I'm in Mpls, and have noticed (after moving around a few times) that it seems you really only have one option wherever you are. Either you're too far from a CO for DSL but cable is available, or you're close enough to a CO for DSL but cable is one-way (and they can't tell you when 2way will be available - huh?).
I went with DSL because I had to (as much as anyone _has_ to have high speed access), but I've been pretty happy with it. I went with a real ISP as opposed to USWest (oversells bandwidth, I'm told) and dog forbid anything should happen requiring tech support, the people at this ISP know where their towels are.
Anyway, just FYI, there was something on MPR the other day concerning MediaOne and the state or the city or something (wealth of info, aren't I?) Apparently there are some political issues that are 'preventing' MediaOne from getting the bandwidth they want.
Points: 1) If you have a choice between the two options I consider you lucky. 2) The key thing is the quality of the ISP (IMHO). 3) There is some government thing going on preventing mediaone from offering all it wants to.
Just the fact that there are other choices in existance does not preclude the possibility of a monopoly. There's more to it than that. Not that I know what the 'more to it' part is, but someone must...
Re:Every toaster on the internet?
on
CNN On IPv6
·
· Score: 1
Well, wouldn't it be more fun to mess with the program that controls how and when you're thermostat's settings get changed than to mess with the thermostat directly? "I'm cold, let's turn up the thermostat" - where's the challenge in that?? I think you're just lazy!:) I'm kidding about the lazy comment, of course!
I disagree with the opinion that you would just turn into a 'node' - your life controlled by the other nodes around you. If I start thinking about automation it leads me to a future where I no longer even have to think about many of the mundane tasks that fill up so much of my day currently. All that time can be devoted to more enjoyable things like deep-thinking (some would say philosophy, but I don't have the creds), artistic endeavors, futzing around with the automation software, television-enhanced weight gain, etc.
I think (and what the hell do I know? Nothing, I tell ya...) that the way to get this killed is to somehow (aye, there's the rub) convince the corporations that this is bad. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, too, but it seems to me that public outcry isn't enough anymore. We need some good, old-fashioned corporate greed on our side. Convince E-Bay that this ratings business will ruin them - we'll see how long this thing has support. Get some big companies to pump a few hundred K into some campaign funds and this thing dies a quiet death. Forget about writing your representatives - write the CEO's!
It is an interesting idea, but I wonder how many improvements you can really expect to see. There's only 48 hours, and (I have no experience with this sort of thing, but...;)) wouldn't a contestant need some time to look over the code before finding something to 'fix' or being able to add new features? I guess if they're just looking for Linux-specific fixes then it probably wouldn't be so bad...interface-type stuff as opposed to gameplay things. hmmmmm....
Re:About "tapping" the Internet...
on
CALEA update
·
· Score: 1
Some questions, and my opinions: Did making alcohol illegal get rid of the social problems associated with it? I don't think so. I'm not sure on this, though (haven't done any research).
Were the problems created by making alcohol illegal worse or not as worse as any social problems that were alleviated by making alcohol illegal? I think the criminal activities associated with the illegality of alcohol were probably caused more harm than any social problems that were alleviated by the law.
What are the social problems associated with cannabis? Addiction? Low grades? I really don't know - there must be some though, right? It can't really have been outlawed because the timber magnates wanted to sell their trees for paper??
Do the current laws surrounding cannabis deal with the social problems associated with it? I think they probably cause more social problems than they alleviate, but I could be wrong.
In defense of liberal 'idiots' (btw, great way to influence people...call them names): The reason you can have a transfer of capital from the poor to the rich is that there are teeming piles of poor and very few rich. If I only had a nickel for every 'poor' person in the country....
Also, instead of using 'poor,' I think the arguments would be better received if 'middle-class and below' were used.
I'm surprised at the number of non-rich people who defend tax cuts for the rich. I mean, the people who really benefit from a lot of that legislation are so far beyond upper-middle-class that there are very few of them, compared to the general population. Is it in hopes of some trickle-down effect?
Well, it depends on who you believe. There was a Frontline on PBS that provided some fairly convincing info that the military spending plan was designed to end the cold war. Although I'm sure the military contracts for campaign donaters (if there were any..I have not seen any evidence of this (not saying much there, considering..)) was a nice side effect;)
Re:To tap, or not to tap
on
CALEA update
·
· Score: 1
Right, who polices the police?
As far as the law about not being able to use information against you that was discovered while looking for something else, I think that's only for purposes of evidence. There's nothing that says that information couldn't be leaked to the press to put more pressure on you. Ruin a guy's life, it could. Say a pediatrician gets investigated for illegal prescriptions or something and they discover the guy has a penchant for teen porn. If that info gets leaked, the innocence of the suspect doesn't matter anymore - he's been branded.
The scary thing about tapping really is the rules that govern how the information obtained is handled. If you could insure that privacy is maintained (only info relative to the purpose of the tap is ever revealed or used), I don't think I'd have a problem with it. Maybe. Man, I sure like my privacy, though.
