Anyone care to guess when the last armed revolt against government was here in the US and the reasons behind it?
The Weatherman movement, being active in the late '60s and early '70s, is more recent. People know some about the militias that have cropped up however the Weathermen were more violent. Then there was the SLA, Symbionese Liberation Army, which operated between '73 and '75.
I am sure the state of New Jersey can tell Sequoia to accept this investigation or say good-bye to any certification. Sequoia is just making themselves look bad and like they have something to hide.
I agree however New Jersey probably has already paid for the machines. I can't see Sequoia telling the state they can't test them, have them tested scientifically, if they haven't already been paid for. This case can however be used to show other potential buyers just how the company operates.
Your reading comprehension seems a little low, though, as while the wiki statement is accurate, your immediate conclusion jump is not.
In what way is my conclusion wrong?
Another interesting item to note is the spying they (have been | are | will be) doing.
Yea, have you seen the new ads on TV lately about how whoever says the senate passed a bill to "renew" a spying law but that the house of reps went on vacation? Part of the bill the senate passed gives the telecoms a get out of jail free card. I can't help but say when it says the law is needed "prove it". Of course nobody can prove it's needed.
Yet another item of interest would be that the iPhone that everyone seems to be slobbering over is sold only with a 2-year AT&T service contract.
I can buy a naked iPhone. I can go down to one of the Apple stores in the area, there's 3 I've been to that are at most 20 minutes drive, and buy an iPhone without getting ATT service. Of course why would I buy an expensive brick? I don't even have an iPod, all I've got from Apple are 3 Macs, 2 old Macs and the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on. One of the old Macs is about 20 years old and the other about 10.
These people are bad, just like every other major corporate player in this hemisphere. I am sorry, Falcon, but you cannot defend them any longer.
Defend whom?
My initial point could bear restatement, I believe. It is as follows: AT&T owns the North American communication lines.
ATT owns some but not all of the backbones. Qwest owns some as well as does or did GTE, MCI, and Worldcom. Google owns a lot of dark fiber as well, and is partnering with some other companies to lay more fiber between California and Japan. Broadwing Communications Inc owns almost 10,000 miles of fiber, and Qwest owns "888,000 fiber miles across the United States".
In addition, I would like to thank jc42 for a well thought out, insightful post, over here. It comprises a much better rebuttal of your fallacious arguments than this one you are reading right now. I recommend you read that one after this, and rethink your conclusions.
First, and again, what conclusion? Next, what "fallacious arguments" do I make? I think it's you who needs to work on reading comprehension.
I guess you missed the point it does not take the government to do it.
a. your ISP =/= everyone else's ISP
b. your isp is not likely available everywhere.
My ISP is a national one and one of the largest so I doubt there are many places in the US where users can't get local access. I specifically signed up with it because when I did I planned on moving yet wanted to keep the same ISP, and email. And I did move, across the country.
Heck, many users even seem to think that Office is part of Windows (and thus many would wonder why that part of Windows stopped working in 60 days - when the trial expired
A 60 day trialware version of Office? Apple ships Macs with a 30 day version. Though I have not and will not use it, I use the native Mac port of OO.org NeoOffice, I've heard that if a user initially saves a doc in the default format they lose access to all of the documents created with Office when the trial ends if they don't buy it.
simple method would be "no blocking of anything unless the customer specifically requests X be blocked. if they do request X be blocked, it will be blocked to the extent that it is technically feasible at no charge.". optimally, when the customer signs up, this stuff is arranged with all the other usual stuff and subject to be changed at any time with a single phone call.
of course, this is government, so the simple method doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually being used.
Government isn't needed for this, my ISP already does it.
If someone were to actually send what I'll call "legal spam", and the ISP blocked the message from getting to its recipient, would the "spammer" be able to sue the ISP?
I think this should be handled simply, my ISP does now. It uses both a white list and a black list. Those messages that are from addresses that are in my online address book are put into my inbox. The messages that come from addresses I placed blocks on are sent to a spam box. And every other message is put into a "suspicious" box. For these I use the webmail to check the messages then either send them to the inbox or trash them.
