Many people have been complaining about their local governments handing out cable monopolies. This is not the case (at least in Ohio). In Ohio, anyone who wishes to provide cable service has to pay a franchise fee to the local government for using the rights-of-way. Even though this is the case, in the vast majority of cities there is still only one cable provider. This is because in many cities two cable companies couldn't both stay in business. They simply wouldn't have enough customers. Cable is a natural monopoly, except in areas where it is profitable to run multiple providers.
Go down to your city hall and ask what the laws are on starting a new cable service in your town. You may be surprised to find that anyone can do so, just no one has due to the reasons above. Of course, I don't know the laws of all the states*, so some cities may have given hard monopolies to some companies. At that point you'll have to lobby your local government to get some sense.
*I can only speak to Ohio, as I'm familiar with their laws on the books. Also, this doesn't apply to phone companies. Your local ILEC (AT&T, Qwest, or Verizon) owns the lines and sells services on them. This is a major problem as explained here.
I'm not trying to be an ass or troll you, but go down to city hall and ask what the laws are regarding starting a new cable service. You might be pleasantly surprised to find that anyone can implement cable service so long as they pay a franchise fee to your city for using their rights-of-way.
What is most often (but is not always) the case is that cable access is a natural monopoly in your area. If you have Time Warner, Comcast doesn't want to offer service because they probably couldn't turn a profit. Even if they thought they could, the cost of building a whole new network for your city is cost prohibitive. They wouldn't recoup their costs soon enough.
Uninstalling the "trial version" solves quite a few problems, at least those experienced by my family. Symantec AV slowed down their PC just as bad as any spyware would.
In light of all these problems, I recommended OneCare to a client. It really hurt to recommend a Microsoft product to someone, but OneCare was a good fit. When their new desktop came in, the first thing I did was uninstall everything Symantec related and slapped OneCare on there. So far so good.
His ilk call it "bridging the digital divide" instead of "welfare handout". Watch what happens - he will pervert this program into "free broadband! - but only if you live in the projects".
I don't have a problem with that.
If this is indeed his plan, then he should say so. You've asserted that he will and have provided nothing to back up your claims. Indeed, we will see what happens. Usually stuff like this ends up making no difference to anyone, but it doesn't hurt to hope.
It isn't broadcast but that didn't change the FCC from trying to mandate devices honor the broadcast flag. My DVR certainly isn't a broadcast medium, but they tried to regulate it anyway. Luckily the courts decided the FCC didn't have the authority. Now, the key is to keep an eye on congress and be sure they don't give them such authority.
You can understand my confusion as to how much the FCC can regulate private signals.
AFAIK the FCC has some limited say in terrestrial cable. For example, no pr0n at certain hours of the day (unless it's an adult channel). To put it another way, TNT can't air Debbie Does Dallas at 3:00pm. If I am mistaken, then you can disregard my previous comment.
My fiancée's parents bought a PC that had Vista installed. She used it when she was over there. When she mentioned their new computer, I asked if she liked Vista. Her face got all angry-like and she started cussing like a sailor. She didn't want to be associated with that piece of junk OS...ever.
The funniest thing about it was that I've been trying to get her to use GNU/Linux for awhile now. I couldn't close the deal until Vista was released. She assures me that once XP outlives its usefulness, she's going to use Kubuntu. Thanks to Microsoft for helping move my fiancée to a free OS!
I wouldn't abolish the FCC, but I would considerably reduce their scope. The FCC is what keeps broadcasters on the proper frequency and the like. I'd let them regulate power, frequency, etc., but remove their ability to censor people. They'd also have no say in anything not owned by the public at large.
How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?
I don't have a problem so long as they're passing along the savings to the consumer. I have a feeling they won't though. Even then, I've never bought any Microsoft software, and I don't think this is going to change my mind.
I've posted on a few forums and no one has any clue what the deal is. I'm willing to believe some configuration is off, but I can't find the problem. I get no errors from/var/log/Xorg.0.log and only trivial warnings. If you have any idea what the problem could be, please contact me.
