Let me get this straight. Rambus was found of having an unlawful Monopoly, and yet the market has successfully pushed Rambus almost entirely out of the market. Clearly they weren't a Monopoly to begin with. Does anyone, especially the Government, even know what a Monopoly is?
Of course this is what Google is doing. No company with a 20 Billion market cap would let itself be at the threshold of AT&T and the likes. Their simply reducing their risk of these companies charging Google a greater price for bandwidth and access. They bought up all the dark fiber before they even went public, I'm sure that this was a prerequisite task to complete before they went public. Not having this option would certainly lower their stock price significantly.
Also, Google knows it can't rely on the Government for anything such as Net Neutrality Laws, and it shouldn't. It enjoys the benefit of being a largely unregulated industry, which is leading to it's success. I'm certain that Google would trade any Net Neutrality laws in order to stay in an unregulated industry.
Thank you. They are complete idiots. I don't understand why people want these politicians running the most important aspect of their life. Their medical care, education, retirement and so on.
Take your encrypted file and rename it "Barbie_twins_nude_in_oil.mpg" and upload it to some p2p networks. Your data will be accessible from any computer forever.
Mod me offtopic, but I have to address this comment.
They went from fearing being killed for pissing off the government in any way to being free to do nearly anything they wanted
Please, lets not be confused, Iraq is not free. The Iraqis must carry ID cards at all times, there's barbed wire around many cities, people must be in their homes by curfew time, there are still roadblocks and checkpoints, American troops sometimes arrest families and hold them as hostages until suspected "terrorists" surrender, private property is frequently demolished, there are prohibitions on protests, and so on. That doesn't sound like freedom to me.
You are exactly correct. This will prevent private companies from competing because you can't compete with free. While I'm sure you like the idea of forcing me to pay for your internet, I may not like it because I don't use the service.
I'm surprised that anyone here at/. would want municipal WiFi, other than the ever eluding Free Lunch. Lets take a look at some of the problems that will arise:
Static IP and Port Forwarding. I'm sure that many of you forward ports through your router/firewall for certain applications (http, ftp...). I can guarantee that the municipality will not support this feature, and it would be impossible to get a static ip. Once the municipality monopolizes the market, there will be no competition from the private sector. You can't compete with free. While private companies in other areas offer new features, lower price and more bandwidth (they have to compete, remember) you will be stuck paying high prices (taxes) for a slow connection. While the idea of other people who don't use the internet paying for your BitTorrent downloads seems like a great idea, it will cost you more in the long run.
Censorship. Once this municipality has the power to decide what you can and can't view on the internet, do you really think that it would never be abused. Some religious group will donate large amounts of money to a campaign, and the politician will have to repay that group with censorship legislation.
Internet access may seem high right now, and it is. Competition is real, prices have and will continue to go down as features are being added. My Comcast connection used to cost $59/mo, now I have more bandwidth and it's only $20/mo. Government is never as efficient as the private sector, it will cost everyone much more to let the government supply WiFi rather than a private company. Also, when was the last time you heard of a government program living up to it's promise? Do you think that this would be any different?
Either you're not an American, or you've never read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The 9th and 10th amendments (most overlooked by politicians) state clearly that the people own all of the rights and powers, and they are granting a few to the government. Governments don't have rights to grant, people do.
I'm sorry that you think that your well being is at the threshold of Microsoft, sounds like a pitiful life. Again, they're not forcing you do do anything. Bill Gates does not have the power to hold a gun to your head of send you to jail if you install Linux. He decides to add features to Windows and Word so that you choose to use them over Linux and Open Office.
Would you care to explain how you are *forced* to use Microsoft products, or forced to buy software. Unless someone coerced you into using it, you were not forced to do anything. You *choose* to use Microsoft products, without force. Let's not forget, the only force that exists in this country is from the government. They are the only ones who can legally use force, companies cannot. You may think that products are overpriced, but in no way is anyone forcing you to use them.
Agreed. My favorite feature of Azureus is that you can bind it to a specific network interface. At my apartment I have two wireless cards and a number of open wireless networks to choose from. I can run multiple instances of Azureus on separate internet connections. Doubles the bandwidth for uploads and downloads.