Recently I read an article dealing with this. A property insurer in California had its own "fire department", they contracted with another business to provide protection of property from fire for those who had insurance through them. Of course people who didn't have insurance through the company complained about a private fire department. If these people had thought about it though said private fire departments reduce the stress on public fire departments, when one responds to a fire the public fire department doesn't have to spend as much.
I just don't agree with handing control of the infrastructure over to the government. I don't really believe in handing control of anything over to the government.
How about separating ownership of infrastructure and the services that infrastructure can deliver? Take for instance fiber to the curb. Allow one entity to build and own the fiber but then while requiring them to allow anyone else who wants to use it to offer services the infrastructure can deliver bar the fiber owner from offering any services themselves. Say one company can use the fiber to offer cable tv, another offers net access, a third offers phone service while a fourth offers a bundle of all three services.
I'm not in favor of government stepping in to bailout the financial institutions and borrowers who made bad decisions however I realize that if these businesses go under credit will dry up and perfectly reasonable and hard working businesses depend on credit.
Can you explain to me how one bit is more important than another? How about how a bit from Google is less important to a Time Warner customer than a bit from AOL Search?
We have a bad enough problem with the ordering of search results
And it will be worse if Time Warner is allowed to discriminate against Google, Teoma, or Mooter in favor of their own search engine.
A 5 second delay is enough to start losing customers.
That's right, Time Warner delaying Google just 5 seconds will drive searchers to Time Warner's search partner.
Sure, there's other companies in the country, but how about local markets? In Columbus the choice is AT&T or no phone.
You may not have a chose if you only have landline phone service, but I'm sure even in Columbus you have a choice for cell phone service providers. You may even have a choice for landline service, the local cable providers possibly offers phone service.
The bolded portion of the quoted text is false. "Ma Bell" has been reconstituted. All the "Baby Bells" are now under one umbrella again.
See here for some more info.
Perhaps you missed this part of that wiki article:
Bell Operating Companies
"Of the twenty-two Bell Operating Companies which AT&T owned prior to the 1984 agreement to divest, eleven (BellSouth Telecommunications combines two former BOCs) have become a part of the new AT&T Inc. with the completion of their acquisition of BellSouth Corporation on December 29, 2006"
Half of the 22 companies formed when ATT was divested are not part of the new ATT. Plus we now have Qwest which was never a part of ATT, which actually was started by the owner of Southern Pacific Railroad.
Never heard of Ma Bell and the phone monopoly they used to have? That's right, the entire US used to have only 1 phone company.
Not for very long. General Telephone and Electronics (GTE) was founded in 1918. Of course GTE didn't operate in as many locations as ATT did and most people didn't have the luxury of making a choice as to whom they got telephone service from.
Hell in the old days, you couldn't even OWN your own phone - they were all considered "rentals" from the phone company.
And the plastic from those old phones were almost indestructible. Oh, and the phone service was a party line, you could listen to your neighbor talking on the phone just by picking up the handset.
I'm thinking remove their incumbent advantage instead of adding another layer. Open them up to free market forces. Land, mineral right, and time, all pseudo tangible ownership objects are traded on the free market and do just fine. EM spectrum and cabling can be done the same.
I agree a free market would work with the airwaves but for landlines it's totally different. Whereas it's relatively cheap to erect towers for wireless services but laying or stringing cable or fiber for landlines is expensive and the needed right of way can only handle so many cables or fibers. However what you could do is separate ownership of the infrastructure and delivering any services it can handle. In the Broadband Utopis of northeastern Utah that's what a group of communities are doing. The communities are building the infrastructure they will own but then they will have open access so any entity that wants to offer any service it is capable of can use it.
Wireless infrastructure is a completely different and much less expensive matter. Cell towers aren't cheap, but compared to running cable to every residence they're practically free.
And that's why landline companies are fighting attempts to offer Muni WiFi. Small city X has no provider of broadband services so they decide to setup their own wifi. When they do they end up fighting commercial businesses trying to stop them. These businesses are concerned about compeating against government, which I understand, but then they won't buildout themselves which is why the munis decided to themselves. Being libertarian I don't particularly like taxpayers being stuck with the bill myself, I do however like what a group of communities in northeastern Utah are doing. There they are creating a "Broadband Utopia". While the communities own the infrastructure access by any entity that wants to provide a service it is capable of can use it. Because of the competition almost 2 years ago Comcast was forced to offer a triple play of cable tv, net access, and phone service (landline) for $90 in the area.
