Re:the 1999 Tornado killed because it was so huge
on
Surviving Tornadoes
·
· Score: 1
I saw somewhere that the 1999 Moore tornado had its windspeed measured with a doppler radar, and the number they came up with was one mph below F6 status. It would have been the first F6 tornado ever documented.
F6 isn't a category for tornados:P F5 is open ended at the top.
The "Act of God" clauses in insurance are why you have insurance. The insurance covers you in case of "acts of God". If I'm hit by a tornado, my insurance will pay for everything.
I think you are confusing what "act of God" clauses are. Federal aid is for those who do NOT have insurance and are hit by a natural disaster.
Why do people live there? We choose to!!!
on
Surviving Tornadoes
·
· Score: 1
Oklahoma is a beautiful place to live...and it is far more likely you will die from a bolt of lightening than from a torando. The odds of being hit by a tornado are small, especially when you consider the wide scale devestation of an earthquake in californnia.
These past few weeks we have seen a lot of tornados, but it really is the exception and not the rule to see lots of homes destroyed in the scale we have seen lately.
I would rather live with tornados than earthquakes, but that is just me. I love it here; I have lived here all my life. Sure, it isn't perfect, but it's home.
The chances of being hit by a tornado are small
on
Surviving Tornadoes
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
What is it that draws you people to live there, why do you not move from such an obviously inhospitible place to live, and why do you insist on FEMA paying your (collective Kansas and Oklahoma) asses money to rebuild your houses in the same Goddamned spot so the next Chet-chasing twister can blow you to hell all over again?
I live in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and I don't think you realize the very very small likelyhood of being hit by a tornado. While tornados themselves are not rare, it is not everyday that they hit populated areas. It only seems that way because of the last few weeks.
You say it is inhospitable? What about California? Earthquakes hit on a massive scale and destroy HUGE areas. A tornado, while devestatingly powerful, does not destroy hundreds of square miles like an earthquake will.
Also, being hit by a tornado TWICE is really against the odds. You really are far more likely to be struck by lightening than to be hit by a tornado.
the 1999 Tornado killed because it was so huge
on
Surviving Tornadoes
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The 1999 tornado in Moore Oklahoma killed so many not because there wasn't enough warning, but because it was the most powerful tornado every recorded. It was listed as an F5, the nastiest class of tornado, but many meterologists say that the F5 classification doesn't fit, because the 1999 tornado was off the scale.
That tornado was so powerful it removed the foundation of the homes and left barren earth. Unless you had a dedicated storm shelter underground, you were at risk.
I'm from Tulsa, Oklahoma, and I saw the devestation too. There was plenty of warning about this tornado, but when they are this nasty, this powerful, this devestating, sometimes there isn't anything anyone can do.
That same storm cell went up I-44 and hit Tulsa a few hours later. The tornados by then were not nearly as powerful, but that was the first time in my life I was actually scared of a tornado. I was 21 at the time, have lived in Oklahoma all my life, but when they show a street level map of you neighborhood and show the path of the tornado coming right at you, it is unnerving to say the least. (Especially after seeing what this storm cell did to the poor folks in Moore.)
Our home did not get hit, as the tornado hit the Arkansas River and went back up into the wall cloud. It touched down again across town.
Here, tornados are a fact of life. Most people who live in "Tornado Alley" accept this, and just pray it never hits them. My heart goes out to those who have suffered losses from this tornado.
In the United States, any contract based on an illegal agreement is null and void. For example, in most states, any contract waiving your worker's compensation rights is void, to keep employers from forcing an unfair contract on its workers. Also, if you use a credit card to pay for prostitution, you don't have to pay, because the contract itself was illegal. ----- Also, if you don't understand the contract fully, or are incapable of understanding the contract, I don't believe it is binding. I recieved something in the mail from my credit card company saying if I did not sign, I would waive my right to a jury trial in case of dispute. How can I be bound to a contract I never signed nor understood? ----- Furthermore, while this can happen anywhere, a contract also cannot be forced under duress. Someone posted about having already paid and having the license agreement changed on him. That's illegal, because in order to access something he ALREADY PAID FOR he had to sign a new contract...that contract was signed under duress. That's like saying if you park your car in my parking garage, pay the posted fee, but when you come to get your car I make you sign this dreadful contract just to get it back. Not only is that a contract under duress, it's bait and switch.
