Which is orthoganal to the issue of Apple trying to behave like an abusive monopoly while being a minority platform. Apple's profits are in spite of their attempts to be an abusive monopoly. Not because of it.
No doubt. I only point out that specifically group messaging and Reply All are not features worth going to a propritary protocol for because those two features are available with standard text messaging. The cost of text messaging is a business decision, even less tied to technology than Apple's business decision to be restricted to Apple platforms, so that is a wash. True multi device support is the only argument listed so far that makes a case for going with anything beyond current text messaging.
No. A lack of atmosphere would not be a point to prove the sun wasn't causing warming. The sun spews out all sorts of energy besides direct heat. Something as simple as solor wind and our magnetophere could make a differece in warming. I'm not suggesting that it actually does make a difference, but claiming a lack of atmosphere helps in declaring the sun to be unrelated is clearly a critically flawed idea.
Because they are not proxies in this case. No one is suggesting that the earth's temperature should be measured by measuring the temperature on another planet. If the temperature is rising on other planets in a similar fashion as the earth (if such is indeed the case), it wouldn't be a way to measure earth's temperature. It would be an extremely strong indication that either your current direct measurment of the sun's energy is broken, you are measuring the wrong energy being expelled by the sun, or there is likely another astronomical energy source that is affecting the planets.
Warming on other planets (if such is indeed the case) does not answer the question of whether there is AGW on Earth. It would just invalidate the argument that we have ruled out N(atural)GW.
It doesn't really make sense for anyone to be against federal regulation concerning patents, since the very existance of patents are federal regulations.
The default texting app in Android gives you group messaging too. Free replacement text messaging apps like Handcent give you group messaging and Reply All. That isn't really a feature worth going to a propritary protocol for.
Your situation is in the minority. So, at worst, it would be your neighborhood and a the few others like yours that would be faced with even have discussion on utilities using private property. For the rest of the country, they don't use private property. They are run across public property. So, for most of the country, any claim of needing a monopoly for that reason is total BS.
You can only count internet access as telecom when they get classified that way legally. Currently they are not. Currently internet access is considered a data service, and thus is not regulated like a utility.
Of course having private ownership of conduit would be just as bad as what we have now. I don't know any place where conduit is used for last mile connections, so any suggesting of AT&T owning that conduit is a red herring. People keep suggisting things like requiring incumbants to allow competitors to use their lines. We saw how well that worked when AT&T was required to do that. It was horrible. AT&T would not only leave the lines to rot, I feel pretty confident that they would actively interfere with those lines.
The first step that any responsible municipality should be doing is requiring housing division developers to install conduit that will be owned by the city in the same way that they require them to build the roads in their housing divisions. This would very quickly lead to these divisions having superior internet access than places that don't have the conduit. From their, the political will of the cities residents would start to drive upgrading the rest of the city.
Sorry, my response was unjustly snarky. You often can get "metered" rates, but you often cannot. Also, the base rate on a metered rate is often close to or as much as unmetered rates for even light users.
Depends on the employer obviously. Remember, many companies are specifically set up so that upper management makes the decisions, and middle mangement is tasked with carrying them out. The middle management often has no power by design. They are simply the human shields hired so that upper managment doesn't have to directly deal with the fallout of their sociopathic decision making. Thus, you may be completely successful at creating huge amounts of stress for the middle manager. The middle manager may really want to just pay for your internet access. That middle manager may also completely lack any ability to actually get your internet access paid for as the upper management doesn't care if you have to spend 2 hours driving to accomplish a 1 hour task. It isn't their time that is getting wasted. If you quit, the upper management won't be the one coming in to cover your shift. They won't be the one telling your co-workers that they all have to work unpaid overtime. They will just apply more pressure on the human shield that is the middle manager.
The response to that request from many employers is that you should just spend an hour each way driving to and from the office. After all, your commute doesn't show up to them as "time worked".
That is the same analysis that has been spewn since we were on 14.4k modems. If it were not for the "fat guys", that is still what everyone would be running on. If you were correct, it wouldn't be possible for us to have gotten to where we are today. Reality clearly proves your point wrong.
I dont know any place where last mile internet is run across private property other than for the person ordering the service. Every single place I have ever been, the cable and phone lines are run over or under public roadways. the natural monopoly is complete BS. The poles that run around town could easily support 3 or 4 more providers.
Comparing regulated utilities to unregulated utilities is at best intellectually dishonest.
The solution to solving the local monopoly is for municipalities to simply allow more users of the poles in places that have poles, and to build conduit very similar to our storm drain/sewage systems and renting access to anyone who wants it for pulling new data lines at a fraction of the cost. This would also make road disruption practically a one time deal.
Municipalities have extensive experience with laying conduit under the roads. This leaves the tech to the tech companies. How much faster do you think Google would roll out fiber if all they had to do was look at what the rent cost was on the existing conduit, and get some guys to pull it through the pipe?
You should have explained that you usage was normal for people who didn't spend all of their time downloading kiddie porn. Non-kiddie porn data can be much higher than what the Comcast employee was downloading.
