It's just like any other contract work. There have to be interviews (telephone and/or face to face), references, initial checks, and periodic reviews and checks during the course of the contract. Think of the web sites as agencies; they do the advertising and provide the virtual meeting place, but from then on, it's up to the employer and candidate.
No sane manager lets a project go from start to finish without any intermediate checkups and reviews, even inhouse projets with inhouse employees. What makes you think this would be different?
I believe they were one of the driving forces. Mickey came into being around 1928, I think, and Disney was worried spitless someone would upset their moneywagon.
They just announced the annual FBI stats, and I believe that crime rates have dropped for the 6th year in a row, or something like that. Of course, they will attribute that to the climbing prison population.
There used to to be lots and lots of independent phone companies in the US. AT&T did the equivalent of M$'s embrace and extend -- they jury-rigged "standards" so the small independents couldn't compete, they refused to connect long distance calls to the independents ("unsafe equipment" they said!), made them offers they couldn't refuse. By the time the smell got too bad even for Congress, it was too late for the independents, but AT&T co-opted everything by volunteering to become a regulated monopoly -- once they had driven everyone out of business.
It had nothing to do with promoting growth.
As for making the cable infrastructure a govt project, who said anything about that? What this bill proposes is simply to break the cable monopoly same as the phone monopoly is breaking. No one has said anything about making it a govt project except you.
The cable plant is just as built up as the phone plant in 99% of the country. There is no excuse for giving the cable companies a break that we deny to the phone companies.
You concentrate on AOL. This isn't about AOL vs cable, this is about cable and phone on an equal unbundling basis, and all ISPs, not just AOL.
1. The cable companies paid for their infrastructure -- and phone companies didn't?
2. The cable companies basically have to replace most of that infrastructure in order to provision broadband services -- And so do the phone companies for DSL.
3. Big companies like AOL don't need government handouts
AOL isn't getting a handout, they are not given free access to the cable. This applies to all ISPs, not just AOL. And if ISP choice is independent of phone company when using a phone, why shouldn't ISP choice be independent of cable company when using cable?
If unbundling is good for phone company competition, why isn't it also good for vable companies?
Phone companies want to milk the expensive T-1 business for all it's worth. They are EXTREMELY reluctant to sell you a $100/month DSL line when a $1000/month T-1 would generate so much more revenue.
They only roll out DSL where cable modems are threatened. They DO NOT WANT businesses to convert T-1 lines into DSL lines for a tenth the cost.
Suppose you had sent that email on company letterhead using the company's postage meter? Is that too scary for you?
--
Why should cable get a monopoly that phones don't?
on
Internet Freedom Act
·
· Score: 2
Local phone companies are being forced to compete in local business; they are splitting access from service. Why should cable companies get a monopoly and not phone companies?
I want to choose media and ISP separately. When the cable company combines ISP and cable access, you have lost freedom. Cable companies have disconnected service for people running ftp or web servers on their home comnputers. Some of them have content filters. Do you really like this monopoly?
I want the cable AND phone compabies, and wireless to come, scared that I will switch access media if I don't like their service. I want them to know that I can switch media access without having to change my email address and ISP.
I want them scared by competition into giving good service!
--
Do you tolerate bogus snail mail return addresses?
on
Internet Freedom Act
·
· Score: 1
All this does is apply fraud rules to email. I'd bet a paycheck that using someone else's return address on snail mail is fraudulent. Why should email be any different? All this does is say you can't fake your email headers.
Sounds damned good to me.
--
This is good stuff even if AOL is behind it
on
Internet Freedom Act
·
· Score: 1
I want to choose my ISP independently from the access provider. I want the Baby Bell to be so scared that I can switch to cable while keeping my ISP that they have to provide decent service. And I want the cable company to know exactly the same thing. I want competition and choice!
We have an incredible mess right now trying to separate the local telephone monopolies so that we can have local competition. I would MUCH rather go thru the screaming from AT&T right now than later. It is absolutely disgusting that the local phone companies are being dragged into competition while the local cable companies get away with an unnatural monopoly.
Yes, I am aware that if I don't like the cable companies' business practices, I can look elsewhere. But why should one form of access, the phone company, have to divorce wires from net access, while the cable companies don't? Why should I be forced to bundle ISP with access one way and not the other?
Cynic that I am, I am amazed that such a simple, efficient, common sense bill can be introduced.