Why can't the open source community rally behind specific open source multimedia coedecs, and put all that assembly and optimization know-how to get the best codecs possible? Instead we have a plethora of semi-decemt codecs, with great support on x86 (usually) but lackluster support on any other platform, regardless of how capable or how much potential another platform is. Different projects use different codecs, to where I end up having 3 or 4 mpeg2 codecs and quicktime codecs on my machine. Wouldn't it make sense to all put our efforts into the best codecs and making them run as best as possible on all machines???
I run linux on my alpha machine, and let me tell you I LOVE that machine. It's a bit old (ev56 running at 533mhz, but it competes with a PIII@800) but the machine is rock solid and I love running linux on it.
Unfortunately, the only office software I have successfully built is KOffice. If I had a real alternative, something as good as MS Office, I would have no need at all for my x86 machines running windows.
What people don't always understand is that the *.doc is so entrenched. I have an online class that will only accept *.doc formatted papers and assignments. (If you are really lucky and persuasive you can get them to accept *.rtf). They don't want to support 15 different file formats, so they expect *.doc in MS Office 97 or above.
This means I have to use Windows whether I like it or not, because there is no real alternative, especially for my alpha machine.
Oh yawn. Quit your drivel. There's a difference between representing accused criminals and making a business of defending people you know are not only guilty, but will offend again. Drivel? The point here is there is NO difference. For starters, are you psychic? How can you *KNOW* they will do it again? I suppose those people don't get a fair trial because they can't get a good lawyer?
There are many times you know a crime was committed but you're unable to prove who did it. The standard B movie fare is an example; the lights go out and someone is shot. This time though, Microsoft was the only one in the room. If you can't prove they did it, you can't possibly know they committed the crime. To hell with civili liberties! They are GUILTY DAMMIT! We aren't going to let a good lawyer defend them because then they would be profiting from the crime. So much for due process and the presumption of innocence. You, the almighty slashdot poster, have pronounced them guilty, along with the lawyers who represent them! People like you and your vigilante justice system make John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act the most civil rights minded things in the world.
Your arrogance toward what you deem "criminals" is more than disturbing. Forget process of law, if you "know they will offend again" lock them away and don't give them any rights.
Pardon my "drivel" for pointing out that the Constitution and due process do not fit in with you skewed view of the world.
If you don't want to hear people bash Microsoft, I suggest you start hanging out in a society of Albanian goat-herders. They probably haven't had the experiences that most Slashdot readers have. And what exactly would be YOUR experiences with Microsoft? You know what you read in the news, and you know what you have heard on Slashdot. Nvidia has also been hit with SEC charges, as many other major companies. AC's argument is valid. If this where another company, say AMD or nVidia, you would cut them a lot of slack. I personally find anti-trust violations a lot more tolerable than lying about your earnings. Are you going to whine about all the other companies that have been convicted of crimes?
Your personal vendetta (as of most slashdotters) is against Microsoft. It's just like how you rant and rave about how Hollywood is so evil but you hype all the Matrix movies.
I also read the news and I see things like the BSA and Trustworthy computing, both of which indicate that Microsoft is continuing in the same fashion. Outright lies backed up with armies of lawyers. What makes these lies in the first place? Do you have a hard and fast definition of "trustworthy computing"? My dog is trustworthy, but he still might pee on your rug. You have opinions not facts. You go off saying how evil MS is and how they lie, but you don't give real examples of outright deciet! "Trustworthy Computing" is like "A+ Auto Repair"...if you don't think it's "A+" does that mean they are lying? Of course not.
Everything you have said is based on emotion and not reasoning.
We need criminal attorneys, we don't need scuzz buckets who continually represent people they know are going to re-offend. So a repeat offender isn't entitled to good representation?: Heaven forbig that person get a fair trial let's just whisk him off to prison. No matter how many times you have gone to jail, you are STILL entitled to a fair trial.
Once again, what's sick is people like you who think it's okay to profit from crime as long as you aren't actually the guy with the gun. The lawyer isn't profiting from the crime. The lawyer is profiting from giving consel and representing his/her client to the best of their abilities. You aren't profiting from a crime simply by representing a guilty person! A guilty person needs good representation too, that way when that person is convicted we know they had every opportunity to prove their innocence.
