Phone service is really no different. Since individual switched service was introduced (where a dedicated line goes directly to the phone company) phones have been considered a mostly private enterprise. However, the phone company still tracks and stores what phone numbers you have contact with. One difference is, that the phone companies are not allowed to store the data (the voice conversation). Regardless, in most cases, an ISP does not store the data either.
For Internet service, the company that owns the routers has the same right (and, legally, the responsibility) to track what connections you make to what IP addresses (including the port numbers).
Further, don't think about dis-allowing ISPs to store the actual DATA within an internet transaction, just like a phone call. Dis-allowing them to store the data would make it impossible to use many of the Internet's basic services, USENET and Email come immediately to mind. Further, since the laws cannot realistically keep up with the available technologies and various port assignmnts, etc, I'm not willing to allow the law to protect me from technologies that may be useful, but have not been conceived yet.
Most of the privacy issues complained about are over snooping by companies that do not own the routers, but are listening into shared (multi-cast, or multi-point P2P) technologies. The snooping onto P2P networks by the RIAA and MPAA investigators have really pushed that suspicion high. Yet, in reality, unless AOL, Yahoo!, MSN and/or your favorite Jabber, IRC, ICQ server specifically says that they will NOT record all activity, then they are fully in their right to do so. Isn't that a privacy issue, too?
So, those in the know have started using encrypted Point-to-Point connections for those things that are transmitted, but that we may not want to be made public. Of course, the FBI and CIA wants to hold all the keys (encryption keys)... THAT PART, I have a problem with.
Otherwise, the Internet is not private, and don't expect it to become private anytime soon.
Perhaps you can simply call me a 'fanatic moderate'.
However, it's not trust, I see money in the HomeConnect technology, plain and simple.
First is the immediate and obvious effect of being able to sell an in-home networking solution with remote management capabilities (they sold it, they maintain it). This also fits with the recent Cable consortium ad-campaigns about the cable company being able to handle all tech support issues, as opposed to Mini-dish operators that supposedly will blame sub-contractors for any issues.
Comcast may be the first to market, but they are surely not the only cable behemoth to be planning on use of this technology. I seriously expect that this will next be the the way to answer competition from Delphi, XM and 'DishNetwork' satellite delivered radio, by delivering the radio feed as an extra-charge in-home appliance.
Seriously, that's one of the only things that Digital cable is missing from Mini-Dish connected set-ups. Of course, while the competition will give it away, the cable company is out to make a buck. Most importantly, they will be able to remotely manage and maintain it.
All of this looks good from a Shareholder perspective, (no, I'm not a shareholder). How it works in practice will quite likely be closer to how you suggest. At least those parts that are technically feasible.
While I was mostly saying something silly - I have completely different reasons for thinking that this is a bad idea, and little reason to stop being silly...
What does geological significance have to do with it? The most important part is to send the transport into a trajectory towards the Sun. So long as there is enough power to break from earth (and the moon's) orbit where it goes after that is really no concern... If it takes half a billion years before entering the sun's outer core, I don't think it matters. This will also give aliens an opportunity to board the transport and create a 'SpaceHulk' scenario.;-)
On the other hand, it occurs to many that permanantly removing mass taken from the earth and putting it somewhere else, could have other effects. Obviously, the materials we are talking about are an insignifican percentage of the Earth's mass, yet the balance of materials on Earth seems quite fragile, and I'd hate to see a rash decision lead to the destruction of the Human Race.
The 'Other Hand' (third) paragraph was an argument that I have heard, but I don't actually subscribe to it. I just thought, what the hell, might as well write it in.
Zero Hex,
You have a bone to pick. I respect that. You have replied to many of my posts, and this is the last reply to me, so this is where I'm choosing to reply to you.
The topic I have been looking at is the possible ramifications of the HomeConnect 1.0 protocol built into a Wireless router coupled with DOCSIS technologies, and what 'extra' capabilities this will give Comcast (or any other monolithic cable operator that uses this technology).
I'm sorry Comcast has done you wrong, but how will the WiFi device mentioned in the article, or the HomeConnect protocol make it worse?
You, on the other hand, are arguing about capabilities that they already abuse. If that's the case, then, yes... we have no common ground to speak of, because I've only had indirect relations with Comcast specifically.
My "Lord - please stop the FUD" thread was a direct reaction to a whole slew of early posts that were claiming that this specific technology would be used to do such wonderful things as shut down other wireless routers, block service where one PC is talking to another, within a home network, and that they would specifically cut off VoIP devices. One post even claimed that they would use this to stop you from using Satellite television! This is extremely unlikely, even for a monolithic monopoly like Comcast.