1. AT&T will scream bloody murder about losing their monopoly of tying access and ISP together; too bad. We have spent the last century dealing with local telephone monopolies. Separating phone access from phone service is an incredible mess right now. We have the chance to do broadband access correctly, right from the start. There are only a few hundred thousand cable modems right now. Think how much harder it will be ten or twenty years from now.
2. Most so-called anti-spam remedies involve legitimizing spam but requiring it to be labeled as such. That's not what bothers me about it. It's the fake header information and hijacking other peoples' machines for delivery that bother me. Valid header information is all I ask, so I can lodge complaints better. This bill simply requires non-fraudulent header information. Marvelous!
3. The FCC is too slow and tremulous to do any good. Getting them out of the way is a great idea.
Governments of all stripes are torn between wanting "progress" and yet wanting to control it. China is a classic example. They want economic progress, and are permitting a few free market reforms to encourage that growth, yet they are scared to death of the personal freedom that is an inseperable part of a free market.
Do everything you can to encourage and and all kinds of freedom in Iran. Freedom is contagious, a virus; free source may be a small tool, but a tool it is. A few Iranians will see the amount of freedom out there, and spread a few words. A few more will use Linux to set up their own web sites and ISPs, with the government less able to control it. Thus will freedom spread.
Hiding freedom is the opposite of helping it spread.
If you use your home machine to do thedownloads, on a 56K modem, then you don't need banner ads. If you need to pay for a T1 to cover demand, then you're commercial. That's like making hundreds of tapes a day - yep, that sounds commercial too.
If you do it in your spare time for friends, your production is naturally limited. It should be the same for MP3s - if you can't afford it out of your own pocket, it's not a spare time hobby for a few friends any more.
One, paper signatures are trivial to forge and just about impossible to disprove.
Two, digital signatures ahve no export limits; they are strictly one way hash functions of the document in question. There is no encrypted information as such. There are explicit allowances for digital signatures.
They say No Guvmint Agencies as one of the criteria. I agree. Nothing governmental is mission critical; in fact, we'd run better if their computers were down all the time:-):-):-)
Suppose you commute by train and work in an office building. There's three times just going to and from work. Go out for lunch; one more. Go to the post office on your lunch break; that's five. University student? Great, every classroom has a scanner.
It's easy to double your daily dose from scanners alone.
Now let's mass produce these, get the price down to a couple of thousand dollars. Every late night store will have one, every school room, probably even put them in buses and trains and taxis. You will go thru hundreds in a single day if the control freaks have their way.
That's not a tradeoff I want to be forced to make for dubious claims of "safety". I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said "Those who would give up a little freedom for security deserve neither."
They claim equivalent to a one hour flight. So let's put one in every post office, stadium, bank, govt office, office building, etc. I see it very easy to pass thru 5 or 10 of these a day. That's more radiation than I want. Multiply it by millions of people, and I bet more people would die of cancer from this pervasive scanning than would die from the weapons it finds.
How many guns and explosives have actually been found by airport scanners? How many would have deaths would there have been if there were no airport scanners?
And the cost -- I imagine all the money spent on these scanners would save more lives if simply spent on immunizations, or better medical care for the poor (no I'm not advocating socialism here).
--
It's ASCII -- what do non-Americans think of this?
on
Thumb-only Keyboard?
·
· Score: 1
I can understand not trying to encode Unicode on one hand (or even both hands and both feet!) but it doesn't even include European characters,
Still, better than the soon-to-be-invented M$ version -- it will speak Code Pages or something bizarre,
Suppose Intel has a bulletin board in its cafeteria where the company posts safety notices, holiday schedules, and so on. It sure isn't fair game for any outsider to post notices. I believe there are exceptions for union organizers, but not ex-employees in general.
Don't see that an internal email system is any different.
Now if Hamidi wants to organize a union, and does it thru whatever processes exist, that would be a different story.
Slashdot Mirror
It's just like any other contract work. There have to be interviews (telephone and/or face to face), references, initial checks, and periodic reviews and checks during the course of the contract. Think of the web sites as agencies; they do the advertising and provide the virtual meeting place, but from then on, it's up to the employer and candidate.
No sane manager lets a project go from start to finish without any intermediate checkups and reviews, even inhouse projets with inhouse employees. What makes you think this would be different?