What is really sick is how you have perverted the justice system into your own personal vendetta against "criminals". Prior bad acts do not make a person guilty, and in the vast majority of the time, they aren't even admissable.
And as far as Microsoft "lying" in court? They were never even charged with perjury. The example you cite was a contempt of court which was overturned on appeal. It's obvious you cannot think rationally, and believe people are guilty even before conviction (or even idictment).
I hope that if you are ever accused of a crime you can find a good attorney, who won't buy into this "profiting from a crime" BS and refuse represent you. Did you ever steal something when you were growing up? Look, that makes you a repeat offender, and therefore you shouldn't get to have a good lawyer, because all good lawyers who represent repeat offenders "profit from crime."
The worst part of white-collar crime is that it's socially acceptable. Nobody would associate with a car thief at a cocktail party, but the lawyer that represented the thief even though he knew they were still in business.
Heaven forbid we have lawyers to represent us when we are accused of a crime. I guess we should all shun criminal attorneys because the "know about crime" in your words...
That's sick No what is sick is you intolerance to fair justice and how we need attorneys to protect us. You say that MS "lied in court about it", since w hen was MS convicted of perjury? I that is your opinion please state so, otherwise its just libel.
The question I have is, "How long will the warantees be on these enterprise ATA drives?" The vast majority of IDE drives now only have a 1 year warantee. SCSI drives are still at 5 year warantees. Will Western Digital be giving a SCSI-type warantee on these "enterprise" drives?
The article does not say. I have SCSI subsystems in every computer I own now, because I can pick up a used SCSI hard drive off of ebay that has a longer warantee than a brand spankin' new IDE hard drive from an online vendor.
I would bet the rural access subsidy is a holdover from that Rural Electrification Act (and amenmends to include telephone).
Original Act passed in 1936 http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/gs/cps/50ge/endeav ors/communities.htm
ammended in 1948 to include telephone service. http://www.mdtc.net/History/ http://ark valley.com/history.htm
Those subsidies are often in the form of loan guarantees. These are only for building access to rurual areas that would not otherwise have them.
The link from the digest says "The coalition members reminded the FCC that the vast majority of consumers will see reduced total bills under the CALLS plan. The comments point out that ``even the most rural of AT&T low-volume customers will see bills increase by only about 20 cents over the life of the CALLS plan, with many others seeing reductions in their total bill.''"
This is again for rural areas. The subsidy is not really a government subsidy, but a passing along of the cost from one small group of consumers to the rest of the customers.
I also wouldn't call a loan guarantee a subsidy or investment. If you make that argument, you are saying that the airline industry must open itself up to competitors, so must the automobile industry (Chrysler) etc. The government didn't build the networks, or pay for them. It merely guaratneed the loans. (Now the REA may be an exception to that, as the New Deal of the 1930s blurred all the lines between public and private.)
If you are going to call me a fuckwit, at least have the gall to sign in. Otherwise you are just a coward.
Also, that charge was necessary because it meant that the baby bells were now paying for access to the long distance network. Thats not a government mandated fee, thats a judge ordered settlement.
Local rates were subsidized as per the breakup I believe. It takes a long time to separate a company like AT&T into profitable AT&T & baby bell companies. The baby bells had to fend for themselves, for the first time. The government was taking responsibility for the breakup order.
The fact that they are ALL recent events points to the 1984 breakup, which was mandated by a federal judge.
The government did not build the lines, it did not pay for the right of way. If you had paid attention to my first post you would have seen that. Subsidize post 1984 are due mainly to the fact the government did not want the bells to go under after breakup.
If you split up M$ into two companies, you might also see subsidies to keep the two companies afloat (to make sure they don't merge back together, and they survive as two separate companies.)
You are definately missing the big picture. But why am I bothering to reply to someone who is posting anonymous bs?
Are you forgetting that the cable company, as per the 1996 Telco Act, can provide dial tone?
There is already competetition between cable and DSL. Soon cable companies will be providing dialtone as well. Forced line sharing does nothing but cripple the Bells and allow the cable companies to dominate.
You guys fail to realize that municipalities control exactly what wire, where, and when flows over their easements. Most municipalities have already decided that only one cable company may run wires in the community, and only one telephone company can run wires.