Actually, I think Reagan did do something significant to end the cold war: he pushed the Soviets into a military spending contest (on purpose...it was no accident, or happy pipedreams of SDI...it was planned to break the Soviets). Their economic system may have been viable if they didn't have to worry about building all sorts of hi-tech weaponry to keep up with the Reaganses. I'd agree that the things he did economically in this country were more bad than good. Homelessness shot up, rich++ poor-- (tax breaks, IIRC, were primarily for the upper class, not the middle), environment got snubbed, etc. He did have some brass cohones when it came to taking it to the Sov's, though.
(I think) it's similar behavior to inviting flames to a particulary opinionated email or post: "Go ahead and flame me now" type comments. The poster says what s/he wants to say, and any comments that follow automagically look worse than they normally would. That's not the best way to say what I'm getting at, but I'm no wordsmith.
I actually find the 'arrogance' view that we are unique and alone in the universe to be a lot more humbling and saddening that the view that there's teeming masses of life out there just waiting to be 'discovered.'
Personally, I find it more likely that there is life out there, but less likely that we'll ever know about it. Brings me down to think about it.
This is a pretty useless comment, but what the hell: IIRC, the dodo was actually a vital part of the reproductive process for a certain tree in their habitat. I think there is one tree of that species left now. The dodo would eat the fruit, and something in the digestive process would allow the seeds to grow. Or that's the theory at least. And it might not be the dodo, could have been a different bird I'm thinking of. Now that tree's fruit just drops and rots...no more trees. Anyway, the point is that you should be really careful when you decide to kill off a species. It just might be important in not-too-obvious ways for something you like (although I don't think anyone's too broken up about those trees).
There's a difference between labeling a food items, vehicles, etc. and labeling artistic material. Whether or not a Twinkie has monosodium glutamate in it is not dependent on who's eating the Twinkie. Whether or not a movie deserves a violence label is dependent on who's viewing it. If the movie has a lot of hunting scenes in it, complete with killing and gutting deer for instance, deer hunters might not find it offensive at all, while non-hunters might find it 'unsuitable.' In my opinion labeling "art" (subjective material) leads down a long and tortuous slope towards 'lowest common denominator' labeling. The end result is that it becomes harder and harder to view any material that isn't so innocuous it's almost not worth viewing in the first place.
My biggest problem with doing something about it is knowing what the *something* should be. Sounds like we're talking about influencing a multi-national, multi-corporate group. Where do you start?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in Mpls, and have noticed (after moving around a few times) that it seems you really only have one option wherever you are. Either you're too far from a CO for DSL but cable is available, or you're close enough to a CO for DSL but cable is one-way (and they can't tell you when 2way will be available - huh?).
I went with DSL because I had to (as much as anyone _has_ to have high speed access), but I've been pretty happy with it. I went with a real ISP as opposed to USWest (oversells bandwidth, I'm told) and dog forbid anything should happen requiring tech support, the people at this ISP know where their towels are.
Anyway, just FYI, there was something on MPR the other day concerning MediaOne and the state or the city or something (wealth of info, aren't I?) Apparently there are some political issues that are 'preventing' MediaOne from getting the bandwidth they want.
Points:
1) If you have a choice between the two options I consider you lucky.
2) The key thing is the quality of the ISP (IMHO).
3) There is some government thing going on preventing mediaone from offering all it wants to.
Just the fact that there are other choices in existance does not preclude the possibility of a monopoly. There's more to it than that. Not that I know what the 'more to it' part is, but someone must...
Well, wouldn't it be more fun to mess with the program that controls how and when you're thermostat's settings get changed than to mess with the thermostat directly? "I'm cold, let's turn up the thermostat" - where's the challenge in that?? I think you're just lazy! :)
I'm kidding about the lazy comment, of course!
I disagree with the opinion that you would just turn into a 'node' - your life controlled by the other nodes around you. If I start thinking about automation it leads me to a future where I no longer even have to think about many of the mundane tasks that fill up so much of my day currently. All that time can be devoted to more enjoyable things like deep-thinking (some would say philosophy, but I don't have the creds), artistic endeavors, futzing around with the automation software, television-enhanced weight gain, etc.
I think (and what the hell do I know? Nothing, I tell ya...) that the way to get this killed is to somehow (aye, there's the rub) convince the corporations that this is bad. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, too, but it seems to me that public outcry isn't enough anymore. We need some good, old-fashioned corporate greed on our side. Convince E-Bay that this ratings business will ruin them - we'll see how long this thing has support. Get some big companies to pump a few hundred K into some campaign funds and this thing dies a quiet death. Forget about writing your representatives - write the CEO's!
It is an interesting idea, but I wonder how many improvements you can really expect to see. There's only 48 hours, and (I have no experience with this sort of thing, but... ;)) wouldn't a contestant need some time to look over the code before finding something to 'fix' or being able to add new features? I guess if they're just looking for Linux-specific fixes then it probably wouldn't be so bad...interface-type stuff as opposed to gameplay things. hmmmmm....