Ok then look at it this way, in 2001 when iTunes was launched, tied to an extremely popular mp3 player. Now not having actually been granted a patent they could do nothing. To then sit and write a competeing product (and maybe they had worked on a prototype, I don't know) would be fruitless, as even back then we (ie. the slashdot crowd) saw that iTunes/iPod were going to dominate the market. I just don't think these guys are the usual patent troll scum we have come to know and hate.
Except they could have released a product before the iPod and if they offered something people were willing to pay for they could have dominated the industry with the First mover advantage.
Really, is it Zapmedia's fault that it took 7 years for the USTPO to review and award the patent.
Have you ever heard of submarine patents? An entity submits a patent application then continually amends it which delays a patent award. Oh I see you bring them up n your last sentence.
With patents your protection begins from the date of application but you cannot go after anyone until it is granted. Since the patent was granted on tuesday I have a hard time seeing this as a submarine patent,
There are 2 patents involved only one was granted Tuesday, the other was granted in 2006 more than a year ago.
And on top of all that, what Apple is doing happens to be a bad (i.e. not useful) idea (from society's point of view, not Apple's). Having music that isn't interoperable with other players, is a regression in useful sciences and arts. Everybody who buys music from iTMS is worse off than they would be if the store didn't exist.
The millions of people who have downloaded music from the iTunes store disagree with you. The users buy something they download and can use, and those who make it possible receive compensation as does the artists. And downloaded iTunes music can play on other media players, quite easily.
Falcon
Oh, and I say that as someone who has never downloaded a song, other than as a media file a webpage serves when visited much like some people include as background music. Nor have I uploaded or made available any music, actually I haven't played music intentionally on my computer in years.
if you read the article's related to this issue, (and I don't mean the trashy yahoo article)
Aren't you being quick to judge in saying it's a "trashy yahoo article"? If you look you can see the article itself is from the Associated Press not Yahoo!.
From TFA, yours, "ZapMedia developed a system by which it could provide hardware, software and content to consumers to allow them to gain control over their digital media assets." Didn't this already exist?
You will see that these guys worked closely with Apple, and then Apple cut them out of the loop, EXACTLY what patent law was originally designed to prevent.
TFA, yours, does not say they worked with Apple, only that they met with various tech companies.
Patents shouldn't apply to software... maybe. How do you protect the small time coder from the big business that takes thier ideas, makes billions, and then doesn't return a dime, without patents?
How do small inventors protect themselves? By using Trade Secret laws and Non-disclosure agreements. They may also have the first to market advantage. As for code there's copyright to protect what's written.
And with all the NIMBYs out there, nobody is willing to build new and needed Hydro Electric, Nuclear, Coal powered plants anytime soon.
Neither more nuclear nor coal plants are needed. In December 2007 SciAm had an article, "A Solar Grand Plan" saying that by 2050 solar power can provide 69% of the USA's electricity and 35 percent of its total energy. Then the Rocky Mountains alone has enough potential wind power to supply the lower 48 states with electricity. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details the potential wind power of sites throughout the 48 states. TFA "The Unsung Solution" in "Orion Magazine" goes over waste heat that can be used to produce more electricity. But you're right about NIMBYs, they are working to stop offshore wind farms. Though the Mid Atlantic states have good sites for offshore wind farms NIMBYs are doing what they can to stop wind farms in places like Cape Hatteras. Geothermal energy also offers good energy potential.
As for the person who asked about who would pay -- that's easy. Ever seen an EZ-Pass toll booth?:)
A bunch of people refuse to use those EZ-passes though. What about them? And who will run such a system, the government or a government granted monopoly? Then what could the data collected by whoever it is be used for?
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone care to guess when the last armed revolt against government was here in the US and the reasons behind it?
The Weatherman movement, being active in the late '60s and early '70s, is more recent. People know some about the militias that have cropped up however the Weathermen were more violent. Then there was the SLA, Symbionese Liberation Army, which operated between '73 and '75.
