlash that has cause a slower pace towards corporations flexing their muscles under the current state of affairs--which is no net neutrality.
Examples of AT&T inserting language into their Terms and Conditions are part of the slow bleed that will occur absent a reinstatement of Net Neutrality.
No such common carrier protections apply. Perhaps for dial-up/DSL over copper lines it exited, but not for Cable company holdings. Regardless it no longer applies. Just think of the leverage the Government now has that they can bring to bear on an uncooperative ISP since they no longer have common carrier status, if they so chose.
Doesn't this just encourgage the hardware developers to leave it to "the community"? Well, we left it to the hardware developer (ATI) for how many years and look where it got us! Information in the customers hands is always better because it gives more choices/options.
I wonder how many people took the mystery illness as some sign from a deity? Maybe they needed to sacrifice some more animals or offer up more herbs?
What about the condensation that someone claims is the crying Virgin Mary?
Just imagine that hundreds of years ago, this meteor may have started a religion. And even today scientific ignorance by society at large reinforces these myths.
I have always been worrying the environmental impact of the cadmium. Could some one show me that the cadmium used in the photovoltaic has little or no environmental impact please? To me just the fact that these are installable long-term hardware versus the disposable every two year cell phone consumer items reduces that cadmium issue, whatever it is.
You know, I could probably visit any retirement home in the world and roll up a bunch of old people who will tell you that computers are useless and stupid. Would that parallel help back up your argument? I don't think its really a fair comparison. The issue here is not technology versus a non-technology generation. It is an evolution of companies trying to package what used to require more thought/skill/programming/configuration into something that is a simple tool for the masses. It a layer of abstraction that seems to be more hype than anything. The problem with a lot of this stuff is that by adding extra layers of abstraction the users of the technology forget/never learn what is really going on behind the scenes.
Yeah, like this is supposed to be new? Apple has always been like this. It is their model, it is how they operate, it is their corporate culture. I remember back in the day when Apple was suing clone manufacturers and it was the same mentality. At the time I had to decide where to spend my money and how to get the best value. I ended up going with a clone manufacturer called Compaq. It allowed me to buy ISA cards or modems from multiple vendors versus the proposition of high priced single source lock-in with Apple. Apple lost its battle and the PC took over due to this open architecture and free/cheap licensing. Of course IBM was hurt too and they tried to lock-in with the PS/2 and the licensing fees for their new Microchannel bus (supposed to replace ISA). IBM fail the lock-in too because the free market for computer components was a great thing.
The only reason apple is successful with iTunes/iPod is they have hooked up with the DRM/lock-in industry of music distribution. There is a synergy there, for now.
I couldn't agree more. But arguing this fact doesn't change the fact that it's still WAAAY cheaper to the end user to burn coal than this solution. The economic problem doesn't go away by discussing it. Combine that fact with the fact that other renewable energy sources are cheaper, and this idea is dead. I'm not sure you got my point after all. You are arguing that its waaay cheaper to burn coal. I'm saying that we dont know the true cost of coal. There are huge massive costs associated with the environment that our markets have not figured out a way to price in. Those costs dont exist with idea in the article, so its not a fair comparison. Right now in China, due to the massive growth rate, pollution from coal is a massive issue that the Communist party cannot get a handle on. See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html/
And what about ethics/morals? What if we decided to burn children and the elderly as a fuel source? That might be WAAYY cheaper to the end user than burning coal. It would also be a renewable resource.
You miss my point. I was referring to the costs defending out access to oil from the Middle East in general, of which Iraq is part of. We import over 20% from that region.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised at all the naysaying and skepticism about increasing broadband availability. Even the title is misleading - 'Broadband adoption'. It creates a mindset that if people only demanded broadband and adopted it... The issue is availability and the lack of it, especially in markets that cost the telcos more dollars per customer to wire/reach.
It seems obvious to me that if you some rural location with a low cost of living was wired it could allow those areas to be more competitive with outsourcing overseas or south of the border. And then there are the entrepreneurs that we dont know about...All the untapped talent. The undiscovered little Einstein working on this fathers family farm unable to communicate/learn. There is distance learning which would help educate those in more rural areas who cannot reach a community college. There are so many possibilities / applications of the technology which can truly create jobs, save costs, reduce environmental pollution from driving/fuel, and educate our population. Yet we don't have the infrastructure to do it. And based on a a lot of the comments here on Slashdot there is not the appreciation or the willpower to do it. Probably because most of you posting already have your fast connection. If just those digital 'have nots' would pull themselves up by their tin can straps...
