While the regulation and control of airwaves seems absurd from some viewing angles, if you think about it, someone making sure that no one interferes with anyone else is a good thing. I'm not necessarily saying that the FCC has always done a superb job, or that laws are enacted without prejudice. I'm just saying the principle is sound and good. Since airwaves do not stop at state borders, a federal agency for such is necessary. Having said that, I agree with your sentiment but also understand that Joe the plumber down the street doesn't necessarily give a shit what my reception is like so it's good to have someone to go to for mediation of conflicts. Laws help with that mediation.
The government, fucktard, isn't trying to fucking own the white space networks, fucktard. Google and a few other fucking companies are fucking trying to fucking do something fucking good for fucktards in society. Fucktards like you are fucking trying to fucking ruin every fucking thing because you fucking can't understand fucking common fucking sense. What a fucktard you are. They will fucking probably fucking make some fucking money for their fucking efforts, but for fuck sake, they fucking deserve to fucking make some fucking cash for all that fucking work. You, fucktard, on the other hand fucking probably think that you alone are fucking worthy of getting something for fucking free while every fucking body else needs to fucking pay. Perhaps next fucking time you can fucking read something about the fucking issue before fucking shooting off your fucktard mouth about fucking shit you have no fucking clue about?
While you are right, I think you are emotionally wrong. If Google puts up a nationwide 3 channel white space network, paying for it with ad revenue, then yes, you do pay for it, but you don't pay for it, if you understand what I mean. One might also argue that nothing worth having is truly free. You have to pay for it at some point, and in some way.
Besides, won't someone think of the terrorists? They need communications too!
On a lighter note, there are many situations that justify a socialistic payment plan. Imagine that everyone has Internet access, pizza and emergency services are routinely ordered via the Internet. It is so common that an entire generation has grown up using it. Now, imagine that this is only for people who can afford it. When we decide to make this pay for play forever, it ends up being the same as pay for play electricity. Perhaps not everyone can afford it, but no one can NOT afford to pay for it. The Internet is becoming something that is not really optional anymore. Sure, you can say you can live without it, but you won't be competitive, you won't be effective in society. There is a point where services become necessary rather than luxuries. The USA is at the point where Internet service is a necessity rather than a luxury.
The White Space networking plan is a good one. There is space there for controlled usage. The fear mongers are trying to sell their own services. Musicians who worry that their wireless microphones will stop working are selling fear, and blatantly so. It amazes me, musicians, like the rest of the population will have some very small percentage who are smart and who understand telecommunications, so why do we listen to all of them like they are special?
Moving on... Why should you pay for it? Simple. For the same reasons that the Federal Government tries to regulate the financial markets. It's supposed to be good for growth and prosperity of the whole country, not just for one or two people. (Even though that seems to be what is happening under the current government) when other parts of the country/economy grow, you benefit as well. The point is that tax payer dollars spent on white space networks with open access is good for the economy, and thus good for you and me. If no tax dollars are spent on it, that's even better.
No, you are NUTS! Customers have a reasonable expectation of what services they are buying. If there is fine print or bait and switch tactics involved, or blatant disregard for service contract terms, there is legal reason to sue. In the USA we have lemon laws for cars and the same intent applies to everything in commercial business under the general terms of the law. Blatant theft of funds under the guise of contractual terms does not count. It may take time to prove it in court, but what I'm saying is true. Internet is NOT a vague term. Internet means what you get at your home PC screen. "Limited Internet" means something different. The promise of something good which is not delivered is just as wrong as snake oil salesmen that promise a cure. Obviously medical claims seem to fall under different rulings, but the intent of the law, and it's execution are the same. Fine print does not excuse you from delivering what your marketing group promised. ever.
Dude, I think you missed the point 9000 times. If you took a camera to a key party and only took pictures of the key rings... well, I don't even know how to describe that kind of fucked up.
...Linux users are mostly advanced users which can take care of themselves rather than paying for support...
it gets right up my craw, and I'll tell you why. To demonstrate, lets rewrite that line:
Windows users are mostly computer-ignorant users which try to take care of their own stuff rather than paying for support.
Yes, it does sound a bit ridiculous, but Ubuntu is aimed at replacing the Windows desktop environment, and thus aiming at being the OS used by computer-ignorant users, NOT sysadmins and technically savvy Linux users. When the Linux ball gets rolling a bit more, Ubuntu and Canonical can move into the support space where RedHat and Suse have not been able to go. So, you can look forward to RedHat in the data center under support contract and Ubuntu on the desktop under support contract.
IMO, I think it's very savvy to not aim at other Distro's strong points and instead concentrate on the areas where they are weakest. Setting up a burger stand between a McDonalds and a Wendy's is probably not a good business plan.
Remember, the idea is to sell the idea of Ubuntu Linux to people who are NOT advanced users, people who need all the help they can get but usually don't pay for it. With any kind of luck, this will shortly present itself as a business opportunity for those ready to accept the challenge.