That may be true (here it is not) but those "exclusive franchises" you refer to are always for a limited time, say 5 years or so. They are only given by the cities to encourage investment in the network. I know where I live, a vote of the people has to pass before that exclusive franchise can be given. ALso they are of a limited time, and the cable/phone companies are generaly required to meet certain requirements of investment or they cannot apply for a new franchise.
Here we actually suffered because the voters refused to grant the cable company that exclusive franchise, and millions of dollars were sent to another city's infrastructure.
If you really want competition and still preserve the 'you run your own cable, you're the only one who gets to use it' mentality, then get the federal government to superscede local municipalities authority to limit who can run wires, and make the easements available to all
Do you really want the federal government to have this control? Or your local government where you can actually have a direct say in the matter? I prefer local government.
Until then, linesharing is all there is to keep competition.
Not true. Cable companies are the direct competetor to the ILECs. They could provide dial tone now if they wanted to.
What has happened in a lot of municipalities is the land was once owned by someone else. They sell everything *except* the mineral rights to a developer.
You have to check your deed, because there is no guarantee you will own the mineral rights to your land.
You are linking me to slashdot posts? Thats your facts? HAHAHAHAHAHA
Thats hillarious. Especially since everything you have referred to is in the past 50 years or so, when most of the network was already built (phone wise).
also, TAX RELIEF IS NOT A SUBSIDY! That is a faulty premise in of itself. So does the government subsidize your child when you get tax relief for him/her?
Linking to slashdot posting is not linking to facts. I also see you are posting anonymously.
That would be the same law that the Bell's almost complety wrote?
Actually that law was written by a multitude of groups, including the radio industry. Also, you are forgetting that long distance carriers wanted to get into the local market.
It was less about long distance services than a multitude of services and expansion that could be done. For example, AT&T and the baby bells could not make computer equipment.
The law also opened up the way for broadband cable access, and telephone over cable. That is something a lot of people forget. Your local cable company is allowed to provide dial tone now.
Saying that the bill was only for the Bell's is a pretty ignorant statment.
I agree with the immediate parent. How can an company make money off its lines if it is forced to open access to them and then be unable to make a profit on them?
The lines do not belong to the public any more than the cable lines do.
Didn't we hear a posting on slashdont a few months ago that cable was beating up dsl big time?
Why is it in many areas cable accounts for 80% of broadband access. (This is true here, in NE Oklahoma. SBC can't afford to build more infastructure, so cable is beating them badly)
Remember the gripes about how cable was unregulated...but phone companies were? Remember how everyone argued that it would give cable an unfair advantage???
The government only subsidized the building of phone networks in the 1930s as part of the "New Deal" to get phone lines and electricity to the rural areas. Everything to that point was built by private investment.
There has never been a spending bill or investment like that since.
I honestly dont know where you get this: Yeah, the problem is though that the government subsidized the creation of Bell's infrastructure in the first place. because it's just not true. This parent should be modded wayyy down. Right of way is purchased, not given freely. The government did not subsidize, at least not in the scale you and so many other slashdot posters seem to believe.
There is no "forced sharing revenue". The Incumbent provider is required to give thier lines at cost . This means that the incumbent gets only the amount necessary to keep the line running, and zero profit. This is why its messed up.
The incumbents are not hell bent on rolling out DSL wherever possible in the least. They only wish to do it where it is profitable. In the current system, the baby bell would go bankrupt if 46 (yes forty six) DSL providers had access to their network at cost.
You have to realize that there is NO SHARED REVENUE WHATSOEVER in the current system. This is because of a law passed by Congress in 1996.
Every telecom network in this country was built with public assistence.
*sigh* I went through this the last time. The only real telephone networks that were subsidized were the extremely rural networks in the 1930's (part of the New Deal). Everything up to that point had been built with MaBell's investments. That bill was to get rural farmers electricity and phone lines. No other government program has existed since. So if you are talking about investment out to farms, you are *partially* correct. Everything else you are 100% wrong on.
The government does NOT subsidize the telecoms. Many a telecom has gone broke by laying too much fiber (that it had to pay for) If you are thinking of the internet, the only internet that was paid for by the goverment (and/or subsidized) was the old DoD network. Everything else has been private investment.
Is it too much for you to check the facts before you post?