I bought the X1600 before I made the move to Ubuntu (and then Debian). The proprietary drivers (fglrx) are pure shit. The FOSS ones made by our friendly hackers that are released as part of Xorg are quite good. The 9600XT is an R3xx card and is about as cheap a card as you can get at that performance level.
The nVidia cards don't have any FOSS 3D support. I took a look at Matrox cards. They have FOSS drivers but they are more expensive and I can't afford them at the moment. Their 3D performance is nearly non-existent.
It comes down to a decent FOSS driver with the 9600XT @ $40 or a lesser Matrox card for $70-$80. nVidia isn't on the radar.
I've got an X1600 that performs worse than the 9200 I used to have in here. Whenever I use ZSNES, MPlayer or any other programs that have a lot of motion for X to keep track of, the CPU usage for X goes off the charts. X barely keeps up when I'm watching a DVD! My system is getting old (Athlon XP 2400+, 1GB RAM), but this is ridiculous. I'm looking to buy a 9600XT and sell the piece of junk I have now. At least then I can use the free Xorg drivers rather than the crap ATI puts out.
I've checked with several people who have no clue what the problem is. I'm running Debian testing with fglrx 8.38.6. Yes, DRI is enabled and running. glxgears gives me ~900FPS.
For how many years after having sex with a punter can a prostitute expect to continue to get paid every time the punter cracks a stiffie?
I'm sorry, but I had to laugh at that one. Since the word "punter" in American English usually refers to a player in American football who kicks the ball to the other team, I got an interesting visual image from that. The punter is usually a semi-nerdy (in football standards) white guy who isn't as big or as strong as the rest of the players. Hence, I got the image that the poor punter has to pay for sex while the rest of the team gets it for free.
I am not happy with the Dept of Homeland Security or USA PATRIOT, but, even with those issues aside, I could make the argument that in total, Bush has done more to EXTEND freedom to the American people than Democrats would have.
a) By continually deregulating everything, Bush gives the small business owner and entrepreneur more rights, whereas Democrats would take them away. Bush has made it easier for people to use their land as they best see fit, and made it easier for business's to hire whom they want, when they want. Democrats, on the other hand, would make it harder for a person to use their land the way they want, harder for businesses to hire flexibly, and harder to adjust to market conditions for wages.
b) George Bush has reaffirmed the right to revolution by changing the Justice Dept stance that 2nd Amendment implies an individual right to keep and bear arms, and backed that up by letting the assault weapons ban lapse.
c) George Bush's tax cuts have allowed people to keep more of their money, and, more importantly, his cuts on the death tax allow people to decide what their life's work is for, not the government.
d) Although the execution was botched, while Democrats and liberals bemoan dictatorships around the world, George Bush put 200,000 boots on the ground to try and bring about democracy in a severely troubled part of the world.
By contrast, Democrats argue for MORE laws about how we use our property, for a wide variety of pet causes, call for more TAXES, not less, call for an end to the idea that the USA should intervene against dictatorships, and call for increased regulation in general. Sure, you might like what the Democratic vision offers, but at the end of the day, Republicans will give you more freedom than you can ever want, leaving you to the chaos of the marketplace, whereas the Democrats inevitably argue for less freedom in favor of social stability!
So please, knock off the double think that the left wing has instilled in you. You can't be free if the government takes more of your wealth and makes more laws.
tjstork, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
With respect to WOW, I had no clue they existed. I don't know their arrangement with the locals, but I highly doubt they run their own lines. They probably have a deal with the local monopoly to use their lines.
There will never be real competition because it is usually only profitable for one company to service a municipality at a time. If another did move in and they shared the customers one would go under. I know for a fact cities in Ohio are not allowed to exclude any competitors, and that was before this legislation was passed (do you have a link?). If any company wants to offer cable, they must negotiate the terms with the local government in order to use their rights-of-way. In light of that, guess how many cities have more than one cable company serving them. AFAIK, none.