Yes, Comcast have done some horrible things, but this box will neither make this better or worse. If they decide to add to the Comcast Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) that you're not allowed to use Vonage style VoIP service, then they will cut off ALL of your network (the pre-HomeConnect way), they won't seek out the specific VoIP device, and only shut that down. That would only confuse when, what they want, is you to know when you've been bitch-slapped.
On the other hand, I could use Road Runner Business Class (in home) service. $104. per month for 1 static IP. $114 for 5 static IPs, and the restrictive end user style AUP does not apply. An entirely different AUP that allows me to run Web and Email servers in my home. I will also get the advantage of trumping my neighbor's bandwidth to give me a 3Mbit/s download. I imagine Comcast has a similar product. Giving them more money is the last thing on your mind, but you may want to look into it.
Keep in mind, thier consumer policies are written in the style of a Cable company. Cable companies are used to remotely managing set-top boxes, and verifying that you aren't stealing cable. That's what they do. Thier current policies, as well as the application of those policies, are right in line with the Cable mind-set. Yeah, it's wrong.
In conclusion, I'm fully agreeing with most of what you said. Yet, I'm reserving my strong opinion that HomeConnect is not meant to be a drakonian spy-tool. The specification isn't written in such a way as to be able to do many of the horrible things that some folks have alleged. In the mean time, I'm sorry that your cable modem service sucks.
Time Warner/Road Runner. And when I first set up the account, three years ago, I asked how many IP addresses I would be able to use. They said they could offer up to 5 without charging me extra. Of course, had I not asked I'd have gotten one, and been charged for any extra IPs that I ended up needing. $2.00 per month, each.
"
On the other hand Comcast could probably do this with out any specal equipment on the consummer side."
That's exactly my point. Any sort of 'service-cut-off' would be done at the point where traffic is -- or isn't -- going though their routers. The allegations I've read that the cable-modem itself will be doing cut-off of intranet devices (by shutting down the network segment) is FUD.
Certainly, what Comcast or many other companies can do with your traffic as it goes through their network may indeed get abused. If ComCast determines that a certain pattern of traffic (marginally against their AUP) comes from a specific IP, yeah - they may use a HomeConnect protocol to block that device instead of shutting down your whole network. I highly doubt it though, it's much more dramatic to simply shut down all of your connection.
By DOCSIS standard, the cable company has to be able to interact directly with your cable modem, and know (to a certain extent) what it's doing. So if the cable modem is your router, your argument can't work. However, assuming your router is on your side of the cable modem, well it's still technically wrong.
First, if you are running your own Network Address Translation service - then this modem won't be able to see past it anyway. Anything the cable company would sell on said HomeConnect services would have to be on their side of your intenal router. By definition these devices would not be able to directly interact with your PCs (only to your router). Second, if you are not running your own Network Address Translation service then you are asking the cable company for IP addresses. That means that every time you turn a system on, they have to give you an IP.
My cable service allows me 5 IP addresses, they have the right to cut me off after I've hooked up 5 computers with their IP addresses.
Finally, assuming you are running a switch and not a hub (external to the device they control) anything you move from one device inside your home to another would not be seen by the cable modem anyway.
The HomeConnect standards document does not have anything in it about how to profile network traffic. It does describe how to request SNMP connections to devices, identify those devices that answer (this is a configuration chioce you can set for your own devices), and manage those devices that allow management.
I really don't see this as being a conspiracy product. Like I said, there is potential for abuse. This is the same potential for abuse by the phone company to monitor all phone calls you make, identify where they are to, and bill you if they are outside of your area.
I'm sorry, I don't see the issue here. If you can show me one, I'll be happy to listen, but please don't thump on the conspiracy theories without even explaining the technical side, HOW. My job is IT, I can take the technical details if you can conjure them.
Prey, tell! What technical black magic are they going to use with 5.4 GHz WiFi signals to block my television that's hardwired to a Satellite or MiniDish reciever?
Er, actually, if you read further down, [specifically, Table 5-6 (page 37)], you will find that most ports and protocols will be entierly uneffected by these technical extensions.
If you use SMTP, yes, so too will this. Unless you let the CableHome system access the SMTP of your devices, you have nothing to worry about.
It uses DHCP, well, so does my current Cable-Modem. In fact, all DOCSIS cable-modems can offer DHCP. No surprise there.