Slashdot Mirror
I saw somewhere that the 1999 Moore tornado had its windspeed measured with a doppler radar, and the number they came up with was one mph below F6 status. It would have been the first F6 tornado ever documented.
:P F5 is open ended at the top.
F6 isn't a category for tornados
The "Act of God" clauses in insurance are why you have insurance. The insurance covers you in case of "acts of God". If I'm hit by a tornado, my insurance will pay for everything.
I think you are confusing what "act of God" clauses are. Federal aid is for those who do NOT have insurance and are hit by a natural disaster.
Oklahoma is a beautiful place to live...and it is far more likely you will die from a bolt of lightening than from a torando. The odds of being hit by a tornado are small, especially when you consider the wide scale devestation of an earthquake in californnia.
These past few weeks we have seen a lot of tornados, but it really is the exception and not the rule to see lots of homes destroyed in the scale we have seen lately.
I would rather live with tornados than earthquakes, but that is just me. I love it here; I have lived here all my life. Sure, it isn't perfect, but it's home.
What is it that draws you people to live there, why do you not move from such an obviously inhospitible place to live, and why do you insist on FEMA paying your (collective Kansas and Oklahoma) asses money to rebuild your houses in the same Goddamned spot so the next Chet-chasing twister can blow you to hell all over again?
I live in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and I don't think you realize the very very small likelyhood of being hit by a tornado. While tornados themselves are not rare, it is not everyday that they hit populated areas. It only seems that way because of the last few weeks.
You say it is inhospitable? What about California? Earthquakes hit on a massive scale and destroy HUGE areas. A tornado, while devestatingly powerful, does not destroy hundreds of square miles like an earthquake will.
Also, being hit by a tornado TWICE is really against the odds. You really are far more likely to be struck by lightening than to be hit by a tornado.
The 1999 tornado in Moore Oklahoma killed so many not because there wasn't enough warning, but because it was the most powerful tornado every recorded. It was listed as an F5, the nastiest class of tornado, but many meterologists say that the F5 classification doesn't fit, because the 1999 tornado was off the scale.
That tornado was so powerful it removed the foundation of the homes and left barren earth. Unless you had a dedicated storm shelter underground, you were at risk.
I'm from Tulsa, Oklahoma, and I saw the devestation too. There was plenty of warning about this tornado, but when they are this nasty, this powerful, this devestating, sometimes there isn't anything anyone can do.
That same storm cell went up I-44 and hit Tulsa a few hours later. The tornados by then were not nearly as powerful, but that was the first time in my life I was actually scared of a tornado. I was 21 at the time, have lived in Oklahoma all my life, but when they show a street level map of you neighborhood and show the path of the tornado coming right at you, it is unnerving to say the least. (Especially after seeing what this storm cell did to the poor folks in Moore.)
Our home did not get hit, as the tornado hit the Arkansas River and went back up into the wall cloud. It touched down again across town.
Here, tornados are a fact of life. Most people who live in "Tornado Alley" accept this, and just pray it never hits them. My heart goes out to those who have suffered losses from this tornado.
In the United States, any contract based on an illegal agreement is null and void. For example, in most states, any contract waiving your worker's compensation rights is void, to keep employers from forcing an unfair contract on its workers. Also, if you use a credit card to pay for prostitution, you don't have to pay, because the contract itself was illegal.
-----
Also, if you don't understand the contract fully, or are incapable of understanding the contract, I don't believe it is binding. I recieved something in the mail from my credit card company saying if I did not sign, I would waive my right to a jury trial in case of dispute. How can I be bound to a contract I never signed nor understood?
-----
Furthermore, while this can happen anywhere, a contract also cannot be forced under duress. Someone posted about having already paid and having the license agreement changed on him. That's illegal, because in order to access something he ALREADY PAID FOR he had to sign a new contract...that contract was signed under duress. That's like saying if you park your car in my parking garage, pay the posted fee, but when you come to get your car I make you sign this dreadful contract just to get it back. Not only is that a contract under duress, it's bait and switch.
Why can't the open source community rally behind specific open source multimedia coedecs, and put all that assembly and optimization know-how to get the best codecs possible? Instead we have a plethora of semi-decemt codecs, with great support on x86 (usually) but lackluster support on any other platform, regardless of how capable or how much potential another platform is. Different projects use different codecs, to where I end up having 3 or 4 mpeg2 codecs and quicktime codecs on my machine. Wouldn't it make sense to all put our efforts into the best codecs and making them run as best as possible on all machines???