People used to complain to my peers and me on the cable advisory board that we shouldn't be giving Time Warner a monopoly over cable service. We showed them the laws on the subject. Anyone is free to offer cable service, it's just that no one wants to once there is an established player in town.
The loss of freedom is not due to the code, but due to your locking down of the hardware. Yes, the GPLv3 crosses the line into regulating the hardware on which the code is run. This is why Linus disliked it. I do not see a problem with that because it is a necessary evil in order to ensure that Freedom 1 is available to the user. Freedom to change the program to meet your needs must include the ability to run it on any hardware that could feasibly run the program.
How? It's the exact same software as the first case. It still runs just as well on standard hardware.
Indeed, on standard hardware. It does not run on your hardware, therefore you may not use the code because your hardware does not allow for the user to exercise Freedom 1.
Now, if you are arguing that you want to distribute source and binaries only on a disc with absolutely no code within the device, then you have a point. Of course, in order for a compiled version of the software to even run, you'd need to hand over your signing key, which negates the purpose of our discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Many people have been complaining about their local governments handing out cable monopolies. This is not the case (at least in Ohio). In Ohio, anyone who wishes to provide cable service has to pay a franchise fee to the local government for using the rights-of-way. Even though this is the case, in the vast majority of cities there is still only one cable provider. This is because in many cities two cable companies couldn't both stay in business. They simply wouldn't have enough customers. Cable is a natural monopoly, except in areas where it is profitable to run multiple providers.
Go down to your city hall and ask what the laws are on starting a new cable service in your town. You may be surprised to find that anyone can do so, just no one has due to the reasons above. Of course, I don't know the laws of all the states*, so some cities may have given hard monopolies to some companies. At that point you'll have to lobby your local government to get some sense.
*I can only speak to Ohio, as I'm familiar with their laws on the books. Also, this doesn't apply to phone companies. Your local ILEC (AT&T, Qwest, or Verizon) owns the lines and sells services on them. This is a major problem as explained here.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=254287&cid= 19964971
I'm not trying to be an ass or troll you, but go down to city hall and ask what the laws are regarding starting a new cable service. You might be pleasantly surprised to find that anyone can implement cable service so long as they pay a franchise fee to your city for using their rights-of-way.
What is most often (but is not always) the case is that cable access is a natural monopoly in your area. If you have Time Warner, Comcast doesn't want to offer service because they probably couldn't turn a profit. Even if they thought they could, the cost of building a whole new network for your city is cost prohibitive. They wouldn't recoup their costs soon enough.
I've got a choice between AT&T and my local cable monopoly, Buckeye Express.
Buckeye express has:
- 10M/800k; $70/mo (heavily throttled during peak hours)
- 7M/768k; $45/mo (ditto)
- 1.5M/128k; $30/mo
- 96k/96k; $20/mo (yes, that is right 96k)
Would it be too much to ask for 5M/2M?
Oh, how I recall my unbundled Speakeasy DSL. Now those were the days.
Agreed 100%.
Uninstalling the "trial version" solves quite a few problems, at least those experienced by my family. Symantec AV slowed down their PC just as bad as any spyware would.
In light of all these problems, I recommended OneCare to a client. It really hurt to recommend a Microsoft product to someone, but OneCare was a good fit. When their new desktop came in, the first thing I did was uninstall everything Symantec related and slapped OneCare on there. So far so good.
If this is indeed his plan, then he should say so. You've asserted that he will and have provided nothing to back up your claims. Indeed, we will see what happens. Usually stuff like this ends up making no difference to anyone, but it doesn't hurt to hope.
I didn't vote for the guy, but he's doing a good job thus far. Things in Ohio are starting to turn around it seems.
It isn't broadcast but that didn't change the FCC from trying to mandate devices honor the broadcast flag. My DVR certainly isn't a broadcast medium, but they tried to regulate it anyway. Luckily the courts decided the FCC didn't have the authority. Now, the key is to keep an eye on congress and be sure they don't give them such authority.
You can understand my confusion as to how much the FCC can regulate private signals.
