I've been wondering about why there aren't very many wireless isps, and this seems like the right forum, so here are some questions which have been plaguing me:
How does this affect general wireless networking? Will this make wireless isps feasible, or is bandwidth not the only problem? If so, does this mean that we'll soon see wireless isp's soon?
Personally, I've seen some notebooks with wavelan cards around campus and they seems like a much sleeker alternative to cable/dsl. What's stopping some isp from setting up wireless access points around a city? (much like those cellular ones)
Even if this service keeps your information private, even if they don't tap your calls, you ought to think twice about all these free services for advertising. These services only have individual short term gains.
Although these services seem free or it maybe seems like you're getting free money, you as the general consumer are going to pay for it somewhere down the line. Both advertising, and the services you receive have cost. This cost doesn't disappear when you receive a free product, it just gets reallocated to some other product (making other products more expensive).
Corporations are not idiots. Most have accountants and analysts that can do math much better than any of us. Perhaps a few startups are giving away products and services right now for very little, but by and large most of these free-service-in-exchange-for-advertising deals will only cost you more than the original cost down the line. The market very rarely forgets about costs. There are very few free rides. You are either screwing over yourself, or someone else (assuming everyone's a consumer) in the future.
For instance, consider the a situation in which company 'A' gives away a product away for "free" with advertising stipulations (eg., banner ads) attached sponsored by Adv. Agency 'B'. "Great," you say. I get a product from company A for free and I only have to see ads sponsored by company B! Wrong. There is a hidden cost to you if you're a consumer, ie. if you're a participant in the market.
That is, every ad that Adv. Agency B puts on A's product costs money. Advertising Agency B passes that cost (with normal advertising costs) along to 'Paying Advertising client C'. And unless client C is just plain stupid, they'll pass that cost on to their products and onto you, the consumer. That is, client C will see advertising costs as normal overhead, and just like any sensible business will adjust the cost/price of their product to reflect that.
So maybe you will get your "free" cellphone which has coupon ads for discounted beer at the supermarket. But it isn't free. The supermarket which advertises on the cellphone, has to pay for those ads. So while you may see your beer discounted, your milk and bread will start to cost more as the supermarket has to account for costs and the adjusted cost will reflect the cost of both the free cellphone service you're getting plus the cost of normal advertising, not just normal advertising. You will pay somewherer down the line
So, to simplify:
Your annual consumer spending without free services for ads ={normal product cost}
Your " " with free services for ads = {the service cost lumped into other product cost} + {advertising}
Eventually you'll being paying not only for the "free" service, but also for the advertising costs that go along with that service. Consider if you really want to support that before more of these so-called "free" services take root and become a staple of our economy. The only ones who will actually be making any money will be advertisers, and everyone will be stuck with ads plastered to everything. Is this a world you want to live in? Ponder being stuck in some traffic bottleneck with nothing to do but stare at some gaudy animated translucent ad embedded in your rear view mirror and dashboard.
I'm really surprised consumer advocacy groups and folks like Ralph Nader haven't taken a firm stance against this free ad crap. Don't be suckered in, everyone!
Seriously, though, you're completely correct from my experience. I was having little wrist pain for a while, and I'm only 19. After only a week of some decent exercise, it started to go away and I haven't stopped since. Fear of losing functionality of some integral body parts was enough for me. Maybe people should send those checks for ergo keyboards to the gym instead. It seems like a lot of these problems simply come from extreme duration computer use.
Everyone! Get out of your chairs! Go see the sun. It's still out there. Trust me. Geek and out of shape don't have to be synonymous.
I think you're missing the point that the core group here is becoming completely dissatisfied with the quality of articles (which is excusable) and the quality of posts (which is inexcusable). You may see this as elitist or unfair, but people who have been here a long time and who post a lot of quality (high karma) are likely in the future to post quality. These ideas about a seniority system are entirely correct and right on the mark.
The current state of Slashdot is completely disappointing. It's come to the point that trolls and nekkid Natalie Portman links are generally funnier, and more insightful than the redundant "don't you know that copying DVD's bit by bit is possible without DeCSS" tripe that seems to dominate every other article. Although I certainly speak for no one, it's clear that the core community here is going to leave if nothing is done as it relates to karma, senior and ac.
So, Congratulations yourself. While worrying if new people will join Slashdot, you will lose the basic community here that bothers to continually make >4 line, entertaining posts.
As much as I'm disappointed by this latest decision, I think you're right here. A lot of people here are pointing out that he has been "bought" or that he's reading from the MPAA's script, but I think that's mostly because the other side (the defense) has failed to present an adequate argument or defense here. In effect, he's reading from their script because we didn't give him one.