Granted the federal government has no authority in deciding whether municipalities can socialize internet access, I'm surprised that anyone here at/. would want municipal WiFi, other than the obvious Free Lunch. Lets take a look at some of the problems that will arise:
Static IP and Port Forwarding. I'm sure that many of you forward ports through your router/firewall for certain applications (http, ftp...). I can guarantee that the municipality will not support this feature, and it would be impossible to get a static ip. Once the municipality monopolizes the market, there will be no competition from the private sector. You can't compete with free. While private companies in other areas offer new features, lower price and more bandwidth (they have to compete, remember) you will be stuck paying high prices (taxes) for a slow connection. While the idea of other people who don't use the internet paying for your BitTorrent downloads seems like a great idea, it will cost you more in the long run.
Censorship. Once this municipality has the power to decide what you can and can't view on the internet, do you really think that it would never be abused. Some religious group will donate large amounts of money to a campaign, and the politician will have to repay that group with censorship legislation.
Internet access may seem high right now, and it is. Competition is real, prices have and will continue to go down as features are being added. My Comcast connection used to cost $59/mo, now I have more bandwidth and it's only $20/mo. Government is never as efficient as the private sector, it will cost everyone much more to let the government supply WiFi rather than a private company. Also, when was the last time you heard of a government program living up to it's promise? Do you think that this would be any different?
Everyone around here seems so concerned with offshoring, if we agree to this, more jobs will be sent overseas. Specifically to China and India, who are exempt. It's not that wages are cheaper in these countries, it's that the regulations on business are so expensive now that it is cheaper to send the jobs overseas.
Unfortunately, the parent should be modded insightful. The environmentalists would prefer to leave our children a socialist government that regulates all aspects of their life.
What I don't get is that the federal government is the worst polluter and yet the environmentalists want MORE federal government. It's the federal tax breaks that are given for 10000lb suv's and to the oil companies that cause these gasses. When will people learn that we can never make government benevolent. We need to get rid of all but the smallest amount of government and environment will be better off. In a free market, that which uses less energy will be cheaper and in more demand. The federal government subsidizes that which uses more energy, making an artificial demand for it. If we want to save the planet, we need to get rid of the massive governments that are destroying it.
Couldn't agree more. They also regulate what is being taught. Take for instance, a sex ed program that suits inner-city LA certainly isn't acceptable in a small Mormon town in Utah. But instead our noble leaders in D.C. think they can come up with a program that fits all.
Do you know anyone running production and mission critical software on mono? Didn't think so. Mono is not prime time yet, for that matter neither is.NET
At our orgainzation the developers develop on a number of different JVM's. Windows, Linux, Apple, BEA's JVM amongst others. Other then poorly written threading code, I've never once an instance of an application running differently on other JVM's. I've been developing on Java for 5 years.
A point not made is that there is only one CLR, if there is an exploit for it, it will work in ANY.NET application. There are however dosens of implementations of the JVM. An exploit for one JVM wont necessarily work in another JVM.
This is a common theme for Java applications, an interface is published, and many compaines will implement it.
Who would have thought, another government program not doing what the politicians promised it would do. Now they're going to start asking for more money to "reform" the legislation.
News for all of you, no government program does what the politicians promised it would do. Can anyone here name one?
I would prefer if they would just stay out of regulating the internet and my computer. My spam filters work just fine. Once again the free market is solving a problem that government can't.
Seriously, if you live your whole life thinking you're entitled to things, be ready for lots of disappointments. You're much happier when you live your own life.
Did you not read the title of this article?
Straight from the horses mouth:
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons and the administration does not hold out hopes that any weapons will be found
What are you smoking if you think they found WMD. The Bush administration admits that they haven't found any, and that they probably wont.
So, what you're saying is that the administration is down playing the fact that WMD were found.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me get this straight. Rambus was found of having an unlawful Monopoly, and yet the market has successfully pushed Rambus almost entirely out of the market. Clearly they weren't a Monopoly to begin with. Does anyone, especially the Government, even know what a Monopoly is?