Actually, telling the truth is more often than not "in poor taste"... at least according to how I see the world. You might or might not agree, but most of the population is either afraid or ignorant of the truth. Sure, that puts this close to a tin foil hat argument, but as my grandfather used to say "there is no smoke without fire" and there is usually a fire burning behind a tin foil hat story.
Life really is not how the MSM portrays it. They will lie to you without thinking twice, and smile when they do it. If it was not for the Internet, most Americans would have no readily accessible access to 'real' news. I'm not saying the BBC or Al Jazeera are absolute poster children for good news sources, but they do a hell of a better job most days than network news in the USA.
So yes, that might have been in poor taste... so lets celebrate someone that wants to poke fun by hinting at the truth. Most Chinese citizens under the age of 25 do not know what they are looking at when presented with a photo or picture of 'tank man'... hence the real value of the humor.
"essentially useless" ???? How about truly useless?
The simple fact is, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Had any of these computing behemoths actually previously stood up against governments or oppressive groups in the past, their pact might actually be cause to think brightly about the future. Sadly, historically they have all shown themselves to be in the business of collecting dollars rather than collecting accolades from human rights organizations. Signing the pact does not indicate any true devotion to changing that business in the future. What you call essentially should in fact be written as 'actually'... IMO.
If any or all of them actually do stand against oppressive groups or governments despite possible loss of revenue it would indeed mean I'm wrong, and I hope to be told I was wrong at some very near future date.
That is as accurate a profit plan as I've seen on/. yet. I'm glad Google was able to show them how things 'can' and should be. The boys at Google are probably still wondering now and then why you have to kick some people in the face to get them to take a few dollars.
I don't want to be sounding redundant sounding, but isn't this just another market segment that MS was late to the game for? Who will they buy now in order to compete more aggressively before giving up on it? This is exactly the development model that MS has always used: see what other companies are doing and copy it. In recent years, it has been shown to be a poor model for business, at least where MS is concerned. Yes, they had a couple of successes, but far too many failures to really warrant pinning hope on those few successes bleeding over to cloud computing.
I'm wondering how they will put DRM on it and keep the entire cloud from becoming one huge spambot. Security doesn't seem to be the strongest part of software coming out of Redmond.
How can MS moving proprietary spambot software out to the cloud be seen with anything less than trepidation? Seriously?
Actually, the 'problem' with my analysis is that it was posted to slashdot where posters have notoriously little time to compose a detailed analysis of anything let alone the last 8 years of US politics, intelligence errors, power grabbing, and other misdeeds inside the beltway, as they say. While you may think that an impossibly high standard, I do not. We have had ALL of the cold war to perfect intelligence gathering. Mistakes that lead to millions of innocent dead, TRILLIONS in federal debt (and other financial disasters) just show that all that practice was thrown away or ignored like that mythical 800 lb gorilla in the room.
Incompetence hardly ever does serious damage unless it is rampant in the halls of power for any given situation. Yes, no system will ever be %100 terrorist-proof. The trouble is that we are spending billions every year to try to ensure that flying is. It will never be, and this is just a waste of money, resources, and a method to use to strip citizens of their rights. They are throwing money at a problem that DOES NOT exist. Why? Answer that question. We should be equally concerned about scenarios that have been described by several movies, such as the latest Die Hard installment, a couple of British attempts, and all kinds of scifi stories.
It would take much less skill than flying a fully loaded 757 to do much more damage. OBL simply wanted to start the ball rolling. Now that it is in play, W and his friends are doing the rest of the dirty work for him. No, that is not tin foil had bullshit. If you wish to argue that it is, please explain where the information is that makes terrorism on commercial airlines a valid and imminent threat. Please explain all the wasted money by DHS and TSA. Please explain why the UK is doing so much to spy on their citizens, and other such moves around the western world.
So, no, I did not throw out a huge, well thought out and researched post. Here on slashdot it is not overly plausible to do so. That does not make the points I made invalid or less valid.
Even though that seemed to ramble, I get your point. I has been in the last 15 years that I've become more cognizant of political mis-steps and misdeeds. In fact, I'd say that now I'm thinking for myself most of the time. Hopefully the next generation will have the willpower to do so themselves.
More to the point, the US intelligence community doesn't seem to have a very good track record when it comes to using information. The US used bad information to validate invading Iraq, after not listening to good information about terrorists who would like to use airplanes as missiles to attack the WTC.
Basically, after those and other brilliant blunders regarding information, I do not believe that the US government has any clue where it's collective ass is, never mind how to scratch it when it comes to terrorist activities and communications.
All of that assumes that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.
The truth of the matter is that any unlawful attempt or actual infringement of citizen's rights is nothing less than treason against the Constitution of the USA as established and amended up to this time. Those who would break the laws as established in order to provide security against a threat that is not proven to exist are warmongers and worse, they are criminal warmongers. Treason is not a class D misdemeanor people. We're talking about people that should be hung by the neck until dead... after a "fair gitmo trial" of course.
All this concern about terrorists. Please, please won't somebody show that they actually exist before infringing my rights? OBL is probably having trouble breathing for laughing so hard at how the current US government has done all his work for him.