And maybe he does have a hidden agenda? Has anyone considered that by unveiling the DMCA for what it is to the non-techie public in stark black and white, he may be doing us a big favor. Losing here might actually be a win. Not being able to play DVDs just because you don't subscribe to MacOS, or Microsoft hopefully will raise some flags in the mainstream media. As it stands now, the MPAA dominates what little press goes out about the DMCA and this DVD mess. Widespread attention needs to be given to the DMCA to be able to get it repealed. When it was passed, I think a lot of people made the mistake of assuming that it would get quashed as easily as the CDA (how did that bad dream make it through congress?).
A grey victory here will give our side a temporary win, but might ultimately establish the DMCA with legal precedence.
Does anyone else see the VHS-only release as another marketing ploy? That is, make everyone buy VHS, and then later release the dvd to sell to diehard fans who probably already have the VHS (so people who like the movie and have a dvd player and vcr will end up buying both vhs and dvd). Maybe we should rename The Phantom Menace to The Phantom Merchandising.
I have no idea where you went to school, but I pay through the ass for housing fees, and registration fees each quarter. Maybe some outside funding goes toward our residential network (like from academic departments and such), but predominately everyone here pays for bandwidth and network access with their housing fees.
Personally, I feel as if I should be able to do whatever I want (within legal bounds) with the bandwidth I help pay for. Granted, this doesn't mean hogging bandwidth from other students by saturating the network, but I think I have a definite right to use what I pay for and look at porn or read slashdot or whatever all day.
A voucher system? Right, like that would be easy to implement. You're completely out of touch with reality.
I don't know about Arizona State, but I'm pretty sure (i've never seen the actual budget) that here at UC Santa Cruz our resnet is funded by student residential fees. (Something like $20/person...very cheap for the service provided) I figure that most everywhere else is the same.
I think it's pretty clear that this McGrath guy has very little insight into the whole idea of networks and the huge problem of trying to filter any data at all (let alone porn). This is just one more attempt by the religious right to force its narrow views upon the rest of society, and specifically the internet. It's really disappointing that these people still get any recognition at all. It's really hard to be conservative at all with these dogmatic crazies in the spotlight.
How is lowering your prices below your competitor's illegal? Intel (for the most part) isn't pressuring anyone. Aren't they bound to lower their prices to compete in a capitalist system? Aren't lower prices good for consumers?
The problem with Microsoft is that they were using anti-competitive tactics, like forcing OEM's to use exclusively MS products, and the whole browser integration thing.
Re:But that doesn't mean it's not dangerous
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
I think you're overhyping AOL's/TW's abilities. Maybe they're attempting to control information, to be the internet's portal/information source, but I don't think they'll win. Although AOL happens to be one of the largest ISP's, and TW one of the largest media outlets, I seriously doubt anyone has that much to worry about. I don't know that much about Time Warner, but AOL's abilities at managing anything, much less the information of a nation, are nill.
Look at Netscape and just about anything AOL has touched. A couple years ago, Netscape was in the vanguard of the internet startup model. People were practically religiously tied to Navigator/Mosaic as the end all of Microsoft (and Internet Explorer). Yet only a year after AOL took over, Netscape is in shambles, most of its staffed has cashed in and turned over, and Communicator is stuck on 4.7 (even though 5.0 was supposed to be out a year ago).
The only really savvy thing AOL has done right so far, is to spam the general public with their installation diskettes. They are not a threat.
I think the most compelling thing we'll see out of this is Warner Brother's cartoon characters dominating AOL commercials.
Wake up and smell the roses, pal. The world isn't a nice place. There are nasty people out there, and to defend against them, the members of the armed forces have to be ready to do unpleasant things, while the rest of us sleep peacefully in our condos and semis.
Have you ever considered that we are the nasty people? And that the world needs to defend against us?
Using examples such as Kosovo is completely silly. Do you really think the U.S.' political position there is/was divine? And if it was, why did we wait for months to take action? Did we really need to prepare our troops all that much?
Kosovo was a glorified P.R. stunt. I think that if you would look beyond the "oops China! sorry about your embassy!" and the rhetoric Washington proclaims about humanitarian efforts, you would see all these so-called humanitarian efforts for what they are. They are political stunts designed to assert the U.S.' military and social dominance.
If the U.S. really wants to start truly helping people worldwide, I can rattle off at least a dozen situations much worse the Kosovo that the U.S. doesn't even consider entering for fear of failing and losing military/political ego. Ever notice that we only enter into struggles (Cuba being an exception) which appear to be quickly resolvable and not politically damaging?
A soldier's job is not to die for his country. His job is to make the other poor bastard die for his.
I can't help but think that you're just another cog in the Washington's political machine. How can you not see this? Kosovo was a political stunt. It sickens me that soldiers have died during the Kosovo conflict. They have been used as tools of death and destruction for their leaders' political gain.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been wondering about why there aren't very many wireless isps, and this seems like the right forum, so here are some questions which have been plaguing me:
How does this affect general wireless networking? Will this make wireless isps feasible, or is bandwidth not the only problem? If so, does this mean that we'll soon see wireless isp's soon?