Ping - yep, looks like it will block pings into your network (or answer for you). Nothing every DSL modem doesn't already do.
TFTP, slightly more worrisome, but a good standard to allow remote updating of devices that they own (and need to manage).
This is about selling more network devices into your home that the average user won't know how to set up with an old Linux box and a pack of bubble-gum. They will get to sell more stuff, and make more money. Many users will get the benefit of neat network appliances in there home.. that they merely have to pay a separate subscription fee for.
The network segment shut-down is there to cut-off devices that they own but you are trying to use anyway, but don't want to pay the subscription service for.
Yes, there is room for abuse, but it's not nearly as bad cutting off all other WiFi. It wouldn't be technically capable of telling a WiFi router apart from an in-home network switch or a NATting Linux box. I suppose the built-in WiFi would block your own WiFi's signal, but that doesn't point to a conspiracy.
This is not specifically against the top AC post here, but, "Lord, please stop the FUD".
The new CableModems specific purpose is so that Comcast can sell add-on units that they also control. Think Cable DVR equipment that can also be accessed by your computer (through these protocols). With all far-reaching technologies, including this one, there is a lot of potential for abuse. However, if abuse occurs, a lot of folks will be signing up for DSL or Satellite service (where DSL is not also available).
Bottom line... this will allow comcast to sell Network Appliances. They make money, $$. If Time Warner were doing this first, I'd be much more prone to believe the "RIAA conspirists". If AT&T (no longer part of ComCast) were still involved, I might be more worried about Vonage devices.
At the same time, this will enable Comcast to sell their own VoIP (like vonnage) devices for their own telephone service. Basically, home cable-extension appliances are not new, but they are just starting to get popular. This technology will enable that sector to grow.
As commonly said here... follow the money. I see money in additional in-home networking appliances, like Cable-Radio (delphi style) - - if you don't pay for it, they can cut off that "segment".
I fully agree with you here. I make between $70 and $140 every time one of my co-workers' teenagers decides that their 'internet connection is not optimized'.
I try to teach them how to take care of it themselves, and they have no interest in learning.
Most lawyer tasks are the same, easy to do yourself, but there's a whole bunch of info to learn before you can get it right. I have no interest in learning law-craft.
Arnold called, he says he want's his share for "Cauliflowernia". That state government needs money too. After-all state budget is why Gray Davis faced a "Total Recall" from "The Running Man".
And I'm not "upset" about it, I merely questioned the motives. I'll leave getting upset to musicians, phono-record publishing executives and politicians.
While most of the RIAA companies have offices located in New York City, most of the RIAA companies are BASED elsewhere. -- While, Time Warner is based in NY, Sony/Columbia is based in Tokyo, most others in LA.
I suppose if I signed my contract with the New York branch of one of these companies, this would make sense.
I highly doubt that these people are hard to find;
"David Bowie, Dolly Parton, Harry Belafonte, Liza Minnelli, Dave Matthews, Sean Combs and Gloria Estefan"
Withholding money from Dave Matthews may have been more than an oversight. After-all, he's spoken out more than once about royalty free music for the masses.
Otherwise I agree that the RIAA is marginally different from the individual publishers it represents.
Maybe it's neither better or worse. That's why I'm asking the question. And... I have my own motives.
For instance, how does this help the citizens of Tennessee - there are surely a great deal of unclaimed funds to people who live there?
Perhaps NY is only holding moneys for people who have family in NY or a last known address there, the article wasn't clear.
Certainly those whom are fans of Spitzer far outnumber his critics, so I have no doubt anymore that he's doing his job - I still have that gut feeling that tells me there's another level to this.
For my own motive, I occasionally like to FP an on-topic comment/question to an article that, in this case, doesn't start with all of the obvious ways to bash the RIAA.
The article isn't clear, but how does NY know that they should be holding this money...
What if I live in Nebraska?
So, I wake up from a five year coma. I go looking for my royalty checks, and am told that they are being held by the state.
So, I go down to the Comptroller's office in Lincoln and ask where my money is. They tell me it must be some other state. Well, my brother is in Florida... I'll call there. Nope. Oh, yeah, my mom in Arizona, maybe it's that state. Nope.
Why would my money be in New York? Why not California where a "marginal" majority of these contracts are signed? It's great that the proceeds from this money will go to benefit the people of New York, but what if I don't live there?
Instead of coming right out and bashing the RIAA,
(yes, that needs doing as well),
I have a different question...