This is mostly correct. The poor are buying XBoxes, Nintendo DS's, Playstations. They are subscribing to DSL/Cable internet, Netflix, Cable. They are going to live sporting events. They are drinking beer and smoking cigerettes. The $300 installation cost is not going to be overly burdensome for them if it is a one time cost. It is the on-going costs that kill the poor.
That being said. Back when I was a renter, I found it common for landlords to raise the rent every 6 months to a year on anyone that wanted to stay in the apartment they were renting. They know it is expensive to move, so they up your rent by $25 or so every time the lease is up. I've lived in places where 2 year residents were paying $100 a month more than brand new residents for identical apartments. That can put many poor people paying $50 a month, on-going for google internet access. It isn't unfair, but it is a little more than these people would pay for cable internet. I don't know what Google does if someone pays the $300 installation, moves, and someone else moves in. Do they recharge the $300, or do they just offer the next person free internet? If it is the later, the problem I describe would very quickly resolve itself.
The heavy users make bandwidth CHEAPER, not more expensive. If it were not for those "bandwidth hogs", you would still be paying $40-$60 a month for a 28.8k dial-up connection.
That is why we need a standard connector for a gasoline generator trailer. Drive around all electric for day to day use, and just hook the generator up when you go for the long road trip.
Exactly. Some people expect a grand annoncement that makes it worth throwing away last years model of battery. That hasnt happened, and it wont happen. On the other hand, a big part of what made those comically large brick phones from the 80's so big was total crap batteries. If my smartphone had to run off ni-cad, I wouldnt bother.
Tron what? You must have been reading some crappy fan fiction or something. There was only one Tron. It was about a human entering an 80's computer network and battling the artificial intellegence for the freedom of humanity. Then there was the sequel, The Matrix. It told the story after the artifical intellegence wins and enslaves all of humity, and the few humans who had escaped it's grasp and were trying to free the rest of the humans from a near future from the late 90's computer network.
The difference is like the difference between someone doing a Garfield as the Mona Lisa vs. the Louvre having someone repaint the smile on the original.
One is making a play on a part of our culture. The other is trying to rewrite our culture. The law may allow Lucas to do this, but it doesn't make it morally right.
That is one of xkcd's poorer comics. The Matrix didn't need a sequel because it was a sequel. Didn't you ever watch the first movie in the series, "Tron"?
Slashdot Mirror
Which is orthoganal to the issue of Apple trying to behave like an abusive monopoly while being a minority platform. Apple's profits are in spite of their attempts to be an abusive monopoly. Not because of it.
No doubt. I only point out that specifically group messaging and Reply All are not features worth going to a propritary protocol for because those two features are available with standard text messaging. The cost of text messaging is a business decision, even less tied to technology than Apple's business decision to be restricted to Apple platforms, so that is a wash. True multi device support is the only argument listed so far that makes a case for going with anything beyond current text messaging.
No. A lack of atmosphere would not be a point to prove the sun wasn't causing warming. The sun spews out all sorts of energy besides direct heat. Something as simple as solor wind and our magnetophere could make a differece in warming. I'm not suggesting that it actually does make a difference, but claiming a lack of atmosphere helps in declaring the sun to be unrelated is clearly a critically flawed idea.
Because they are not proxies in this case. No one is suggesting that the earth's temperature should be measured by measuring the temperature on another planet. If the temperature is rising on other planets in a similar fashion as the earth (if such is indeed the case), it wouldn't be a way to measure earth's temperature. It would be an extremely strong indication that either your current direct measurment of the sun's energy is broken, you are measuring the wrong energy being expelled by the sun, or there is likely another astronomical energy source that is affecting the planets.
Warming on other planets (if such is indeed the case) does not answer the question of whether there is AGW on Earth. It would just invalidate the argument that we have ruled out N(atural)GW.
It doesn't really make sense for anyone to be against federal regulation concerning patents, since the very existance of patents are federal regulations.
Apple has never really comprehended that monopoly behavior doesn't really work when you are a minority platform.
The default texting app in Android gives you group messaging too. Free replacement text messaging apps like Handcent give you group messaging and Reply All. That isn't really a feature worth going to a propritary protocol for.
Your situation is in the minority. So, at worst, it would be your neighborhood and a the few others like yours that would be faced with even have discussion on utilities using private property. For the rest of the country, they don't use private property. They are run across public property. So, for most of the country, any claim of needing a monopoly for that reason is total BS.
You can only count internet access as telecom when they get classified that way legally. Currently they are not. Currently internet access is considered a data service, and thus is not regulated like a utility.
Of course having private ownership of conduit would be just as bad as what we have now. I don't know any place where conduit is used for last mile connections, so any suggesting of AT&T owning that conduit is a red herring. People keep suggisting things like requiring incumbants to allow competitors to use their lines. We saw how well that worked when AT&T was required to do that. It was horrible. AT&T would not only leave the lines to rot, I feel pretty confident that they would actively interfere with those lines.