Of course this is what Google is doing. No company with a 20 Billion market cap would let itself be at the threshold of AT&T and the likes. Their simply reducing their risk of these companies charging Google a greater price for bandwidth and access. They bought up all the dark fiber before they even went public, I'm sure that this was a prerequisite task to complete before they went public. Not having this option would certainly lower their stock price significantly. Also, Google knows it can't rely on the Government for anything such as Net Neutrality Laws, and it shouldn't. It enjoys the benefit of being a largely unregulated industry, which is leading to it's success. I'm certain that Google would trade any Net Neutrality laws in order to stay in an unregulated industry.
Thank you. They are complete idiots. I don't understand why people want these politicians running the most important aspect of their life. Their medical care, education, retirement and so on.
Take your encrypted file and rename it "Barbie_twins_nude_in_oil.mpg" and upload it to some p2p networks. Your data will be accessible from any computer forever.
Mod me offtopic, but I have to address this comment.
They went from fearing being killed for pissing off the government in any way to being free to do nearly anything they wanted
Please, lets not be confused, Iraq is not free. The Iraqis must carry ID cards at all times, there's barbed wire around many cities, people must be in their homes by curfew time, there are still roadblocks and checkpoints, American troops sometimes arrest families and hold them as hostages until suspected "terrorists" surrender, private property is frequently demolished, there are prohibitions on protests, and so on. That doesn't sound like freedom to me.
You are exactly correct. This will prevent private companies from competing because you can't compete with free. While I'm sure you like the idea of forcing me to pay for your internet, I may not like it because I don't use the service.
I'm surprised that anyone here at /. would want municipal WiFi, other than the ever eluding Free Lunch. Lets take a look at some of the problems that will arise:
Static IP and Port Forwarding. I'm sure that many of you forward ports through your router/firewall for certain applications (http, ftp...). I can guarantee that the municipality will not support this feature, and it would be impossible to get a static ip. Once the municipality monopolizes the market, there will be no competition from the private sector. You can't compete with free. While private companies in other areas offer new features, lower price and more bandwidth (they have to compete, remember) you will be stuck paying high prices (taxes) for a slow connection. While the idea of other people who don't use the internet paying for your BitTorrent downloads seems like a great idea, it will cost you more in the long run.
Censorship. Once this municipality has the power to decide what you can and can't view on the internet, do you really think that it would never be abused. Some religious group will donate large amounts of money to a campaign, and the politician will have to repay that group with censorship legislation.
Internet access may seem high right now, and it is. Competition is real, prices have and will continue to go down as features are being added. My Comcast connection used to cost $59/mo, now I have more bandwidth and it's only $20/mo. Government is never as efficient as the private sector, it will cost everyone much more to let the government supply WiFi rather than a private company. Also, when was the last time you heard of a government program living up to it's promise? Do you think that this would be any different?
While I don't agree with the predominant liberal views on /. (I'm a libertarian) I certainly prefer that over your fascist views.
Granted by the government
Either you're not an American, or you've never read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The 9th and 10th amendments (most overlooked by politicians) state clearly that the people own all of the rights and powers, and they are granting a few to the government. Governments don't have rights to grant, people do.
I'm sorry that you think that your well being is at the threshold of Microsoft, sounds like a pitiful life. Again, they're not forcing you do do anything. Bill Gates does not have the power to hold a gun to your head of send you to jail if you install Linux. He decides to add features to Windows and Word so that you choose to use them over Linux and Open Office.
Would you care to explain how you are *forced* to use Microsoft products, or forced to buy software. Unless someone coerced you into using it, you were not forced to do anything. You *choose* to use Microsoft products, without force. Let's not forget, the only force that exists in this country is from the government. They are the only ones who can legally use force, companies cannot. You may think that products are overpriced, but in no way is anyone forcing you to use them.
What could we do? How about you try voting Libertarian for a change.
Agreed. My favorite feature of Azureus is that you can bind it to a specific network interface. At my apartment I have two wireless cards and a number of open wireless networks to choose from. I can run multiple instances of Azureus on separate internet connections. Doubles the bandwidth for uploads and downloads.