From the Article (bold emphasis added):
"The companies have also agreed to
comply with New York State's
Abandoned Property Law, which requires
that if an artist or his or her family
cannot be found, unclaimed royalties
be "escheated" or turned over to the
state. The state then holds these
monies until a claim is made."
While this will be great for a lot of artists
I question the motive. I doubt that Eliot
Spitzer is doing this for artists.
I'm sure New York state will benefit from
the interest revenue from "hold[ing] these
monies. It won't hurt his career to
have his name in the paper either.
Of course, I didn't bother to look up his
record. Maybe he really is just doing
his job, protecting the citizens of
New York State.
No -- Really not IronPort. One of the six billion other possibilities. Well, cut that in half...because I'll be happy to say that I work for a company with less than 300 employees.
I have, however, looked at products that IronPort offers. You may note that many of the subjects I post in, I have a tendancy of actually answering contradictory replies (as opposed to running away from someone telling me I'm an idiot).
Slashdot Mirror
For Internet service, the company that owns the routers has the same right (and, legally, the responsibility) to track what connections you make to what IP addresses (including the port numbers).
Further, don't think about dis-allowing ISPs to store the actual DATA within an internet transaction, just like a phone call. Dis-allowing them to store the data would make it impossible to use many of the Internet's basic services, USENET and Email come immediately to mind. Further, since the laws cannot realistically keep up with the available technologies and various port assignmnts, etc, I'm not willing to allow the law to protect me from technologies that may be useful, but have not been conceived yet.
Most of the privacy issues complained about are over snooping by companies that do not own the routers, but are listening into shared (multi-cast, or multi-point P2P) technologies. The snooping onto P2P networks by the RIAA and MPAA investigators have really pushed that suspicion high. Yet, in reality, unless AOL, Yahoo!, MSN and/or your favorite Jabber, IRC, ICQ server specifically says that they will NOT record all activity, then they are fully in their right to do so. Isn't that a privacy issue, too?
So, those in the know have started using encrypted Point-to-Point connections for those things that are transmitted, but that we may not want to be made public. Of course, the FBI and CIA wants to hold all the keys (encryption keys)... THAT PART, I have a problem with.
Otherwise, the Internet is not private, and don't expect it to become private anytime soon.
However, it's not trust, I see money in the HomeConnect technology, plain and simple.
First is the immediate and obvious effect of being able to sell an in-home networking solution with remote management capabilities (they sold it, they maintain it). This also fits with the recent Cable consortium ad-campaigns about the cable company being able to handle all tech support issues, as opposed to Mini-dish operators that supposedly will blame sub-contractors for any issues.
Comcast may be the first to market, but they are surely not the only cable behemoth to be planning on use of this technology. I seriously expect that this will next be the the way to answer competition from Delphi, XM and 'DishNetwork' satellite delivered radio, by delivering the radio feed as an extra-charge in-home appliance.
Seriously, that's one of the only things that Digital cable is missing from Mini-Dish connected set-ups. Of course, while the competition will give it away, the cable company is out to make a buck. Most importantly, they will be able to remotely manage and maintain it.
All of this looks good from a Shareholder perspective, (no, I'm not a shareholder). How it works in practice will quite likely be closer to how you suggest. At least those parts that are technically feasible.
What does geological significance have to do with it? The most important part is to send the transport into a trajectory towards the Sun. So long as there is enough power to break from earth (and the moon's) orbit where it goes after that is really no concern... If it takes half a billion years before entering the sun's outer core, I don't think it matters. This will also give aliens an opportunity to board the transport and create a 'SpaceHulk' scenario. ;-)
On the other hand, it occurs to many that permanantly removing mass taken from the earth and putting it somewhere else, could have other effects. Obviously, the materials we are talking about are an insignifican percentage of the Earth's mass, yet the balance of materials on Earth seems quite fragile, and I'd hate to see a rash decision lead to the destruction of the Human Race.
The 'Other Hand' (third) paragraph was an argument that I have heard, but I don't actually subscribe to it. I just thought, what the hell, might as well write it in.
Of course, it could stay in New Mexico, but they don't want it either. Well, I guess it's time to talk about sending it into the Sun!
You have a bone to pick. I respect that. You have replied to many of my posts, and this is the last reply to me, so this is where I'm choosing to reply to you.
The topic I have been looking at is the possible ramifications of the HomeConnect 1.0 protocol built into a Wireless router coupled with DOCSIS technologies, and what 'extra' capabilities this will give Comcast (or any other monolithic cable operator that uses this technology).