AFAIK the FCC has some limited say in terrestrial cable. For example, no pr0n at certain hours of the day (unless it's an adult channel). To put it another way, TNT can't air Debbie Does Dallas at 3:00pm. If I am mistaken, then you can disregard my previous comment.
Indeed.
My fiancée's parents bought a PC that had Vista installed. She used it when she was over there. When she mentioned their new computer, I asked if she liked Vista. Her face got all angry-like and she started cussing like a sailor. She didn't want to be associated with that piece of junk OS...ever.
The funniest thing about it was that I've been trying to get her to use GNU/Linux for awhile now. I couldn't close the deal until Vista was released. She assures me that once XP outlives its usefulness, she's going to use Kubuntu. Thanks to Microsoft for helping move my fiancée to a free OS!
I wouldn't abolish the FCC, but I would considerably reduce their scope. The FCC is what keeps broadcasters on the proper frequency and the like. I'd let them regulate power, frequency, etc., but remove their ability to censor people. They'd also have no say in anything not owned by the public at large.
Indeed. Take it from "Adult film producer" -- there is usually a contract involved with inserting any bodily part into a woman's vagina.
I've posted on a few forums and no one has any clue what the deal is. I'm willing to believe some configuration is off, but I can't find the problem. I get no errors from /var/log/Xorg.0.log and only trivial warnings. If you have any idea what the problem could be, please contact me.
In order:
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
I bought the X1600 before I made the move to Ubuntu (and then Debian). The proprietary drivers (fglrx) are pure shit. The FOSS ones made by our friendly hackers that are released as part of Xorg are quite good. The 9600XT is an R3xx card and is about as cheap a card as you can get at that performance level.
The nVidia cards don't have any FOSS 3D support. I took a look at Matrox cards. They have FOSS drivers but they are more expensive and I can't afford them at the moment. Their 3D performance is nearly non-existent.
It comes down to a decent FOSS driver with the 9600XT @ $40 or a lesser Matrox card for $70-$80. nVidia isn't on the radar.
Yeah, I still haven't figured that one out yet. I'm ready to just sell the damn thing and get something with an R3xx core.
I've got an X1600 that performs worse than the 9200 I used to have in here. Whenever I use ZSNES, MPlayer or any other programs that have a lot of motion for X to keep track of, the CPU usage for X goes off the charts. X barely keeps up when I'm watching a DVD! My system is getting old (Athlon XP 2400+, 1GB RAM), but this is ridiculous. I'm looking to buy a 9600XT and sell the piece of junk I have now. At least then I can use the free Xorg drivers rather than the crap ATI puts out.
I've checked with several people who have no clue what the problem is. I'm running Debian testing with fglrx 8.38.6. Yes, DRI is enabled and running. glxgears gives me ~900FPS.
Don't forget:
Big McLargehuge
Gristle McThornbody
Buff Hardback
and
Thick McRunfast
Yeah, I missed a few verb changes in the copy'n'paste. Sue me.
tjstork, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Fair use disclaimer
AT&T isn't a cable company.
With respect to WOW, I had no clue they existed. I don't know their arrangement with the locals, but I highly doubt they run their own lines. They probably have a deal with the local monopoly to use their lines.
Yeah, I meant cities in Ohio. I can't speak to how it works in other states.
There will never be real competition because it is usually only profitable for one company to service a municipality at a time. If another did move in and they shared the customers one would go under. I know for a fact cities in Ohio are not allowed to exclude any competitors, and that was before this legislation was passed (do you have a link?). If any company wants to offer cable, they must negotiate the terms with the local government in order to use their rights-of-way. In light of that, guess how many cities have more than one cable company serving them. AFAIK, none.
People used to complain to my peers and me on the cable advisory board that we shouldn't be giving Time Warner a monopoly over cable service. We showed them the laws on the subject. Anyone is free to offer cable service, it's just that no one wants to once there is an established player in town.
Now, if you are arguing that you want to distribute source and binaries only on a disc with absolutely no code within the device, then you have a point. Of course, in order for a compiled version of the software to even run, you'd need to hand over your signing key, which negates the purpose of our discussion.