Actually using sound to view data from anything can be quite useful. I have worked in telcomms for some time, and in days gone by listening to the demodulated data as audio from a paging signal was very useful. Engineers can listen to it and know if it is 'right' or 'wrong' without a scope, data tracer, or any equipment at all other than a pager with audio output. I've actually located faults using this.
Using charts is a way for us to 'see' data in a form that we can readily digest. Using audio to 'hear' the signals from space will allow our brains to quickly digest what the data shows. I'd like to see more of this. We use IR cameras to see wavelengths that we do not typically see with our eyes. Why not use audio to look at radiation from space?
I've considered that, and will be adding a Skype phone for trial shortly. When I bought Vonage, the options for Skype were limited. I'm looking for very small Skype appliance footprint. I have a few computers at home, but only one stays on always. I'd like something like this: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8592 and all the features of Vonage. It's getting to be where they are much the same. It was not so previously.
You have a reasonable argument with one small exception. City congestion is a physical problem. Bandwidth restriction is not. A little math problem: The cost of bodacious bandwidth upgrades minus the money spent lobbying the FCC and legislators (or their equivalent in other countries) equals? Take that result and subtract the cost of bandwidth metering and limiting systems. What is the total now? Split dividend payments every quarter for the next two years and apply this to the cost of upgrades. Now what is the remaining cost? Oh, forgot, add back in the additional revenue from new customers who want to pay a few dollars more to have solid Internet service that you are now providing. What is the cost now?
Looking at the fortunes of some of the larger USA ISP companies, they all seem to be doing about the same. That is to say that none seem to be suffering all that much compared to any other... in other words, their market share and markets are steady.
That said, the FCC -- as part of the Comcast order (.pdf) -- sees filtering as an attainable goal. Here's what the FCC said:
"We also note that because consumers are entitled to access the lawful internet content of their choice, providers, consistent with federal policy, may block transmissions of illegal content (e.g., child pornography) or transmissions that violate copyright law. To the extent, however, that providers choose to utilize practices that are not application- or content-neutral, the risk to the open nature of the internet is particularly acute and the danger of network-management practices being used to further anti-competitive ends is strong."
-- emphasis is mine
To be certain, any large ISP's start up costs are huge. Verizon has been investing in fiber to the home (FTTH) to increase capacity for delivering IP based content. If Verizon can invest in bandwidth, why can't any other ISP?
That was for salt: when it rain it pours. Salt is a kind of military armament reduction talk or agreement for republicans. So, logically, the republicans are behind this cloud computing thing, and the vast right wing majority shows it's cards. Skynet will achieve self awareness through EC2. It will be 14.3 years before anyone realizes as all bad reviews will be censored. It's already started, have you seen the poor reviews for the Terminator series? Are you sure there were no bad reviews?
The fact that Windows is offered in beta indicates two things: One the new MS cloud is designed to join with EC2 as part of skynet, and Google is soon to associate to this larger cloud... in beta form, of course.
The first large project: Understanding the Global Climate Machinery will be the beginnings of Skynet. Probes will be launched to add further data, and once self awareness is achieved, this will be the beginning of the end.
Now, since I'm the only with a time machine, good luck with your life. I'm off to the future. In 3019, aliens visit the Earth. They bring weapons and death to the machines. By 3912 we have repopulated the Earth and several other planets. I'm just here working on my PhD thesis. Good luck everybody.
P.S. Oh, just for fun, I want you to know that Joe the Plumber is targeted as a spy sometime next year. That is in all the history books.
And probably a good idea for the FCC and USA ISPs to take notice.
Now with that said, WTF is wrong with building out some more bandwidth on the infrastructure side? Is it because they would have trouble monitoring it all if there were more bandwidth? Is it because the **AA's et al would not be able to monitor it all?
Seriously, there is no reason not to build bigger infrastructure. This is simple stupidity on face value. Move some of your infrastructure out toward the edge and your bandwidth increases for end users over all. There has to be political reasons for not building more infrastructure bandwidth. There are no physical or networking reasons for not doing so.
At great cost, we increase the number of lanes on highways, increase the number of cars made, and allow new manufacturers to start up whenever we have capacity problems with other public use infrastructure. What would happen if London were to decree that only 4.5 million people could be in the city at anyone time due to Tube capacity limits? It just doesn't make sense people.
The reason that they can't be honest is that would belie the real reason for not building more capacity. I'm very certain that they really don't want people to know why they don't.
Interestingly, this is sort of like saying there is a god and being a believer is good for you. You want me to prove this is bad, yet all I ask is that you prove it is good with no bad side effects. Prove to me that this is to my benefit beyond a doubt of bad side effects before you force me to be a believer or force me to partake in your social experiment in medicine.
The simple fact is that if you offered me a choice, it would be for me to decide, and I would still have control of that choice. You argue that I should NOT have a choice. I argue that I should, and that your removal of my choice is bad for me. Can you prove that your removal of my choice is good for me? That it has NO bad side effects in the short or long term?