I'm sorry Comcast has done you wrong, but how will the WiFi device mentioned in the article, or the HomeConnect protocol make it worse?
You, on the other hand, are arguing about capabilities that they already abuse. If that's the case, then, yes... we have no common ground to speak of, because I've only had indirect relations with Comcast specifically.
My "Lord - please stop the FUD" thread was a direct reaction to a whole slew of early posts that were claiming that this specific technology would be used to do such wonderful things as shut down other wireless routers, block service where one PC is talking to another, within a home network, and that they would specifically cut off VoIP devices. One post even claimed that they would use this to stop you from using Satellite television! This is extremely unlikely, even for a monolithic monopoly like Comcast.
Yes, Comcast have done some horrible things, but this box will neither make this better or worse. If they decide to add to the Comcast Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) that you're not allowed to use Vonage style VoIP service, then they will cut off ALL of your network (the pre-HomeConnect way), they won't seek out the specific VoIP device, and only shut that down. That would only confuse when, what they want, is you to know when you've been bitch-slapped.
On the other hand, I could use Road Runner Business Class (in home) service. $104. per month for 1 static IP. $114 for 5 static IPs, and the restrictive end user style AUP does not apply. An entirely different AUP that allows me to run Web and Email servers in my home. I will also get the advantage of trumping my neighbor's bandwidth to give me a 3Mbit/s download. I imagine Comcast has a similar product. Giving them more money is the last thing on your mind, but you may want to look into it.
Keep in mind, thier consumer policies are written in the style of a Cable company. Cable companies are used to remotely managing set-top boxes, and verifying that you aren't stealing cable. That's what they do. Thier current policies, as well as the application of those policies, are right in line with the Cable mind-set. Yeah, it's wrong.
In conclusion, I'm fully agreeing with most of what you said. Yet, I'm reserving my strong opinion that HomeConnect is not meant to be a drakonian spy-tool. The specification isn't written in such a way as to be able to do many of the horrible things that some folks have alleged. In the mean time, I'm sorry that your cable modem service sucks.
Time Warner/Road Runner. And when I first set up the account, three years ago, I asked how many IP addresses I would be able to use. They said they could offer up to 5 without charging me extra. Of course, had I not asked I'd have gotten one, and been charged for any extra IPs that I ended up needing. $2.00 per month, each.
Certainly, what Comcast or many other companies can do with your traffic as it goes through their network may indeed get abused. If ComCast determines that a certain pattern of traffic (marginally against their AUP) comes from a specific IP, yeah - they may use a HomeConnect protocol to block that device instead of shutting down your whole network. I highly doubt it though, it's much more dramatic to simply shut down all of your connection.
Not all DSL modems will block pings, although many do.
By DOCSIS standard, the cable company has to be able to interact directly with your cable modem, and know (to a certain extent) what it's doing. So if the cable modem is your router, your argument can't work. However, assuming your router is on your side of the cable modem, well it's still technically wrong.
First, if you are running your own Network Address Translation service - then this modem won't be able to see past it anyway. Anything the cable company would sell on said HomeConnect services would have to be on their side of your intenal router. By definition these devices would not be able to directly interact with your PCs (only to your router). Second, if you are not running your own Network Address Translation service then you are asking the cable company for IP addresses. That means that every time you turn a system on, they have to give you an IP.
My cable service allows me 5 IP addresses, they have the right to cut me off after I've hooked up 5 computers with their IP addresses.
Finally, assuming you are running a switch and not a hub (external to the device they control) anything you move from one device inside your home to another would not be seen by the cable modem anyway.
The HomeConnect standards document does not have anything in it about how to profile network traffic. It does describe how to request SNMP connections to devices, identify those devices that answer (this is a configuration chioce you can set for your own devices), and manage those devices that allow management.
I really don't see this as being a conspiracy product. Like I said, there is potential for abuse. This is the same potential for abuse by the phone company to monitor all phone calls you make, identify where they are to, and bill you if they are outside of your area.
I'm sorry, I don't see the issue here. If you can show me one, I'll be happy to listen, but please don't thump on the conspiracy theories without even explaining the technical side, HOW. My job is IT, I can take the technical details if you can conjure them.
I'm anxious to hear how this would work.
If you use SMTP, yes, so too will this. Unless you let the CableHome system access the SMTP of your devices, you have nothing to worry about.
It uses DHCP, well, so does my current Cable-Modem. In fact, all DOCSIS cable-modems can offer DHCP. No surprise there.