I run linux on my alpha machine, and let me tell you I LOVE that machine. It's a bit old (ev56 running at 533mhz, but it competes with a PIII@800) but the machine is rock solid and I love running linux on it.
Unfortunately, the only office software I have successfully built is KOffice. If I had a real alternative, something as good as MS Office, I would have no need at all for my x86 machines running windows.
What people don't always understand is that the *.doc is so entrenched. I have an online class that will only accept *.doc formatted papers and assignments. (If you are really lucky and persuasive you can get them to accept *.rtf). They don't want to support 15 different file formats, so they expect *.doc in MS Office 97 or above.
This means I have to use Windows whether I like it or not, because there is no real alternative, especially for my alpha machine.
Oh yawn. Quit your drivel. There's a difference between representing accused criminals and making a business of defending people you know are not only guilty, but will offend again.
Drivel? The point here is there is NO difference. For starters, are you psychic? How can you *KNOW* they will do it again? I suppose those people don't get a fair trial because they can't get a good lawyer?
There are many times you know a crime was committed but you're unable to prove who did it. The standard B movie fare is an example; the lights go out and someone is shot. This time though, Microsoft was the only one in the room.
If you can't prove they did it, you can't possibly know they committed the crime. To hell with civili liberties! They are GUILTY DAMMIT! We aren't going to let a good lawyer defend them because then they would be profiting from the crime. So much for due process and the presumption of innocence. You, the almighty slashdot poster, have pronounced them guilty, along with the lawyers who represent them! People like you and your vigilante justice system make John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act the most civil rights minded things in the world.
Your arrogance toward what you deem "criminals" is more than disturbing. Forget process of law, if you "know they will offend again" lock them away and don't give them any rights.
Pardon my "drivel" for pointing out that the Constitution and due process do not fit in with you skewed view of the world.
If you don't want to hear people bash Microsoft, I suggest you start hanging out in a society of Albanian goat-herders. They probably haven't had the experiences that most Slashdot readers have.
And what exactly would be YOUR experiences with Microsoft? You know what you read in the news, and you know what you have heard on Slashdot. Nvidia has also been hit with SEC charges, as many other major companies. AC's argument is valid. If this where another company, say AMD or nVidia, you would cut them a lot of slack. I personally find anti-trust violations a lot more tolerable than lying about your earnings. Are you going to whine about all the other companies that have been convicted of crimes?
Your personal vendetta (as of most slashdotters) is against Microsoft. It's just like how you rant and rave about how Hollywood is so evil but you hype all the Matrix movies.
I also read the news and I see things like the BSA and Trustworthy computing, both of which indicate that Microsoft is continuing in the same fashion. Outright lies backed up with armies of lawyers.
What makes these lies in the first place? Do you have a hard and fast definition of "trustworthy computing"? My dog is trustworthy, but he still might pee on your rug. You have opinions not facts. You go off saying how evil MS is and how they lie, but you don't give real examples of outright deciet! "Trustworthy Computing" is like "A+ Auto Repair"...if you don't think it's "A+" does that mean they are lying? Of course not.
Everything you have said is based on emotion and not reasoning.
We need criminal attorneys, we don't need scuzz buckets who continually represent people they know are going to re-offend.
So a repeat offender isn't entitled to good representation?: Heaven forbig that person get a fair trial let's just whisk him off to prison. No matter how many times you have gone to jail, you are STILL entitled to a fair trial.
Once again, what's sick is people like you who think it's okay to profit from crime as long as you aren't actually the guy with the gun.
The lawyer isn't profiting from the crime. The lawyer is profiting from giving consel and representing his/her client to the best of their abilities. You aren't profiting from a crime simply by representing a guilty person! A guilty person needs good representation too, that way when that person is convicted we know they had every opportunity to prove their innocence.
What is really sick is how you have perverted the justice system into your own personal vendetta against "criminals". Prior bad acts do not make a person guilty, and in the vast majority of the time, they aren't even admissable.
And as far as Microsoft "lying" in court? They were never even charged with perjury. The example you cite was a contempt of court which was overturned on appeal. It's obvious you cannot think rationally, and believe people are guilty even before conviction (or even idictment).