Some questions, and my opinions:
Did making alcohol illegal get rid of the social problems associated with it?
I don't think so. I'm not sure on this, though (haven't done any research).
Were the problems created by making alcohol illegal worse or not as worse as any social problems that were alleviated by making alcohol illegal?
I think the criminal activities associated with the illegality of alcohol were probably caused more harm than any social problems that were alleviated by the law.
What are the social problems associated with cannabis?
Addiction? Low grades? I really don't know - there must be some though, right? It can't really have been outlawed because the timber magnates wanted to sell their trees for paper??
Do the current laws surrounding cannabis deal with the social problems associated with it?
I think they probably cause more social problems than they alleviate, but I could be wrong.
In defense of liberal 'idiots' (btw, great way to influence people...call them names):
The reason you can have a transfer of capital from the poor to the rich is that there are teeming piles of poor and very few rich. If I only had a nickel for every 'poor' person in the country....
Also, instead of using 'poor,' I think the arguments would be better received if 'middle-class and below' were used.
I'm surprised at the number of non-rich people who defend tax cuts for the rich. I mean, the people who really benefit from a lot of that legislation are so far beyond upper-middle-class that there are very few of them, compared to the general population. Is it in hopes of some trickle-down effect?
Well, it depends on who you believe. There was a Frontline on PBS that provided some fairly convincing info that the military spending plan was designed to end the cold war. ;)
Although I'm sure the military contracts for campaign donaters (if there were any..I have not seen any evidence of this (not saying much there, considering..)) was a nice side effect
Right, who polices the police?
As far as the law about not being able to use information against you that was discovered while looking for something else, I think that's only for purposes of evidence. There's nothing that says that information couldn't be leaked to the press to put more pressure on you. Ruin a guy's life, it could. Say a pediatrician gets investigated for illegal prescriptions or something and they discover the guy has a penchant for teen porn. If that info gets leaked, the innocence of the suspect doesn't matter anymore - he's been branded.
The scary thing about tapping really is the rules that govern how the information obtained is handled. If you could insure that privacy is maintained (only info relative to the purpose of the tap is ever revealed or used), I don't think I'd have a problem with it. Maybe. Man, I sure like my privacy, though.
Actually, I think Reagan did do something significant to end the cold war: he pushed the Soviets into a military spending contest (on purpose...it was no accident, or happy pipedreams of SDI...it was planned to break the Soviets). Their economic system may have been viable if they didn't have to worry about building all sorts of hi-tech weaponry to keep up with the Reaganses.
I'd agree that the things he did economically in this country were more bad than good. Homelessness shot up, rich++ poor-- (tax breaks, IIRC, were primarily for the upper class, not the middle), environment got snubbed, etc.
He did have some brass cohones when it came to taking it to the Sov's, though.
(I think) it's similar behavior to inviting flames to a particulary opinionated email or post: "Go ahead and flame me now" type comments. The poster says what s/he wants to say, and any comments that follow automagically look worse than they normally would. That's not the best way to say what I'm getting at, but I'm no wordsmith.
;)
Oh, and this post is off-topic
Tell you what, if you want me to care, you're going to have to expect that I want to see what's going on.
Statistics-schmatistics.
I actually find the 'arrogance' view that we are unique and alone in the universe to be a lot more humbling and saddening that the view that there's teeming masses of life out there just waiting to be 'discovered.'
Personally, I find it more likely that there is life out there, but less likely that we'll ever know about it. Brings me down to think about it.
This is a pretty useless comment, but what the hell:
IIRC, the dodo was actually a vital part of the reproductive process for a certain tree in their habitat. I think there is one tree of that species left now. The dodo would eat the fruit, and something in the digestive process would allow the seeds to grow. Or that's the theory at least. And it might not be the dodo, could have been a different bird I'm thinking of. Now that tree's fruit just drops and rots...no more trees. Anyway, the point is that you should be really careful when you decide to kill off a species. It just might be important in not-too-obvious ways for something you like (although I don't think anyone's too broken up about those trees).
There's a difference between labeling a food items, vehicles, etc. and labeling artistic material. Whether or not a Twinkie has monosodium glutamate in it is not dependent on who's eating the Twinkie. Whether or not a movie deserves a violence label is dependent on who's viewing it. If the movie has a lot of hunting scenes in it, complete with killing and gutting deer for instance, deer hunters might not find it offensive at all, while non-hunters might find it 'unsuitable.'
In my opinion labeling "art" (subjective material) leads down a long and tortuous slope towards 'lowest common denominator' labeling. The end result is that it becomes harder and harder to view any material that isn't so innocuous it's almost not worth viewing in the first place.
Or maybe they'll hurt people expressing fundamentalist Christian beliefs on their web pages.
Also, I think there's a difference between legislation restricting physical acts and legislation restricting thought.
My biggest problem with doing something about it is knowing what the *something* should be. Sounds like we're talking about influencing a multi-national, multi-corporate group. Where do you start?