--
I believe they were one of the driving forces. Mickey came into being around 1928, I think, and Disney was worried spitless someone would upset their moneywagon.
--
They just announced the annual FBI stats, and I believe that crime rates have dropped for the 6th year in a row, or something like that. Of course, they will attribute that to the climbing prison population.
--
So it's politically based, is that what you're complaining about?
Go away.
--
There used to to be lots and lots of independent phone companies in the US. AT&T did the equivalent of M$'s embrace and extend -- they jury-rigged "standards" so the small independents couldn't compete, they refused to connect long distance calls to the independents ("unsafe equipment" they said!), made them offers they couldn't refuse. By the time the smell got too bad even for Congress, it was too late for the independents, but AT&T co-opted everything by volunteering to become a regulated monopoly -- once they had driven everyone out of business.
It had nothing to do with promoting growth.
As for making the cable infrastructure a govt project, who said anything about that? What this bill proposes is simply to break the cable monopoly same as the phone monopoly is breaking. No one has said anything about making it a govt project except you.
The cable plant is just as built up as the phone plant in 99% of the country. There is no excuse for giving the cable companies a break that we deny to the phone companies.
--
I can't get DSL where I am because it's too far from the central office (and I don't live out in the boonies).
DSL bandwidth also drops off as the distance from the C.O. increases, very rapidly.
And if no upgrades were necessary, why do the phone companies whine so much about recovering the cost?
--
You concentrate on AOL. This isn't about AOL vs cable, this is about cable and phone on an equal unbundling basis, and all ISPs, not just AOL.
1. The cable companies paid for their infrastructure -- and phone companies didn't?
2. The cable companies basically have to replace most of that infrastructure in order to provision broadband services -- And so do the phone companies for DSL.
3. Big companies like AOL don't need government handouts
AOL isn't getting a handout, they are not given free access to the cable. This applies to all ISPs, not just AOL. And if ISP choice is independent of phone company when using a phone, why shouldn't ISP choice be independent of cable company when using cable?
If unbundling is good for phone company competition, why isn't it also good for vable companies?
--
Phone companies want to milk the expensive T-1 business for all it's worth. They are EXTREMELY reluctant to sell you a $100/month DSL line when a $1000/month T-1 would generate so much more revenue.
They only roll out DSL where cable modems are threatened. They DO NOT WANT businesses to convert T-1 lines into DSL lines for a tenth the cost.
--
No one has ever suggested stealing the cable compabies' investment. All I have ever seen requires them to wholesale their access.
They charge $x whether you use their ISP or not. I say split it up; charge $y for the cable modem and $z for the ISP, where $x = $y + $z.
Competition, I think it's called. Choice, Freedom. Phone companies are being fiorced into it right now. Why should cable companies be any different?
--
Suppose you had sent that email on company letterhead using the company's postage meter? Is that too scary for you?
--
Local phone companies are being forced to compete in local business; they are splitting access from service. Why should cable companies get a monopoly and not phone companies?
I want to choose media and ISP separately. When the cable company combines ISP and cable access, you have lost freedom. Cable companies have disconnected service for people running ftp or web servers on their home comnputers. Some of them have content filters. Do you really like this monopoly?
I want the cable AND phone compabies, and wireless to come, scared that I will switch access media if I don't like their service. I want them to know that I can switch media access without having to change my email address and ISP.
I want them scared by competition into giving good service!
--
All this does is apply fraud rules to email. I'd bet a paycheck that using someone else's return address on snail mail is fraudulent. Why should email be any different? All this does is say you can't fake your email headers.
Sounds damned good to me.
--
I want to choose my ISP independently from the access provider. I want the Baby Bell to be so scared that I can switch to cable while keeping my ISP that they have to provide decent service. And I want the cable company to know exactly the same thing. I want competition and choice!
We have an incredible mess right now trying to separate the local telephone monopolies so that we can have local competition. I would MUCH rather go thru the screaming from AT&T right now than later. It is absolutely disgusting that the local phone companies are being dragged into competition while the local cable companies get away with an unnatural monopoly.
Yes, I am aware that if I don't like the cable companies' business practices, I can look elsewhere. But why should one form of access, the phone company, have to divorce wires from net access, while the cable companies don't? Why should I be forced to bundle ISP with access one way and not the other?
--
Cynic that I am, I am amazed that such a simple, efficient, common sense bill can be introduced.