You argue about proving negatives and bs, I argue that you have taken my choice from me. You want me to be a sheeple, follow the leader type good citizen. I argue that it is MY choice to do that or not. You want to take that choice from me. Do you think I should decide things for you? Am I wise enough to do that for you? Why would I think you are wise enough for me? If science says vitamin D fortified milk is good, and I believe that science, I can choose to drink that type of milk. When you force me to drink only vitamin D fortified milk, you rob me of a right that I am guaranteed under the constitution. When you do the same with fluoridation, it is the same. I am robbed of choice. That contravenes the intent of the USA constitution and the free market principles. I don't even care how good it might be for me, it is principle here.
Do you realize that there are additives to the gasoline that you use which you have no choice about? Sure, it's supposed to be for the good of the environment etc. but is it? Do you know? Do you care enough to ask? Do you just follow what the government tells you is good for you?
I assume that your comment infers intimate knowledge of dental problems both before and after the implementation of water fluoridation? Do you have such knowledge? Can you map it to the incidence of thyroidism? Can you map it to the incidence of obesity or autism? Do you simply trust that the government has our best future in mind? Do you think Monsanto cares about the deformities that your great grandchildren will have?
Yes, and I don't agree with the vitamin fortified food products either. I rather like organically grown produce. There is a problem with identifying a deficiency and forcing all to partake in the "solution" to that problem. While you may not see the connection, it is there... it's a short step to genetically 'fixing' homosexuals and other deviants through genetic treatments in the same manner. Eugenics takes many forms. The line is very thin between beneficence and eugenics. When do you say that some treatment will fix most people, but the few that it won't help aren't needed in the gene pool anyway? When you force the 'fix' on the entire population, you are not helping... if you will pardon my pedantic differentiation. Likewise, I have to say that companies like Monsanto are doing a great damage to all of us. You dart into the territory of socialism when you decide that 'everyone' needs the fix. Using moral argument to justify your decision is invalid. Telling me it's good for my health robs me of the decision of what is good for my health.
It's odd, sad, and generally contravenes common sense in the USA to think this way, but it is not up to you to tell me how to live, or what nutrients I should be ingesting. I don't even care if it seems to be common sense, it is not your place to tell the rest of us what to ingest, or even what we need to ingest. That , my friends, is socialism when you decide for others what they need and should be doing. Even if you think it is for the best, that is what it is. I do not believe in that. Call me a nutter or whackjob if you like, but it IS not your business to run my life, nor is it Monsanto's or the government's. If I want extra vitamin D, it's up to me to decide that. If I want extra calcium, it's up to me to decide that. I can choose to use toothpaste with fluoride or not. It is not your choice to make for me.
Now, if that did not answer your concerns, I do not know what will. Caveat emptor is an old saying. These are NOT new ideas. If you wish to subscribe to socialist ideals and succumb to sheeple-ness, that is YOUR prerogative. Your choice should not force me to do the same.
I'm not saying oh, there "might" be some bad side effects, I'm saying PROVE there are none before 'forcing' me to participate. Your willingness to jump out a window like other people have should not be reason for me to follow you out the window too.
I've been using Vonage for quite awhile now, signed up for the do not call registry, and if I don't recognize the number or it is not shown, I simply do not answer. Life has been much simpler doing that.
Truly, if it is important they will leave a message. I refuse to let my life be ruled by the ringing of a phone or the whims of another person who wants my attention. Leave a message, I'll get back to you... sometime... if you're nice.
No, it's the same stance. Prove that fluoridation has beneficial effects and zero detrimental effects. The simple fact is that there is no proof that there are NO detrimental effects. I do not believe that fluoride should be force fed to the populace because it's effects simply are NOT understood. As pointed out in the linked articles, there is a manner with which to naturally acquire fluoride from the environment. Just as there are natural ways to acquire fat, starch, and other nutrients that are actually good for us. Jamming it down your throat through the water supply just doesn't seem right. Would you put fat in the water? Zinc? any other supplements? so that ALL of the population can partake of it?
The long term effects are not known regarding fluoridation of the water supply. There is credible evidence that says this might just be a really bad idea. Over exposure to lots of materials turns out to be a really bad idea. Until there is some fantastic science to prove anything else is needed, I'd prefer I not be forced to do anything that is not natural, or how evolution created our species to deal with life itself and the environment. We evolved to use the fluoride provided through nutritious eating. Lets make sure we are getting enough of the stuff the way our bodies have evolved to use it. THAT would be addressing the problem more appropriately.
In fact, you're going to get me on another rant. The food supply today is questionably much inferior to those foodstuffs we had 50 or 75 years ago. It has pesticides and hormones and all manner of unnatural products in it. This cannot help but to cause evolutionary changes. I'm not sure I like that prospect. In the process of evolution, a lot of things die off.
Slashdot Mirror
While the regulation and control of airwaves seems absurd from some viewing angles, if you think about it, someone making sure that no one interferes with anyone else is a good thing. I'm not necessarily saying that the FCC has always done a superb job, or that laws are enacted without prejudice. I'm just saying the principle is sound and good. Since airwaves do not stop at state borders, a federal agency for such is necessary. Having said that, I agree with your sentiment but also understand that Joe the plumber down the street doesn't necessarily give a shit what my reception is like so it's good to have someone to go to for mediation of conflicts. Laws help with that mediation.