Well here is the relevant mandate. Is your experience different? It reads to me as meaning more than just a capability.
June 30, 2008
All agency infrastructures (network backbones) must be using IPv62 and agency networks must interface with this infrastructure. Agencies will include progress reports on meeting this target date as part of their EA transition strategy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-22.pdf
"...Even with the increased risk, however, you're still about three times more likely to die in a car crash in a given year."
Look at the odds of being killed by a terrorist...Yet how much are we spending, how many rights are being trampled, and what other things are being ignored to address that 'serious concern'.
Markey will be going to work as a Telecom industry lobbyist to gut Net Neutrality. This bill is a total utter bullshit sellout to his future employers.
The point is who knows what Google (or other web storage) providers are doing with our email? In google's case they have an unlimited (as in forever) data retention policy. 15 years from now they might turn over your emails to who knows who for what purpose.
You are making my point exactly. Part of the courts rulings on the Fourth Amendment has to do with whether someone has a 'reasonable expectation' of privacy. Attitudes like yours and others, that everything unless encrypted is public, is eroding that protection.
One poster (Doe 6) describing Krinsky when he said "I will reciprocate felatoin [sic] with Lisa even though she has fat thighs, a fake medical degree, 'queefs' and has poor feminine hygiene."
All you Gmail touters... To date I have not signed up for a google account due to privacy concerns. I'm just surprised at how many people think storing their info on Gmail is a good idea and have no concerns about it.
I guess that is why I dont get the concept and concerned that the current facebook/myspace generation and their ignorance/lack of caring about privacy will enable further erosion from the government without resistance.
Oops I hit the submit too quick: I should have said 28 bits values, 268,435,456 id's. You get the point though.
This is probably some lame marketing hype that implies that since they use a 30 bit number they have a billion id's. Probably 1,073,741,824 to be exact.
Ive heard of but never seen openid used on any sites I have visited.
Democratic Congress, potential Hearings, 2008 Presidential Elections with new FCC appointments, etc.
I would not think so. I think you collect taxes based on where the product is delivered. If its delivered out of state, the sales tax laws of the destination state apply.
Well we need a new constitution then.... It was not designed to stand up to the current Corporatocracy that has evolved here in the United Status. The framers could never have envisioned corporations with power/finances rivaling and/or exceeding the government.
Examples of AT&T inserting language into their Terms and Conditions are part of the slow bleed that will occur absent a reinstatement of Net Neutrality.
No such common carrier protections apply. Perhaps for dial-up/DSL over copper lines it exited, but not for Cable company holdings. Regardless it no longer applies. Just think of the leverage the Government now has that they can bring to bear on an uncooperative ISP since they no longer have common carrier status, if they so chose.
I wonder how many people took the mystery illness as some sign from a deity? Maybe they needed to sacrifice some more animals or offer up more herbs?
What about the condensation that someone claims is the crying Virgin Mary?
Just imagine that hundreds of years ago, this meteor may have started a religion. And even today scientific ignorance by society at large reinforces these myths.
How about I fire an ice cube into your forehead at high velocity and you tell me if there is any heat generated?
Yeah, like this is supposed to be new? Apple has always been like this. It is their model, it is how they operate, it is their corporate culture. I remember back in the day when Apple was suing clone manufacturers and it was the same mentality. At the time I had to decide where to spend my money and how to get the best value. I ended up going with a clone manufacturer called Compaq. It allowed me to buy ISA cards or modems from multiple vendors versus the proposition of high priced single source lock-in with Apple. Apple lost its battle and the PC took over due to this open architecture and free/cheap licensing. Of course IBM was hurt too and they tried to lock-in with the PS/2 and the licensing fees for their new Microchannel bus (supposed to replace ISA). IBM fail the lock-in too because the free market for computer components was a great thing.
The only reason apple is successful with iTunes/iPod is they have hooked up with the DRM/lock-in industry of music distribution. There is a synergy there, for now.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html/
And what about ethics/morals? What if we decided to burn children and the elderly as a fuel source? That might be WAAYY cheaper to the end user than burning coal. It would also be a renewable resource.
You miss my point. I was referring to the costs defending out access to oil from the Middle East in general, of which Iraq is part of. We import over 20% from that region.