1. AT&T will scream bloody murder about losing their monopoly of tying access and ISP together; too bad. We have spent the last century dealing with local telephone monopolies. Separating phone access from phone service is an incredible mess right now. We have the chance to do broadband access correctly, right from the start. There are only a few hundred thousand cable modems right now. Think how much harder it will be ten or twenty years from now.
2. Most so-called anti-spam remedies involve legitimizing spam but requiring it to be labeled as such. That's not what bothers me about it. It's the fake header information and hijacking other peoples' machines for delivery that bother me. Valid header information is all I ask, so I can lodge complaints better. This bill simply requires non-fraudulent header information. Marvelous!
3. The FCC is too slow and tremulous to do any good. Getting them out of the way is a great idea.
--
This is only ten times the bandwidth of 100Mb Ethernet, and those are available cheap as daisies, so this is no huge stretch.
And it's for LANs, Local Area Networks, not modems to connect to ISPs.
Seems to be some confusion here, as if suddenly homes will be getting a billion bytes a second net connections.
--
Governments of all stripes are torn between wanting "progress" and yet wanting to control it. China is a classic example. They want economic progress, and are permitting a few free market reforms to encourage that growth, yet they are scared to death of the personal freedom that is an inseperable part of a free market.
Do everything you can to encourage and and all kinds of freedom in Iran. Freedom is contagious, a virus; free source may be a small tool, but a tool it is. A few Iranians will see the amount of freedom out there, and spread a few words. A few more will use Linux to set up their own web sites and ISPs, with the government less able to control it. Thus will freedom spread.
Hiding freedom is the opposite of helping it spread.
--
If you use your home machine to do thedownloads, on a 56K modem, then you don't need banner ads. If you need to pay for a T1 to cover demand, then you're commercial. That's like making hundreds of tapes a day - yep, that sounds commercial too.
If you do it in your spare time for friends, your production is naturally limited. It should be the same for MP3s - if you can't afford it out of your own pocket, it's not a spare time hobby for a few friends any more.
--
One, paper signatures are trivial to forge and just about impossible to disprove.
Two, digital signatures ahve no export limits; they are strictly one way hash functions of the document in question. There is no encrypted information as such. There are explicit allowances for digital signatures.
--
They say No Guvmint Agencies as one of the criteria. I agree. Nothing governmental is mission critical; in fact, we'd run better if their computers were down all the time :-) :-) :-)
--
By the very fact of re-running the tests, they admit the first one was invalid.
By the very fact of running the tests at all, they admit Linux matters.
By publicizing any part of this fiasco, they publicize the entire sordid history of it.
--
AFAIK
--
Suppose you commute by train and work in an office building. There's three times just going to and from work. Go out for lunch; one more. Go to the post office on your lunch break; that's five. University student? Great, every classroom has a scanner.
It's easy to double your daily dose from scanners alone.
Now let's mass produce these, get the price down to a couple of thousand dollars. Every late night store will have one, every school room, probably even put them in buses and trains and taxis. You will go thru hundreds in a single day if the control freaks have their way.
That's not a tradeoff I want to be forced to make for dubious claims of "safety". I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said "Those who would give up a little freedom for security deserve neither."
--
They claim equivalent to a one hour flight. So let's put one in every post office, stadium, bank, govt office, office building, etc. I see it very easy to pass thru 5 or 10 of these a day. That's more radiation than I want. Multiply it by millions of people, and I bet more people would die of cancer from this pervasive scanning than would die from the weapons it finds.
How many guns and explosives have actually been found by airport scanners? How many would have deaths would there have been if there were no airport scanners?
And the cost -- I imagine all the money spent on these scanners would save more lives if simply spent on immunizations, or better medical care for the poor (no I'm not advocating socialism here).
--
I can understand not trying to encode Unicode on one hand (or even both hands and both feet!) but it doesn't even include European characters,
Still, better than the soon-to-be-invented M$ version -- it will speak Code Pages or something bizarre,
--
Suppose Intel has a bulletin board in its cafeteria where the company posts safety notices, holiday schedules, and so on. It sure isn't fair game for any outsider to post notices. I believe there are exceptions for union organizers, but not ex-employees in general.
Don't see that an internal email system is any different.
Now if Hamidi wants to organize a union, and does it thru whatever processes exist, that would be a different story.
--