FalconI am sure the state of New Jersey can tell Sequoia to accept this investigation or say good-bye to any certification. Sequoia is just making themselves look bad and like they have something to hide.
I agree however New Jersey probably has already paid for the machines. I can't see Sequoia telling the state they can't test them, have them tested scientifically, if they haven't already been paid for. This case can however be used to show other potential buyers just how the company operates.
FalconYour reading comprehension seems a little low, though, as while the wiki statement is accurate, your immediate conclusion jump is not.
In what way is my conclusion wrong?
Another interesting item to note is the spying they (have been | are | will be) doing.
Yea, have you seen the new ads on TV lately about how whoever says the senate passed a bill to "renew" a spying law but that the house of reps went on vacation? Part of the bill the senate passed gives the telecoms a get out of jail free card. I can't help but say when it says the law is needed "prove it". Of course nobody can prove it's needed.
Yet another item of interest would be that the iPhone that everyone seems to be slobbering over is sold only with a 2-year AT&T service contract.
I can buy a naked iPhone. I can go down to one of the Apple stores in the area, there's 3 I've been to that are at most 20 minutes drive, and buy an iPhone without getting ATT service. Of course why would I buy an expensive brick? I don't even have an iPod, all I've got from Apple are 3 Macs, 2 old Macs and the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on. One of the old Macs is about 20 years old and the other about 10.
These people are bad, just like every other major corporate player in this hemisphere. I am sorry, Falcon, but you cannot defend them any longer.
Defend whom?
My initial point could bear restatement, I believe. It is as follows:
AT&T owns the North American communication lines.
ATT owns some but not all of the backbones. Qwest owns some as well as does or did GTE, MCI, and Worldcom. Google owns a lot of dark fiber as well, and is partnering with some other companies to lay more fiber between California and Japan. Broadwing Communications Inc owns almost 10,000 miles of fiber, and Qwest owns "888,000 fiber miles across the United States".
In addition, I would like to thank jc42 for a well thought out, insightful post, over here. It comprises a much better rebuttal of your fallacious arguments than this one you are reading right now. I recommend you read that one after this, and rethink your conclusions.
First, and again, what conclusion? Next, what "fallacious arguments" do I make? I think it's you who needs to work on reading comprehension.
FalconI guess you missed the point it does not take the government to do it.
a. your ISP =/= everyone else's ISP
b. your isp is not likely available everywhere.
My ISP is a national one and one of the largest so I doubt there are many places in the US where users can't get local access. I specifically signed up with it because when I did I planned on moving yet wanted to keep the same ISP, and email. And I did move, across the country.
FalconHeck, many users even seem to think that Office is part of Windows (and thus many would wonder why that part of Windows stopped working in 60 days - when the trial expired
A 60 day trialware version of Office? Apple ships Macs with a 30 day version. Though I have not and will not use it, I use the native Mac port of OO.org NeoOffice, I've heard that if a user initially saves a doc in the default format they lose access to all of the documents created with Office when the trial ends if they don't buy it.
Falconsimple method would be "no blocking of anything unless the customer specifically requests X be blocked. if they do request X be blocked, it will be blocked to the extent that it is technically feasible at no charge.". optimally, when the customer signs up, this stuff is arranged with all the other usual stuff and subject to be changed at any time with a single phone call.
of course, this is government, so the simple method doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually being used.
Government isn't needed for this, my ISP already does it.
FalconIf someone were to actually send what I'll call "legal spam", and the ISP blocked the message from getting to its recipient, would the "spammer" be able to sue the ISP?
I think this should be handled simply, my ISP does now. It uses both a white list and a black list. Those messages that are from addresses that are in my online address book are put into my inbox. The messages that come from addresses I placed blocks on are sent to a spam box. And every other message is put into a "suspicious" box. For these I use the webmail to check the messages then either send them to the inbox or trash them.
FalconRecently I read an article dealing with this. A property insurer in California had its own "fire department", they contracted with another business to provide protection of property from fire for those who had insurance through them. Of course people who didn't have insurance through the company complained about a private fire department. If these people had thought about it though said private fire departments reduce the stress on public fire departments, when one responds to a fire the public fire department doesn't have to spend as much.