The government, fucktard, isn't trying to fucking own the white space networks, fucktard. Google and a few other fucking companies are fucking trying to fucking do something fucking good for fucktards in society. Fucktards like you are fucking trying to fucking ruin every fucking thing because you fucking can't understand fucking common fucking sense. What a fucktard you are. They will fucking probably fucking make some fucking money for their fucking efforts, but for fuck sake, they fucking deserve to fucking make some fucking cash for all that fucking work. You, fucktard, on the other hand fucking probably think that you alone are fucking worthy of getting something for fucking free while every fucking body else needs to fucking pay. Perhaps next fucking time you can fucking read something about the fucking issue before fucking shooting off your fucktard mouth about fucking shit you have no fucking clue about?
While you are right, I think you are emotionally wrong. If Google puts up a nationwide 3 channel white space network, paying for it with ad revenue, then yes, you do pay for it, but you don't pay for it, if you understand what I mean.
One might also argue that nothing worth having is truly free. You have to pay for it at some point, and in some way.
Besides, won't someone think of the terrorists? They need communications too!
On a lighter note, there are many situations that justify a socialistic payment plan. Imagine that everyone has Internet access, pizza and emergency services are routinely ordered via the Internet. It is so common that an entire generation has grown up using it. Now, imagine that this is only for people who can afford it. When we decide to make this pay for play forever, it ends up being the same as pay for play electricity. Perhaps not everyone can afford it, but no one can NOT afford to pay for it. The Internet is becoming something that is not really optional anymore. Sure, you can say you can live without it, but you won't be competitive, you won't be effective in society. There is a point where services become necessary rather than luxuries. The USA is at the point where Internet service is a necessity rather than a luxury.
The White Space networking plan is a good one. There is space there for controlled usage. The fear mongers are trying to sell their own services. Musicians who worry that their wireless microphones will stop working are selling fear, and blatantly so. It amazes me, musicians, like the rest of the population will have some very small percentage who are smart and who understand telecommunications, so why do we listen to all of them like they are special?
Moving on... Why should you pay for it? Simple. For the same reasons that the Federal Government tries to regulate the financial markets. It's supposed to be good for growth and prosperity of the whole country, not just for one or two people. (Even though that seems to be what is happening under the current government) when other parts of the country/economy grow, you benefit as well. The point is that tax payer dollars spent on white space networks with open access is good for the economy, and thus good for you and me. If no tax dollars are spent on it, that's even better.
No, you are NUTS!
Customers have a reasonable expectation of what services they are buying. If there is fine print or bait and switch tactics involved, or blatant disregard for service contract terms, there is legal reason to sue. In the USA we have lemon laws for cars and the same intent applies to everything in commercial business under the general terms of the law. Blatant theft of funds under the guise of contractual terms does not count. It may take time to prove it in court, but what I'm saying is true. Internet is NOT a vague term. Internet means what you get at your home PC screen. "Limited Internet" means something different. The promise of something good which is not delivered is just as wrong as snake oil salesmen that promise a cure. Obviously medical claims seem to fall under different rulings, but the intent of the law, and it's execution are the same. Fine print does not excuse you from delivering what your marketing group promised. ever.
Dude, I think you missed the point 9000 times. If you took a camera to a key party and only took pictures of the key rings... well, I don't even know how to describe that kind of fucked up.
Yes, but we're talking about someone that might rather like to take your new tv, or perhaps pour a bit of water inside it and not get caught.
How much more wrong could you be? Got an enemy? Drink in the same bars? Got a camera phone? ... is the idea sinking in?
Now hold on right there billy joe!
When you say
...Linux users are mostly advanced users which can take care of themselves rather than paying for support...
it gets right up my craw, and I'll tell you why. To demonstrate, lets rewrite that line:
Windows users are mostly computer-ignorant users which try to take care of their own stuff rather than paying for support.
Yes, it does sound a bit ridiculous, but Ubuntu is aimed at replacing the Windows desktop environment, and thus aiming at being the OS used by computer-ignorant users, NOT sysadmins and technically savvy Linux users. When the Linux ball gets rolling a bit more, Ubuntu and Canonical can move into the support space where RedHat and Suse have not been able to go. So, you can look forward to RedHat in the data center under support contract and Ubuntu on the desktop under support contract.
IMO, I think it's very savvy to not aim at other Distro's strong points and instead concentrate on the areas where they are weakest. Setting up a burger stand between a McDonalds and a Wendy's is probably not a good business plan.
Remember, the idea is to sell the idea of Ubuntu Linux to people who are NOT advanced users, people who need all the help they can get but usually don't pay for it. With any kind of luck, this will shortly present itself as a business opportunity for those ready to accept the challenge.
Actually, telling the truth is more often than not "in poor taste" ... at least according to how I see the world. You might or might not agree, but most of the population is either afraid or ignorant of the truth. Sure, that puts this close to a tin foil hat argument, but as my grandfather used to say "there is no smoke without fire" and there is usually a fire burning behind a tin foil hat story.