I hope that if you are ever accused of a crime you can find a good attorney, who won't buy into this "profiting from a crime" BS and refuse represent you. Did you ever steal something when you were growing up? Look, that makes you a repeat offender, and therefore you shouldn't get to have a good lawyer, because all good lawyers who represent repeat offenders "profit from crime."
What nonsense.
The worst part of white-collar crime is that it's socially acceptable. Nobody would associate with a car thief at a cocktail party, but the lawyer that represented the thief even though he knew they were still in business.
Heaven forbid we have lawyers to represent us when we are accused of a crime. I guess we should all shun criminal attorneys because the "know about crime" in your words...
That's sick
No what is sick is you intolerance to fair justice and how we need attorneys to protect us. You say that MS "lied in court about it", since w hen was MS convicted of perjury? I that is your opinion please state so, otherwise its just libel.
The question I have is, "How long will the warantees be on these enterprise ATA drives?" The vast majority of IDE drives now only have a 1 year warantee. SCSI drives are still at 5 year warantees. Will Western Digital be giving a SCSI-type warantee on these "enterprise" drives?
The article does not say. I have SCSI subsystems in every computer I own now, because I can pick up a used SCSI hard drive off of ebay that has a longer warantee than a brand spankin' new IDE hard drive from an online vendor.
Something to ponder...
I would bet the rural access subsidy is a holdover from that Rural Electrification Act (and amenmends to include telephone).
v ors/communities.htm
k valley.com/history.htm
Original Act passed in 1936 http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/gs/cps/50ge/endea
ammended in 1948 to include telephone service.
http://www.mdtc.net/History/
http://ar
Those subsidies are often in the form of loan guarantees. These are only for building access to rurual areas that would not otherwise have them.
The link from the digest says "The coalition members reminded the FCC that the vast majority of consumers will see reduced total bills under the CALLS plan. The comments point out that ``even the most rural of AT&T low-volume customers will see bills increase by only about 20 cents over the life of the CALLS plan, with many others seeing reductions in their total bill.''"
This is again for rural areas. The subsidy is not really a government subsidy, but a passing along of the cost from one small group of consumers to the rest of the customers.
I also wouldn't call a loan guarantee a subsidy or investment. If you make that argument, you are saying that the airline industry must open itself up to competitors, so must the automobile industry (Chrysler) etc. The government didn't build the networks, or pay for them. It merely guaratneed the loans. (Now the REA may be an exception to that, as the New Deal of the 1930s blurred all the lines between public and private.)
If you are going to call me a fuckwit, at least have the gall to sign in. Otherwise you are just a coward.
Also, that charge was necessary because it meant that the baby bells were now paying for access to the long distance network. Thats not a government mandated fee, thats a judge ordered settlement.
Local rates were subsidized as per the breakup I believe. It takes a long time to separate a company like AT&T into profitable AT&T & baby bell companies. The baby bells had to fend for themselves, for the first time. The government was taking responsibility for the breakup order.
The fact that they are ALL recent events points to the 1984 breakup, which was mandated by a federal judge.
The government did not build the lines, it did not pay for the right of way. If you had paid attention to my first post you would have seen that. Subsidize post 1984 are due mainly to the fact the government did not want the bells to go under after breakup.
If you split up M$ into two companies, you might also see subsidies to keep the two companies afloat (to make sure they don't merge back together, and they survive as two separate companies.)
You are definately missing the big picture. But why am I bothering to reply to someone who is posting anonymous bs?
Are you forgetting that the cable company, as per the 1996 Telco Act, can provide dial tone?
There is already competetition between cable and DSL. Soon cable companies will be providing dialtone as well. Forced line sharing does nothing but cripple the Bells and allow the cable companies to dominate.
You guys fail to realize that municipalities control exactly what wire, where, and when flows over their easements. Most municipalities have already decided that only one cable company may run wires in the community, and only one telephone company can run wires.
That may be true (here it is not) but those "exclusive franchises" you refer to are always for a limited time, say 5 years or so. They are only given by the cities to encourage investment in the network. I know where I live, a vote of the people has to pass before that exclusive franchise can be given. ALso they are of a limited time, and the cable/phone companies are generaly required to meet certain requirements of investment or they cannot apply for a new franchise.