Ping - yep, looks like it will block pings into your network (or answer for you). Nothing every DSL modem doesn't already do.
TFTP, slightly more worrisome, but a good standard to allow remote updating of devices that they own (and need to manage).
This is about selling more network devices into your home that the average user won't know how to set up with an old Linux box and a pack of bubble-gum. They will get to sell more stuff, and make more money. Many users will get the benefit of neat network appliances in there home .. that they merely have to pay a separate subscription fee for.
The network segment shut-down is there to cut-off devices that they own but you are trying to use anyway, but don't want to pay the subscription service for.
Yes, there is room for abuse, but it's not nearly as bad cutting off all other WiFi. It wouldn't be technically capable of telling a WiFi router apart from an in-home network switch or a NATting Linux box. I suppose the built-in WiFi would block your own WiFi's signal, but that doesn't point to a conspiracy.
The new CableModems specific purpose is so that Comcast can sell add-on units that they also control. Think Cable DVR equipment that can also be accessed by your computer (through these protocols). With all far-reaching technologies, including this one, there is a lot of potential for abuse. However, if abuse occurs, a lot of folks will be signing up for DSL or Satellite service (where DSL is not also available).
Bottom line... this will allow comcast to sell Network Appliances. They make money, $$. If Time Warner were doing this first, I'd be much more prone to believe the "RIAA conspirists". If AT&T (no longer part of ComCast) were still involved, I might be more worried about Vonage devices.
At the same time, this will enable Comcast to sell their own VoIP (like vonnage) devices for their own telephone service. Basically, home cable-extension appliances are not new, but they are just starting to get popular. This technology will enable that sector to grow.
As commonly said here... follow the money. I see money in additional in-home networking appliances, like Cable-Radio (delphi style) - - if you don't pay for it, they can cut off that "segment".
I try to teach them how to take care of it themselves, and they have no interest in learning.
Most lawyer tasks are the same, easy to do yourself, but there's a whole bunch of info to learn before you can get it right. I have no interest in learning law-craft.
"format c: /q" /dev/hda1
That's the best way? I always thought it was:
% mkfs.ext3
After that, the spyware won't come back, either.
And I'm not "upset" about it, I merely questioned the motives. I'll leave getting upset to musicians, phono-record publishing executives and politicians.
I suppose if I signed my contract with the New York branch of one of these companies, this would make sense.
Which name should they ask for? Puff Daddy, Sean Puffy? To paraphrase Mr. Mathers, Will the real P. Diddy, please stand up?
However, Abner Louima would probably take offense to the broom handle comment.
Withholding money from Dave Matthews may have been more than an oversight. After-all, he's spoken out more than once about royalty free music for the masses.
Otherwise I agree that the RIAA is marginally different from the individual publishers it represents.
For instance, how does this help the citizens of Tennessee - there are surely a great deal of unclaimed funds to people who live there?
Perhaps NY is only holding moneys for people who have family in NY or a last known address there, the article wasn't clear.
Certainly those whom are fans of Spitzer far outnumber his critics, so I have no doubt anymore that he's doing his job - I still have that gut feeling that tells me there's another level to this.
For my own motive, I occasionally like to FP an on-topic comment/question to an article that, in this case, doesn't start with all of the obvious ways to bash the RIAA.
So, I wake up from a five year coma. I go looking for my royalty checks, and am told that they are being held by the state.
So, I go down to the Comptroller's office in Lincoln and ask where my money is. They tell me it must be some other state. Well, my brother is in Florida... I'll call there. Nope. Oh, yeah, my mom in Arizona, maybe it's that state. Nope.
Why would my money be in New York? Why not California where a "marginal" majority of these contracts are signed? It's great that the proceeds from this money will go to benefit the people of New York, but what if I don't live there?
So, how does New York prove which money is theirs to hold? New York holding money would do little good for someone who's living in Alaska or Hawii.
From the Article ( bold emphasis added):
While this will be great for a lot of artists I question the motive. I doubt that Eliot Spitzer is doing this for artists. I'm sure New York state will benefit from the interest revenue from "hold[ing] these monies. It won't hurt his career to have his name in the paper either.
Of course, I didn't bother to look up his record. Maybe he really is just doing his job, protecting the citizens of New York State.
However, yes, genetics are patentable. This includes specific Hybriding.
I have, however, looked at products that IronPort offers. You may note that many of the subjects I post in, I have a tendancy of actually answering contradictory replies (as opposed to running away from someone telling me I'm an idiot).
I fully admit, sometimes I am an idiot.