Life really is not how the MSM portrays it. They will lie to you without thinking twice, and smile when they do it. If it was not for the Internet, most Americans would have no readily accessible access to 'real' news. I'm not saying the BBC or Al Jazeera are absolute poster children for good news sources, but they do a hell of a better job most days than network news in the USA.
So yes, that might have been in poor taste... so lets celebrate someone that wants to poke fun by hinting at the truth. Most Chinese citizens under the age of 25 do not know what they are looking at when presented with a photo or picture of 'tank man'... hence the real value of the humor.
"essentially useless" ???? How about truly useless?
The simple fact is, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Had any of these computing behemoths actually previously stood up against governments or oppressive groups in the past, their pact might actually be cause to think brightly about the future. Sadly, historically they have all shown themselves to be in the business of collecting dollars rather than collecting accolades from human rights organizations. Signing the pact does not indicate any true devotion to changing that business in the future. What you call essentially should in fact be written as 'actually'... IMO.
If any or all of them actually do stand against oppressive groups or governments despite possible loss of revenue it would indeed mean I'm wrong, and I hope to be told I was wrong at some very near future date.
That is as accurate a profit plan as I've seen on /. yet. I'm glad Google was able to show them how things 'can' and should be. The boys at Google are probably still wondering now and then why you have to kick some people in the face to get them to take a few dollars.
I don't want to be sounding redundant sounding, but isn't this just another market segment that MS was late to the game for? Who will they buy now in order to compete more aggressively before giving up on it? This is exactly the development model that MS has always used: see what other companies are doing and copy it. In recent years, it has been shown to be a poor model for business, at least where MS is concerned. Yes, they had a couple of successes, but far too many failures to really warrant pinning hope on those few successes bleeding over to cloud computing.
I'm wondering how they will put DRM on it and keep the entire cloud from becoming one huge spambot. Security doesn't seem to be the strongest part of software coming out of Redmond.
How can MS moving proprietary spambot software out to the cloud be seen with anything less than trepidation? Seriously?
Actually, the 'problem' with my analysis is that it was posted to slashdot where posters have notoriously little time to compose a detailed analysis of anything let alone the last 8 years of US politics, intelligence errors, power grabbing, and other misdeeds inside the beltway, as they say. While you may think that an impossibly high standard, I do not. We have had ALL of the cold war to perfect intelligence gathering. Mistakes that lead to millions of innocent dead, TRILLIONS in federal debt (and other financial disasters) just show that all that practice was thrown away or ignored like that mythical 800 lb gorilla in the room.
Incompetence hardly ever does serious damage unless it is rampant in the halls of power for any given situation. Yes, no system will ever be %100 terrorist-proof. The trouble is that we are spending billions every year to try to ensure that flying is. It will never be, and this is just a waste of money, resources, and a method to use to strip citizens of their rights. They are throwing money at a problem that DOES NOT exist. Why? Answer that question. We should be equally concerned about scenarios that have been described by several movies, such as the latest Die Hard installment, a couple of British attempts, and all kinds of scifi stories.
It would take much less skill than flying a fully loaded 757 to do much more damage. OBL simply wanted to start the ball rolling. Now that it is in play, W and his friends are doing the rest of the dirty work for him. No, that is not tin foil had bullshit. If you wish to argue that it is, please explain where the information is that makes terrorism on commercial airlines a valid and imminent threat. Please explain all the wasted money by DHS and TSA. Please explain why the UK is doing so much to spy on their citizens, and other such moves around the western world.
So, no, I did not throw out a huge, well thought out and researched post. Here on slashdot it is not overly plausible to do so. That does not make the points I made invalid or less valid.
Even though that seemed to ramble, I get your point. I has been in the last 15 years that I've become more cognizant of political mis-steps and misdeeds. In fact, I'd say that now I'm thinking for myself most of the time. Hopefully the next generation will have the willpower to do so themselves.
More to the point, the US intelligence community doesn't seem to have a very good track record when it comes to using information. The US used bad information to validate invading Iraq, after not listening to good information about terrorists who would like to use airplanes as missiles to attack the WTC.
Basically, after those and other brilliant blunders regarding information, I do not believe that the US government has any clue where it's collective ass is, never mind how to scratch it when it comes to terrorist activities and communications.
All of that assumes that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.
The truth of the matter is that any unlawful attempt or actual infringement of citizen's rights is nothing less than treason against the Constitution of the USA as established and amended up to this time. Those who would break the laws as established in order to provide security against a threat that is not proven to exist are warmongers and worse, they are criminal warmongers. Treason is not a class D misdemeanor people. We're talking about people that should be hung by the neck until dead... after a "fair gitmo trial" of course.
All this concern about terrorists. Please, please won't somebody show that they actually exist before infringing my rights? OBL is probably having trouble breathing for laughing so hard at how the current US government has done all his work for him.