The first step that any responsible municipality should be doing is requiring housing division developers to install conduit that will be owned by the city in the same way that they require them to build the roads in their housing divisions. This would very quickly lead to these divisions having superior internet access than places that don't have the conduit. From their, the political will of the cities residents would start to drive upgrading the rest of the city.
Sorry, my response was unjustly snarky. You often can get "metered" rates, but you often cannot. Also, the base rate on a metered rate is often close to or as much as unmetered rates for even light users.
"often" is that like "up to"?
Depends on the employer obviously. Remember, many companies are specifically set up so that upper management makes the decisions, and middle mangement is tasked with carrying them out. The middle management often has no power by design. They are simply the human shields hired so that upper managment doesn't have to directly deal with the fallout of their sociopathic decision making. Thus, you may be completely successful at creating huge amounts of stress for the middle manager. The middle manager may really want to just pay for your internet access. That middle manager may also completely lack any ability to actually get your internet access paid for as the upper management doesn't care if you have to spend 2 hours driving to accomplish a 1 hour task. It isn't their time that is getting wasted. If you quit, the upper management won't be the one coming in to cover your shift. They won't be the one telling your co-workers that they all have to work unpaid overtime. They will just apply more pressure on the human shield that is the middle manager.
For the same reason that someone who makes 10 minutes of local calls on their landline pays the same as someone who makes 200 minutes of local calls.
The response to that request from many employers is that you should just spend an hour each way driving to and from the office. After all, your commute doesn't show up to them as "time worked".
That is the same analysis that has been spewn since we were on 14.4k modems. If it were not for the "fat guys", that is still what everyone would be running on. If you were correct, it wouldn't be possible for us to have gotten to where we are today. Reality clearly proves your point wrong.
I dont know any place where last mile internet is run across private property other than for the person ordering the service. Every single place I have ever been, the cable and phone lines are run over or under public roadways. the natural monopoly is complete BS. The poles that run around town could easily support 3 or 4 more providers.
Comparing regulated utilities to unregulated utilities is at best intellectually dishonest.
The solution to solving the local monopoly is for municipalities to simply allow more users of the poles in places that have poles, and to build conduit very similar to our storm drain/sewage systems and renting access to anyone who wants it for pulling new data lines at a fraction of the cost. This would also make road disruption practically a one time deal.
Municipalities have extensive experience with laying conduit under the roads. This leaves the tech to the tech companies. How much faster do you think Google would roll out fiber if all they had to do was look at what the rent cost was on the existing conduit, and get some guys to pull it through the pipe?
You should have explained that you usage was normal for people who didn't spend all of their time downloading kiddie porn. Non-kiddie porn data can be much higher than what the Comcast employee was downloading.
This is mostly correct. The poor are buying XBoxes, Nintendo DS's, Playstations. They are subscribing to DSL/Cable internet, Netflix, Cable. They are going to live sporting events. They are drinking beer and smoking cigerettes. The $300 installation cost is not going to be overly burdensome for them if it is a one time cost. It is the on-going costs that kill the poor.
That being said. Back when I was a renter, I found it common for landlords to raise the rent every 6 months to a year on anyone that wanted to stay in the apartment they were renting. They know it is expensive to move, so they up your rent by $25 or so every time the lease is up. I've lived in places where 2 year residents were paying $100 a month more than brand new residents for identical apartments. That can put many poor people paying $50 a month, on-going for google internet access. It isn't unfair, but it is a little more than these people would pay for cable internet. I don't know what Google does if someone pays the $300 installation, moves, and someone else moves in. Do they recharge the $300, or do they just offer the next person free internet? If it is the later, the problem I describe would very quickly resolve itself.
That even in our most dense cities our internet access is still lower speed and costs more???
The heavy users make bandwidth CHEAPER, not more expensive. If it were not for those "bandwidth hogs", you would still be paying $40-$60 a month for a 28.8k dial-up connection.
That is why we need a standard connector for a gasoline generator trailer. Drive around all electric for day to day use, and just hook the generator up when you go for the long road trip.
Exactly. Some people expect a grand annoncement that makes it worth throwing away last years model of battery. That hasnt happened, and it wont happen. On the other hand, a big part of what made those comically large brick phones from the 80's so big was total crap batteries. If my smartphone had to run off ni-cad, I wouldnt bother.
Maybe they could make the XBox One backward compatible with the XBox 1. They are both x86.
Tron what? You must have been reading some crappy fan fiction or something. There was only one Tron. It was about a human entering an 80's computer network and battling the artificial intellegence for the freedom of humanity. Then there was the sequel, The Matrix. It told the story after the artifical intellegence wins and enslaves all of humity, and the few humans who had escaped it's grasp and were trying to free the rest of the humans from a near future from the late 90's computer network.
The difference is like the difference between someone doing a Garfield as the Mona Lisa vs. the Louvre having someone repaint the smile on the original.
One is making a play on a part of our culture. The other is trying to rewrite our culture. The law may allow Lucas to do this, but it doesn't make it morally right.
That is one of xkcd's poorer comics. The Matrix didn't need a sequel because it was a sequel. Didn't you ever watch the first movie in the series, "Tron"?