FalconI just don't agree with handing control of the infrastructure over to the government. I don't really believe in handing control of anything over to the government.
How about separating ownership of infrastructure and the services that infrastructure can deliver? Take for instance fiber to the curb. Allow one entity to build and own the fiber but then while requiring them to allow anyone else who wants to use it to offer services the infrastructure can deliver bar the fiber owner from offering any services themselves. Say one company can use the fiber to offer cable tv, another offers net access, a third offers phone service while a fourth offers a bundle of all three services.
Falconwell, hopefully it won't happen
I'm not in favor of government stepping in to bailout the financial institutions and borrowers who made bad decisions however I realize that if these businesses go under credit will dry up and perfectly reasonable and hard working businesses depend on credit.
FalconCan you explain to me how one bit is more important than another? How about how a bit from Google is less important to a Time Warner customer than a bit from AOL Search?
We have a bad enough problem with the ordering of search results
And it will be worse if Time Warner is allowed to discriminate against Google, Teoma, or Mooter in favor of their own search engine.
A 5 second delay is enough to start losing customers.
That's right, Time Warner delaying Google just 5 seconds will drive searchers to Time Warner's search partner.
FalconSure, there's other companies in the country, but how about local markets? In Columbus the choice is AT&T or no phone.
You may not have a chose if you only have landline phone service, but I'm sure even in Columbus you have a choice for cell phone service providers. You may even have a choice for landline service, the local cable providers possibly offers phone service.
FalconThe bolded portion of the quoted text is false. "Ma Bell" has been reconstituted. All the "Baby Bells" are now under one umbrella again. See here for some more info.
Perhaps you missed this part of that wiki article:
Bell Operating Companies
"Of the twenty-two Bell Operating Companies which AT&T owned prior to the 1984 agreement to divest, eleven (BellSouth Telecommunications combines two former BOCs) have become a part of the new AT&T Inc. with the completion of their acquisition of BellSouth Corporation on December 29, 2006"
Half of the 22 companies formed when ATT was divested are not part of the new ATT. Plus we now have Qwest which was never a part of ATT, which actually was started by the owner of Southern Pacific Railroad.
FalconNever heard of Ma Bell and the phone monopoly they used to have? That's right, the entire US used to have only 1 phone company.
Not for very long. General Telephone and Electronics (GTE) was founded in 1918. Of course GTE didn't operate in as many locations as ATT did and most people didn't have the luxury of making a choice as to whom they got telephone service from.
Hell in the old days, you couldn't even OWN your own phone - they were all considered "rentals" from the phone company.
And the plastic from those old phones were almost indestructible. Oh, and the phone service was a party line, you could listen to your neighbor talking on the phone just by picking up the handset.
FalconI'm thinking remove their incumbent advantage instead of adding another layer. Open them up to free market forces. Land, mineral right, and time, all pseudo tangible ownership objects are traded on the free market and do just fine. EM spectrum and cabling can be done the same.
I agree a free market would work with the airwaves but for landlines it's totally different. Whereas it's relatively cheap to erect towers for wireless services but laying or stringing cable or fiber for landlines is expensive and the needed right of way can only handle so many cables or fibers. However what you could do is separate ownership of the infrastructure and delivering any services it can handle. In the Broadband Utopis of northeastern Utah that's what a group of communities are doing. The communities are building the infrastructure they will own but then they will have open access so any entity that wants to offer any service it is capable of can use it.
FalconWireless infrastructure is a completely different and much less expensive matter. Cell towers aren't cheap, but compared to running cable to every residence they're practically free.
And that's why landline companies are fighting attempts to offer Muni WiFi. Small city X has no provider of broadband services so they decide to setup their own wifi. When they do they end up fighting commercial businesses trying to stop them. These businesses are concerned about compeating against government, which I understand, but then they won't buildout themselves which is why the munis decided to themselves. Being libertarian I don't particularly like taxpayers being stuck with the bill myself, I do however like what a group of communities in northeastern Utah are doing. There they are creating a "Broadband Utopia". While the communities own the infrastructure access by any entity that wants to provide a service it is capable of can use it. Because of the competition almost 2 years ago Comcast was forced to offer a triple play of cable tv, net access, and phone service (landline) for $90 in the area.