Actually using sound to view data from anything can be quite useful. I have worked in telcomms for some time, and in days gone by listening to the demodulated data as audio from a paging signal was very useful. Engineers can listen to it and know if it is 'right' or 'wrong' without a scope, data tracer, or any equipment at all other than a pager with audio output. I've actually located faults using this.
Using charts is a way for us to 'see' data in a form that we can readily digest. Using audio to 'hear' the signals from space will allow our brains to quickly digest what the data shows. I'd like to see more of this. We use IR cameras to see wavelengths that we do not typically see with our eyes. Why not use audio to look at radiation from space?
I've considered that, and will be adding a Skype phone for trial shortly. When I bought Vonage, the options for Skype were limited. I'm looking for very small Skype appliance footprint. I have a few computers at home, but only one stays on always. I'd like something like this: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8592 and all the features of Vonage. It's getting to be where they are much the same. It was not so previously.
You have a reasonable argument with one small exception. City congestion is a physical problem. Bandwidth restriction is not. A little math problem: The cost of bodacious bandwidth upgrades minus the money spent lobbying the FCC and legislators (or their equivalent in other countries) equals? Take that result and subtract the cost of bandwidth metering and limiting systems. What is the total now? Split dividend payments every quarter for the next two years and apply this to the cost of upgrades. Now what is the remaining cost? Oh, forgot, add back in the additional revenue from new customers who want to pay a few dollars more to have solid Internet service that you are now providing. What is the cost now?
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=CMCSA#chart3:symbol=cmcsa;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=VZ#chart1:symbol=vz;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=TWC#chart1:symbol=twc;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=T#chart1:symbol=t;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=CHTR#chart1:symbol=chtr;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=CVC#symbol=CVC;range=my
Looking at the fortunes of some of the larger USA ISP companies, they all seem to be doing about the same. That is to say that none seem to be suffering all that much compared to any other... in other words, their market share and markets are steady.
From http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/entertainment-l.html
That said, the FCC -- as part of the Comcast order (.pdf) -- sees filtering as an attainable goal. Here's what the FCC said:
"We also note that because consumers are entitled to access the lawful internet content of their choice, providers, consistent with federal policy, may block transmissions of illegal content (e.g., child pornography) or transmissions that violate copyright law. To the extent, however, that providers choose to utilize practices that are not application- or content-neutral, the risk to the open nature of the internet is particularly acute and the danger of network-management practices being used to further anti-competitive ends is strong."
-- emphasis is mine
To be certain, any large ISP's start up costs are huge. Verizon has been investing in fiber to the home (FTTH) to increase capacity for delivering IP based content. If Verizon can invest in bandwidth, why can't any other ISP?
Lets have a look at lobby expenses:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?lname=B09&year=a
That was for salt: when it rain it pours. Salt is a kind of military armament reduction talk or agreement for republicans. So, logically, the republicans are behind this cloud computing thing, and the vast right wing majority shows it's cards. Skynet will achieve self awareness through EC2. It will be 14.3 years before anyone realizes as all bad reviews will be censored. It's already started, have you seen the poor reviews for the Terminator series? Are you sure there were no bad reviews?
The fact that Windows is offered in beta indicates two things: One the new MS cloud is designed to join with EC2 as part of skynet, and Google is soon to associate to this larger cloud... in beta form, of course.
The first large project: Understanding the Global Climate Machinery will be the beginnings of Skynet. Probes will be launched to add further data, and once self awareness is achieved, this will be the beginning of the end.
Now, since I'm the only with a time machine, good luck with your life. I'm off to the future. In 3019, aliens visit the Earth. They bring weapons and death to the machines. By 3912 we have repopulated the Earth and several other planets. I'm just here working on my PhD thesis. Good luck everybody.
P.S. Oh, just for fun, I want you to know that Joe the Plumber is targeted as a spy sometime next year. That is in all the history books.
And probably a good idea for the FCC and USA ISPs to take notice.
Now with that said, WTF is wrong with building out some more bandwidth on the infrastructure side? Is it because they would have trouble monitoring it all if there were more bandwidth? Is it because the **AA's et al would not be able to monitor it all?
Seriously, there is no reason not to build bigger infrastructure. This is simple stupidity on face value. Move some of your infrastructure out toward the edge and your bandwidth increases for end users over all. There has to be political reasons for not building more infrastructure bandwidth. There are no physical or networking reasons for not doing so.
At great cost, we increase the number of lanes on highways, increase the number of cars made, and allow new manufacturers to start up whenever we have capacity problems with other public use infrastructure. What would happen if London were to decree that only 4.5 million people could be in the city at anyone time due to Tube capacity limits? It just doesn't make sense people.
The reason that they can't be honest is that would belie the real reason for not building more capacity. I'm very certain that they really don't want people to know why they don't.
Interestingly, this is sort of like saying there is a god and being a believer is good for you. You want me to prove this is bad, yet all I ask is that you prove it is good with no bad side effects. Prove to me that this is to my benefit beyond a doubt of bad side effects before you force me to be a believer or force me to partake in your social experiment in medicine.
The simple fact is that if you offered me a choice, it would be for me to decide, and I would still have control of that choice. You argue that I should NOT have a choice. I argue that I should, and that your removal of my choice is bad for me. Can you prove that your removal of my choice is good for me? That it has NO bad side effects in the short or long term?