Granted the federal government has no authority in deciding whether municipalities can socialize internet access, I'm surprised that anyone here at /. would want municipal WiFi, other than the obvious Free Lunch. Lets take a look at some of the problems that will arise:
Static IP and Port Forwarding. I'm sure that many of you forward ports through your router/firewall for certain applications (http, ftp...). I can guarantee that the municipality will not support this feature, and it would be impossible to get a static ip. Once the municipality monopolizes the market, there will be no competition from the private sector. You can't compete with free. While private companies in other areas offer new features, lower price and more bandwidth (they have to compete, remember) you will be stuck paying high prices (taxes) for a slow connection. While the idea of other people who don't use the internet paying for your BitTorrent downloads seems like a great idea, it will cost you more in the long run.
Censorship. Once this municipality has the power to decide what you can and can't view on the internet, do you really think that it would never be abused. Some religious group will donate large amounts of money to a campaign, and the politician will have to repay that group with censorship legislation.
Internet access may seem high right now, and it is. Competition is real, prices have and will continue to go down as features are being added. My Comcast connection used to cost $59/mo, now I have more bandwidth and it's only $20/mo. Government is never as efficient as the private sector, it will cost everyone much more to let the government supply WiFi rather than a private company. Also, when was the last time you heard of a government program living up to it's promise? Do you think that this would be any different?
Everyone around here seems so concerned with offshoring, if we agree to this, more jobs will be sent overseas. Specifically to China and India, who are exempt. It's not that wages are cheaper in these countries, it's that the regulations on business are so expensive now that it is cheaper to send the jobs overseas.
Unfortunately, the parent should be modded insightful. The environmentalists would prefer to leave our children a socialist government that regulates all aspects of their life.
What I don't get is that the federal government is the worst polluter and yet the environmentalists want MORE federal government. It's the federal tax breaks that are given for 10000lb suv's and to the oil companies that cause these gasses. When will people learn that we can never make government benevolent. We need to get rid of all but the smallest amount of government and environment will be better off. In a free market, that which uses less energy will be cheaper and in more demand. The federal government subsidizes that which uses more energy, making an artificial demand for it. If we want to save the planet, we need to get rid of the massive governments that are destroying it.
Couldn't agree more. They also regulate what is being taught. Take for instance, a sex ed program that suits inner-city LA certainly isn't acceptable in a small Mormon town in Utah. But instead our noble leaders in D.C. think they can come up with a program that fits all.
Do you know anyone running production and mission critical software on mono? Didn't think so. Mono is not prime time yet, for that matter neither is .NET
At our orgainzation the developers develop on a number of different JVM's. Windows, Linux, Apple, BEA's JVM amongst others. Other then poorly written threading code, I've never once an instance of an application running differently on other JVM's. I've been developing on Java for 5 years.
A point not made is that there is only one CLR, if there is an exploit for it, it will work in ANY .NET application. There are however dosens of implementations of the JVM. An exploit for one JVM wont necessarily work in another JVM.
This is a common theme for Java applications, an interface is published, and many compaines will implement it.
Who would have thought, another government program not doing what the politicians promised it would do. Now they're going to start asking for more money to "reform" the legislation.
News for all of you, no government program does what the politicians promised it would do. Can anyone here name one?
I would prefer if they would just stay out of regulating the internet and my computer. My spam filters work just fine. Once again the free market is solving a problem that government can't.
What I wished I learned at an earlier age:
No body owes you anything
Seriously, if you live your whole life thinking you're entitled to things, be ready for lots of disappointments. You're much happier when you live your own life.
First come first serve:
Invite
Invite
Invite
Invite
Invite
Invite
Invite
Invite
I kept getting an error posting saying I had to few chars, 7.4 per line, so I had to add this to post.
Did you not read the title of this article?
Straight from the horses mouth:
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons and the administration does not hold out hopes that any weapons will be found
What are you smoking if you think they found WMD. The Bush administration admits that they haven't found any, and that they probably wont.
So, what you're saying is that the administration is down playing the fact that WMD were found.
You could also try the lagrest thrid party (larger than all others combined) Here
The Libs are strongly against war, and were not socialists like the greens.
Free yourself, vote Libertarian