FalconOk then look at it this way, in 2001 when iTunes was launched, tied to an extremely popular mp3 player. Now not having actually been granted a patent they could do nothing. To then sit and write a competeing product (and maybe they had worked on a prototype, I don't know) would be fruitless, as even back then we (ie. the slashdot crowd) saw that iTunes/iPod were going to dominate the market. I just don't think these guys are the usual patent troll scum we have come to know and hate.
Except they could have released a product before the iPod and if they offered something people were willing to pay for they could have dominated the industry with the First mover advantage.
FalconReally, is it Zapmedia's fault that it took 7 years for the USTPO to review and award the patent.
Have you ever heard of submarine patents? An entity submits a patent application then continually amends it which delays a patent award. Oh I see you bring them up n your last sentence.
With patents your protection begins from the date of application but you cannot go after anyone until it is granted. Since the patent was granted on tuesday I have a hard time seeing this as a submarine patent,
There are 2 patents involved only one was granted Tuesday, the other was granted in 2006 more than a year ago.
FalconAnd on top of all that, what Apple is doing happens to be a bad (i.e. not useful) idea (from society's point of view, not Apple's). Having music that isn't interoperable with other players, is a regression in useful sciences and arts. Everybody who buys music from iTMS is worse off than they would be if the store didn't exist.
The millions of people who have downloaded music from the iTunes store disagree with you. The users buy something they download and can use, and those who make it possible receive compensation as does the artists. And downloaded iTunes music can play on other media players, quite easily.
Falcon
Oh, and I say that as someone who has never downloaded a song, other than as a media file a webpage serves when visited much like some people include as background music. Nor have I uploaded or made available any music, actually I haven't played music intentionally on my computer in years.if you read the article's related to this issue, (and I don't mean the trashy yahoo article)
Aren't you being quick to judge in saying it's a "trashy yahoo article"? If you look you can see the article itself is from the Associated Press not Yahoo!.
From TFA, yours, "ZapMedia developed a system by which it could provide hardware, software and content to consumers to allow them to gain control over their digital media assets." Didn't this already exist?
You will see that these guys worked closely with Apple, and then Apple cut them out of the loop, EXACTLY what patent law was originally designed to prevent.
TFA, yours, does not say they worked with Apple, only that they met with various tech companies.
Patents shouldn't apply to software... maybe. How do you protect the small time coder from the big business that takes thier ideas, makes billions, and then doesn't return a dime, without patents?
How do small inventors protect themselves? By using Trade Secret laws and Non-disclosure agreements. They may also have the first to market advantage. As for code there's copyright to protect what's written.
Falcon
And with all the NIMBYs out there, nobody is willing to build new and needed Hydro Electric, Nuclear, Coal powered plants anytime soon.
Neither more nuclear nor coal plants are needed. In December 2007 SciAm had an article, "A Solar Grand Plan" saying that by 2050 solar power can provide 69% of the USA's electricity and 35 percent of its total energy. Then the Rocky Mountains alone has enough potential wind power to supply the lower 48 states with electricity. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details the potential wind power of sites throughout the 48 states. TFA "The Unsung Solution" in "Orion Magazine" goes over waste heat that can be used to produce more electricity. But you're right about NIMBYs, they are working to stop offshore wind farms. Though the Mid Atlantic states have good sites for offshore wind farms NIMBYs are doing what they can to stop wind farms in places like Cape Hatteras. Geothermal energy also offers good energy potential.
Falconthe government or a government granted monopoly? Then what could the data collected by whoever it is be used for?
They drive regular cars
What if these questions?
FalconAs for the person who asked about who would pay -- that's easy. Ever seen an EZ-Pass toll booth? :)
A bunch of people refuse to use those EZ-passes though. What about them? And who will run such a system, the government or a government granted monopoly? Then what could the data collected by whoever it is be used for?
Falconleave charged capacitors on the parts shelf to reinforce the "Don't Touch" rule? I bet one of these would reallllly hurt :-)
Especially if they're for photo strobes.
FalconGP's statement about a need for software patents was a qualified one requiring a few changes to the status quo, Obi-Wan.
Maybe I missed it, can you point out the qualification GGP made?
Falcon