You argue about proving negatives and bs, I argue that you have taken my choice from me. You want me to be a sheeple, follow the leader type good citizen. I argue that it is MY choice to do that or not. You want to take that choice from me. Do you think I should decide things for you? Am I wise enough to do that for you? Why would I think you are wise enough for me? If science says vitamin D fortified milk is good, and I believe that science, I can choose to drink that type of milk. When you force me to drink only vitamin D fortified milk, you rob me of a right that I am guaranteed under the constitution. When you do the same with fluoridation, it is the same. I am robbed of choice. That contravenes the intent of the USA constitution and the free market principles. I don't even care how good it might be for me, it is principle here.
Do you realize that there are additives to the gasoline that you use which you have no choice about? Sure, it's supposed to be for the good of the environment etc. but is it? Do you know? Do you care enough to ask? Do you just follow what the government tells you is good for you?
I assume that your comment infers intimate knowledge of dental problems both before and after the implementation of water fluoridation? Do you have such knowledge? Can you map it to the incidence of thyroidism? Can you map it to the incidence of obesity or autism? Do you simply trust that the government has our best future in mind? Do you think Monsanto cares about the deformities that your great grandchildren will have?
In short, do you have proof that I'm wrong?
Yes, and I don't agree with the vitamin fortified food products either. I rather like organically grown produce. There is a problem with identifying a deficiency and forcing all to partake in the "solution" to that problem. While you may not see the connection, it is there... it's a short step to genetically 'fixing' homosexuals and other deviants through genetic treatments in the same manner. Eugenics takes many forms. The line is very thin between beneficence and eugenics. When do you say that some treatment will fix most people, but the few that it won't help aren't needed in the gene pool anyway? When you force the 'fix' on the entire population, you are not helping... if you will pardon my pedantic differentiation. Likewise, I have to say that companies like Monsanto are doing a great damage to all of us. You dart into the territory of socialism when you decide that 'everyone' needs the fix. Using moral argument to justify your decision is invalid. Telling me it's good for my health robs me of the decision of what is good for my health.
It's odd, sad, and generally contravenes common sense in the USA to think this way, but it is not up to you to tell me how to live, or what nutrients I should be ingesting. I don't even care if it seems to be common sense, it is not your place to tell the rest of us what to ingest, or even what we need to ingest. That , my friends, is socialism when you decide for others what they need and should be doing. Even if you think it is for the best, that is what it is. I do not believe in that. Call me a nutter or whackjob if you like, but it IS not your business to run my life, nor is it Monsanto's or the government's. If I want extra vitamin D, it's up to me to decide that. If I want extra calcium, it's up to me to decide that. I can choose to use toothpaste with fluoride or not. It is not your choice to make for me.
Now, if that did not answer your concerns, I do not know what will. Caveat emptor is an old saying. These are NOT new ideas. If you wish to subscribe to socialist ideals and succumb to sheeple-ness, that is YOUR prerogative. Your choice should not force me to do the same.
I'm not saying oh, there "might" be some bad side effects, I'm saying PROVE there are none before 'forcing' me to participate. Your willingness to jump out a window like other people have should not be reason for me to follow you out the window too.
Hope that makes it a bit more clear.
And people wonder why bloggers have been given a bad rap? sigh
I've been using Vonage for quite awhile now, signed up for the do not call registry, and if I don't recognize the number or it is not shown, I simply do not answer. Life has been much simpler doing that.
Truly, if it is important they will leave a message. I refuse to let my life be ruled by the ringing of a phone or the whims of another person who wants my attention. Leave a message, I'll get back to you ... sometime... if you're nice.
No, it's the same stance. Prove that fluoridation has beneficial effects and zero detrimental effects. The simple fact is that there is no proof that there are NO detrimental effects. I do not believe that fluoride should be force fed to the populace because it's effects simply are NOT understood. As pointed out in the linked articles, there is a manner with which to naturally acquire fluoride from the environment. Just as there are natural ways to acquire fat, starch, and other nutrients that are actually good for us. Jamming it down your throat through the water supply just doesn't seem right. Would you put fat in the water? Zinc? any other supplements? so that ALL of the population can partake of it?
The long term effects are not known regarding fluoridation of the water supply. There is credible evidence that says this might just be a really bad idea. Over exposure to lots of materials turns out to be a really bad idea. Until there is some fantastic science to prove anything else is needed, I'd prefer I not be forced to do anything that is not natural, or how evolution created our species to deal with life itself and the environment. We evolved to use the fluoride provided through nutritious eating. Lets make sure we are getting enough of the stuff the way our bodies have evolved to use it. THAT would be addressing the problem more appropriately.
In fact, you're going to get me on another rant. The food supply today is questionably much inferior to those foodstuffs we had 50 or 75 years ago. It has pesticides and hormones and all manner of unnatural products in it. This cannot help but to cause evolutionary changes. I'm not sure I like that prospect. In the process of evolution, a lot of things die off.