Here we actually suffered because the voters refused to grant the cable company that exclusive franchise, and millions of dollars were sent to another city's infrastructure.
If you really want competition and still preserve the 'you run your own cable, you're the only one who gets to use it' mentality, then get the federal government to superscede local municipalities authority to limit who can run wires, and make the easements available to all
Do you really want the federal government to have this control? Or your local government where you can actually have a direct say in the matter? I prefer local government.
Until then, linesharing is all there is to keep competition.
Not true. Cable companies are the direct competetor to the ILECs. They could provide dial tone now if they wanted to.
What has happened in a lot of municipalities is the land was once owned by someone else. They sell everything *except* the mineral rights to a developer.
You have to check your deed, because there is no guarantee you will own the mineral rights to your land.
You are linking me to slashdot posts? Thats your facts? HAHAHAHAHAHA
Thats hillarious. Especially since everything you have referred to is in the past 50 years or so, when most of the network was already built (phone wise).
also, TAX RELIEF IS NOT A SUBSIDY! That is a faulty premise in of itself. So does the government subsidize your child when you get tax relief for him/her?
Linking to slashdot posting is not linking to facts. I also see you are posting anonymously.
Right of way costs money, it's not free. You are an obvious troll, but I'll bite.
Read what I said: subsidies and investments. I could link to the New Deal law if you would like...but being a coward I wont waste my time.
It wasn't government granted monopoly either. Bell & AT&T existed because they were the biggest, and existed long before anti-trust laws.
Think before you post!
That would be the same law that the Bell's almost complety wrote?
Actually that law was written by a multitude of groups, including the radio industry. Also, you are forgetting that long distance carriers wanted to get into the local market.
It was less about long distance services than a multitude of services and expansion that could be done. For example, AT&T and the baby bells could not make computer equipment.
The law also opened up the way for broadband cable access, and telephone over cable. That is something a lot of people forget. Your local cable company is allowed to provide dial tone now.
Saying that the bill was only for the Bell's is a pretty ignorant statment.
I agree with the immediate parent. How can an company make money off its lines if it is forced to open access to them and then be unable to make a profit on them?
The lines do not belong to the public any more than the cable lines do.
Didn't we hear a posting on slashdont a few months ago that cable was beating up dsl big time?
Why is it in many areas cable accounts for 80% of broadband access. (This is true here, in NE Oklahoma. SBC can't afford to build more infastructure, so cable is beating them badly)
Remember the gripes about how cable was unregulated...but phone companies were? Remember how everyone argued that it would give cable an unfair advantage???
Slashdot posters have very short memories.
The government only subsidized the building of phone networks in the 1930s as part of the "New Deal" to get phone lines and electricity to the rural areas. Everything to that point was built by private investment.
There has never been a spending bill or investment like that since.
I honestly dont know where you get this:
Yeah, the problem is though that the government subsidized the creation of Bell's infrastructure in the first place.
because it's just not true. This parent should be modded wayyy down. Right of way is purchased, not given freely. The government did not subsidize, at least not in the scale you and so many other slashdot posters seem to believe.
There is no "forced sharing revenue". The Incumbent provider is required to give thier lines at cost . This means that the incumbent gets only the amount necessary to keep the line running, and zero profit. This is why its messed up.
The incumbents are not hell bent on rolling out DSL wherever possible in the least. They only wish to do it where it is profitable. In the current system, the baby bell would go bankrupt if 46 (yes forty six) DSL providers had access to their network at cost.
You have to realize that there is NO SHARED REVENUE WHATSOEVER in the current system. This is because of a law passed by Congress in 1996.
Every telecom network in this country was built with public assistence.
*sigh* I went through this the last time. The only real telephone networks that were subsidized were the extremely rural networks in the 1930's (part of the New Deal). Everything up to that point had been built with MaBell's investments. That bill was to get rural farmers electricity and phone lines. No other government program has existed since. So if you are talking about investment out to farms, you are *partially* correct. Everything else you are 100% wrong on.
The government does NOT subsidize the telecoms. Many a telecom has gone broke by laying too much fiber (that it had to pay for) If you are thinking of the internet, the only internet that was paid for by the goverment (and/or subsidized) was the old DoD network. Everything else has been private investment.
Is it too much for you to check the facts before you post?