Personally, I've seen some notebooks with wavelan cards around campus and they seems like a much sleeker alternative to cable/dsl. What's stopping some isp from setting up wireless access points around a city? (much like those cellular ones)
Even if this service keeps your information private, even if they don't tap your calls, you ought to think twice about all these free services for advertising. These services only have individual short term gains.
Although these services seem free or it maybe seems like you're getting free money, you as the general consumer are going to pay for it somewhere down the line. Both advertising, and the services you receive have cost. This cost doesn't disappear when you receive a free product, it just gets reallocated to some other product (making other products more expensive).
Corporations are not idiots. Most have accountants and analysts that can do math much better than any of us. Perhaps a few startups are giving away products and services right now for very little, but by and large most of these free-service-in-exchange-for-advertising deals will only cost you more than the original cost down the line. The market very rarely forgets about costs. There are very few free rides. You are either screwing over yourself, or someone else (assuming everyone's a consumer) in the future.
For instance, consider the a situation in which company 'A' gives away a product away for "free" with advertising stipulations (eg., banner ads) attached sponsored by Adv. Agency 'B'. "Great," you say. I get a product from company A for free and I only have to see ads sponsored by company B! Wrong. There is a hidden cost to you if you're a consumer, ie. if you're a participant in the market.
That is, every ad that Adv. Agency B puts on A's product costs money. Advertising Agency B passes that cost (with normal advertising costs) along to 'Paying Advertising client C'. And unless client C is just plain stupid, they'll pass that cost on to their products and onto you, the consumer. That is, client C will see advertising costs as normal overhead, and just like any sensible business will adjust the cost/price of their product to reflect that.
So maybe you will get your "free" cellphone which has coupon ads for discounted beer at the supermarket. But it isn't free. The supermarket which advertises on the cellphone, has to pay for those ads. So while you may see your beer discounted, your milk and bread will start to cost more as the supermarket has to account for costs and the adjusted cost will reflect the cost of both the free cellphone service you're getting plus the cost of normal advertising, not just normal advertising. You will pay somewherer down the line
So, to simplify:
Your annual consumer spending without free services for ads ={normal product cost}
Your " " with free services for ads = {the service cost lumped into other product cost} + {advertising}
Eventually you'll being paying not only for the "free" service, but also for the advertising costs that go along with that service. Consider if you really want to support that before more of these so-called "free" services take root and become a staple of our economy. The only ones who will actually be making any money will be advertisers, and everyone will be stuck with ads plastered to everything. Is this a world you want to live in? Ponder being stuck in some traffic bottleneck with nothing to do but stare at some gaudy animated translucent ad embedded in your rear view mirror and dashboard.
I'm really surprised consumer advocacy groups and folks like Ralph Nader haven't taken a firm stance against this free ad crap. Don't be suckered in, everyone!
Where can I find a tarball for aikido? ;)
Seriously, though, you're completely correct from my experience. I was having little wrist pain for a while, and I'm only 19. After only a week of some decent exercise, it started to go away and I haven't stopped since. Fear of losing functionality of some integral body parts was enough for me. Maybe people should send those checks for ergo keyboards to the gym instead. It seems like a lot of these problems simply come from extreme duration computer use.
Everyone! Get out of your chairs! Go see the sun. It's still out there. Trust me. Geek and out of shape don't have to be synonymous.
BrandonI think you're missing the point that the core group here is becoming completely dissatisfied with the quality of articles (which is excusable) and the quality of posts (which is inexcusable). You may see this as elitist or unfair, but people who have been here a long time and who post a lot of quality (high karma) are likely in the future to post quality. These ideas about a seniority system are entirely correct and right on the mark.
The current state of Slashdot is completely disappointing. It's come to the point that trolls and nekkid Natalie Portman links are generally funnier, and more insightful than the redundant "don't you know that copying DVD's bit by bit is possible without DeCSS" tripe that seems to dominate every other article. Although I certainly speak for no one, it's clear that the core community here is going to leave if nothing is done as it relates to karma, senior and ac.
So, Congratulations yourself. While worrying if new people will join Slashdot, you will lose the basic community here that bothers to continually make >4 line, entertaining posts.
As much as I'm disappointed by this latest decision, I think you're right here. A lot of people here are pointing out that he has been "bought" or that he's reading from the MPAA's script, but I think that's mostly because the other side (the defense) has failed to present an adequate argument or defense here. In effect, he's reading from their script because we didn't give him one.
And maybe he does have a hidden agenda? Has anyone considered that by unveiling the DMCA for what it is to the non-techie public in stark black and white, he may be doing us a big favor. Losing here might actually be a win. Not being able to play DVDs just because you don't subscribe to MacOS, or Microsoft hopefully will raise some flags in the mainstream media. As it stands now, the MPAA dominates what little press goes out about the DMCA and this DVD mess. Widespread attention needs to be given to the DMCA to be able to get it repealed. When it was passed, I think a lot of people made the mistake of assuming that it would get quashed as easily as the CDA (how did that bad dream make it through congress?).
A grey victory here will give our side a temporary win, but might ultimately establish the DMCA with legal precedence.
Does anyone else see the VHS-only release as another marketing ploy? That is, make everyone buy VHS, and then later release the dvd to sell to diehard fans who probably already have the VHS (so people who like the movie and have a dvd player and vcr will end up buying both vhs and dvd). Maybe we should rename The Phantom Menace to The Phantom Merchandising.
I have no idea where you went to school, but I pay through the ass for housing fees, and registration fees each quarter. Maybe some outside funding goes toward our residential network (like from academic departments and such), but predominately everyone here pays for bandwidth and network access with their housing fees.
Personally, I feel as if I should be able to do whatever I want (within legal bounds) with the bandwidth I help pay for. Granted, this doesn't mean hogging bandwidth from other students by saturating the network, but I think I have a definite right to use what I pay for and look at porn or read slashdot or whatever all day.
A voucher system? Right, like that would be easy to implement. You're completely out of touch with reality.
I don't know about Arizona State, but I'm pretty sure (i've never seen the actual budget) that here at UC Santa Cruz our resnet is funded by student residential fees. (Something like $20/person...very cheap for the service provided) I figure that most everywhere else is the same.
I think it's pretty clear that this McGrath guy has very little insight into the whole idea of networks and the huge problem of trying to filter any data at all (let alone porn). This is just one more attempt by the religious right to force its narrow views upon the rest of society, and specifically the internet. It's really disappointing that these people still get any recognition at all. It's really hard to be conservative at all with these dogmatic crazies in the spotlight.
How is lowering your prices below your competitor's illegal? Intel (for the most part) isn't pressuring anyone. Aren't they bound to lower their prices to compete in a capitalist system? Aren't lower prices good for consumers?
The problem with Microsoft is that they were using anti-competitive tactics, like forcing OEM's to use exclusively MS products, and the whole browser integration thing.
Brandon BrandonSent $20 to EFF instead of buying another DVD.
I think you're overhyping AOL's/TW's abilities. Maybe they're attempting to control information, to be the internet's portal/information source, but I don't think they'll win. Although AOL happens to be one of the largest ISP's, and TW one of the largest media outlets, I seriously doubt anyone has that much to worry about. I don't know that much about Time Warner, but AOL's abilities at managing anything, much less the information of a nation, are nill.
Look at Netscape and just about anything AOL has touched. A couple years ago, Netscape was in the vanguard of the internet startup model. People were practically religiously tied to Navigator/Mosaic as the end all of Microsoft (and Internet Explorer). Yet only a year after AOL took over, Netscape is in shambles, most of its staffed has cashed in and turned over, and Communicator is stuck on 4.7 (even though 5.0 was supposed to be out a year ago).
The only really savvy thing AOL has done right so far, is to spam the general public with their installation diskettes. They are not a threat.
I think the most compelling thing we'll see out of this is Warner Brother's cartoon characters dominating AOL commercials.
BrandonLesson in reality, huh?
Wake up and smell the roses, pal. The world isn't a nice place. There are nasty people out there, and to defend against them, the members of the armed forces have to be ready to do unpleasant things, while the rest of us sleep peacefully in our condos and semis.
Have you ever considered that we are the nasty people? And that the world needs to defend against us?
Using examples such as Kosovo is completely silly. Do you really think the U.S.' political position there is/was divine? And if it was, why did we wait for months to take action? Did we really need to prepare our troops all that much?Kosovo was a glorified P.R. stunt. I think that if you would look beyond the "oops China! sorry about your embassy!" and the rhetoric Washington proclaims about humanitarian efforts, you would see all these so-called humanitarian efforts for what they are. They are political stunts designed to assert the U.S.' military and social dominance.
If the U.S. really wants to start truly helping people worldwide, I can rattle off at least a dozen situations much worse the Kosovo that the U.S. doesn't even consider entering for fear of failing and losing military/political ego. Ever notice that we only enter into struggles (Cuba being an exception) which appear to be quickly resolvable and not politically damaging?
A soldier's job is not to die for his country. His job is to make the other poor bastard die for his.
I can't help but think that you're just another cog in the Washington's political machine. How can you not see this? Kosovo was a political stunt. It sickens me that soldiers have died during the Kosovo conflict. They have been used as tools of death and destruction for their leaders' political gain.
Here endeth the lesson in reality.
Reality? I think not.